The state wants to know if Seattle prefers replacing the earthquake-damaged viaduct (otherwise known as State Route 99) or building a waterfront tunnel. But it seems that the Seattle City Council may punt the question to voters. That would be a mistake.
Any solution needs statewide financing and a tunnel likely costs about $1 billion more than other options. Politicians who don't see the need to pay for a gold-plated roadway in Seattle oppose it and the governor, who certainly faces a tough reelection battle in 2008, must be sensitive.
A better option is replacing the viaduct with better surface roads and improved transit. The state already has a thorough plan to keep traffic flowing during the several years that any viaduct-replacement project requires. Why not add to those measures permanently? While it's true that a larger city will need more transportation infrastructure, fixes like a more extensive city streetcar system and a remodeled I-5 could meet the demand.
The bottom line is that the city council needs to make this hard decision. Seattle doesn't need a costly and divisive election battle -- ala the monorail project -- leading up to a vote. Making tough decisions for the long-term future of the city is the council's job.