Twenty minutes into a lively debate on Referendum 51, Washington State Senator Pat Thibaudeau raises her hand. The two-term incumbent from Seattle, who had been sitting quietly in the audience at the 43rd District Democrats meeting, sounds resigned when she asks the crowd whether they really believe the legislature will come back with a more appealing transportation package if R-51 goes down.

Thibaudeau's not-so-implicit message: R-51 is better than nothing, which is what you'll get if it fails. It's a sad commentary on the state of leadership in Olympia. It's also the best reason to vote "no" on R-51.

Certainly, the referendum scares up badly needed transportation dollars. The $7.8 billion for about 129 statewide projects would come from raising the state gas tax nine cents (to 32 cents per gallon), increasing truck-weight fees by 30 percent, and boosting the sales tax on new and used vehicles by one percent. R-51 would cost the average driver about $45 a year. But it's not what you give that matters with R-51; it's what you get, especially if you live in Seattle.

"The question we have to ask is, what service improvements are we going to see in Seattle?" says Aaron Ostrom, executive director of the enviro group 1000 Friends of Washington, which opposes R-51. "And the answer is, nothing meaningful." Opponents call R-51 a watershed event for quality of life in Washington. That may be overstating its importance, but there's no doubt a "yes" vote will de facto sanction the old "pave-our-way-out-of-it" philosophy that got us into our current jam.

On the subject of transportation, Washingtonians are way out in front of state officials. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents to a recent Citizens for Real Transportation Choices poll thought the Washington State Department of Transportation "should place a higher priority on alternative transportation choices like more and better bus service and innovations such as telecommuting, flexible working hours and van pools." Fifty-five percent thought the state needed "to invest more in transportation choices like mass transit and other alternatives to roads and highways."

R-51 does provide millions for buses, van pools, the purchase of four new ferries, and the introduction of passenger-only ferry service to Kingston and Southworth. But the amount it sets aside for the Alaskan Way Viaduct ($450 million in non-construction dollars) and the 520 floating bridge ($100 million)--with both structures in need of multi-billion-dollar earthquake-proofing and redesign--is chump change. Worse, in King County, less than 10 percent of R-51 dollars are spent off-road. Statewide, it's less than 15 percent. R-51 also provides startup capital for highway construction projects that will take years and future billions to complete. And despite its much-ballyhooed focus on fixing dangerous roadways, only 1.3 percent of its budget is dedicated to safety improvements.

What's to like here? State Representative Ed Murray, Seattle Democrat and public transit advocate, urges perspective. First, says Murray, R-51 returns to the state's transportation budget the $1 billion in public transit funds that were lost with the passage of Initiative 695. And, he adds, "being able to get a sales tax on cars to pay for transit is a massive victory." Okay. But we deserve more.

The legislature, paralyzed by partisanship and the citizen's initiative process, hasn't managed to turn popular support for transit into progressive transportation policy. Thibaudeau doesn't anticipate a change. "I don't see more legislators voting for more choice," she says. Well, voters need to dynamite the logjam.

We can simply lower our expectations, pass R-51, be grateful for the crumbs we'll get, and hope that the city's pro-transit delegation can parlay our support into more progressive transportation solutions down the road. "If R-51 passes, it gives us incredible leverage," predicts Ed Murray. "I can go to my colleagues and say, 'My voters supported your roads; now you have got to do more for buses, ferries, etc.'"

Or we can dig in our heels. By voting "no" on R-51--and "yes" on monorail--Seattle can send a consistent message: If you want our support for your roads, then pony up more money for transit.

Voting against the referendum is a gamble. But it's a principled gamble. State leaders don't have a transportation vision; we do. We want more transportation options. R-51 doesn't get us close to that goal. If a good thrashing at the ballot box is what it takes to drive the point home, so be it.