No one who drives in Snohomish County would argue that traffic congestion isn’t a problem. The argument is over how to solve it.

Doing nothing isn’t the answer. Doing something, it appears, won’t be easy.

Backers of Initiative 912, which would repeal the state gas tax increase approved by the Legislature this year (9.5 cents a gallon phased in over four years) surprised even themselves by collecting more than 420,000 signatures in about a month, all but assuring the measure a spot on the November ballot.

In the four months leading up to the November election, I-912 offers a chance for a full debate on the future of our highway system, if the initiative’s backers will take a responsible approach. They can do so by suggesting detailed and workable alternatives to the Legislature’s bipartisan transportation package.

Simplistic slogans like “Government should live within its means” aren’t constructive. In fact, they’re misleading. Current revenues aren’t nearly enough to make critical safety improvements and add the lane miles to keep our growing population moving. A campaign based on vague references to government waste would be as bad, especially if it capitalizes on the recent implosion of Seattle’s ill-conceived monorail project. The state Department of Transportation, which oversees highway construction, has nothing to do with the monorail, and has built an admirable record of on-time, on-budget performance in recent years. (To see for yourself, visit the DOT Web site at www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability/.)

Snohomish County voters have plenty at stake. The gas tax hike would pay for $123 million in improvements to Highway 9, where growth is feeding longer daily backups. It would pump $87 million into seismic retrofits for aging bridges throughout the county. It would pay for significant I-5 interchange improvements at Smokey Point, in Lynnwood and at 41st Street in Everett, and make $51 million in improvements to Highway 532 for burgeoning Stanwood and Camano Island.

I-912 backers argue that too much of the package is devoted to projects in King County, particularly to the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Given that $2 billion would go to that project when a construction plan hasn’t even been agreed on, they’re on to something. It shouldn’t be too much to ask that a clear, cost-effective design – along with a compelling case for rebuilding rather than retro-fitting – precede major construction funding.

Clearly, though, investments must be made in our highway system to ensure safety, minimize congestion and strengthen the economy. The debate should be over how best to do it.