Victorians should get a chance to vote on spending $63 million to replace the Johnson Street Bridge. A referendum would not just allow the public a say on a decision with financial implications for decades. It would also ensure that a badly needed public discussion of the options takes place.

We're not advocates for government by referendum. If citizens vote responsibly, the people we elect should be trusted to make decisions on our behalf. Referendum results often reflect short-term thinking or anti-government sentiment and results can be skewed by special interest groups. They can also result in paralysis.

But the Blue Bridge issue is a special case.

Not just because of the expense, although that is significant. Replacing the bridge is to cost $63 million, with $21 million from the federal government. The city hopes other municipalities will also contribute, a prospect that seems unlikely. And it has raised the option of saving $15 million by eliminating rail from the new bridge and moving the E&N terminus to Vic West.

Still, the current proposal would mean a $42-million commitment for city taxpayers, or about $500 per resident. The borrowing for the bridge project would delay for years other infrastructure projects that have been on the city's agenda for much longer, from road improvements to recreation facilities.

A referendum is also needed because there has not been an adequate public discussion of the options available and the merits of keeping the bridge or replacing it.

Replacing the bridge has not been a city priority or figured in capital plans. No money had been set aside. It was not raised by candidates in last year's election.

Replacement emerged as an issue about eight months ago. Discussion has been rushed, in part because of an unsuccessful attempt to meet the deadline for federal-provincial stimulus infrastructure program. The project has moved from mere possibility to the largest capital commitment in the city's history too quickly.

And commitments are being made with too many unanswered questions -- like, for example, the issue of whether the rail component is needed for future transportation links.

Council has two options for dealing with the borrowing issue under provincial legislation. It could hold a referendum, which would cost about $100,000. Or it could rely on a counter-petition process, which requires 10 per cent of eligible voters to sign a petition opposing the borrowing.

That's a difficult threshold to meet. The support of only 12 per cent of eligible voters, for example, was enough to elect Dean Fortin as mayor last year.

A referendum, with specific, detailed questions, would allow those for and against replacement to make a clear case and voters to offer their best judgments.

Based on the assessment of the bridge done by Delcan Corp. for the city, there appear be two probable options to put to voters.

Proceed with replacement, at a cost of $63 million, including $42 million from city taxpayers. The new bridge would have an expected life of 100 years, according to the engineering company.

Or refurbish and repair the existing bridge, at a cost of $25 million to $30 million. According to Delcan, that would extend its life by 40 years.

Council, of course, could decide to frame the questions differently. Perhaps it would decide to drop the rail portion before framing the referendum question. That process of clarifying the scope of the project before it goes ahead makes sense in any case.

With a vigorous public campaign, critical issues could be debated and an informed decision made. Earthquake risk, costs, the historical value of the existing bridge, safety -- the considerations are varied and important.

The public should have the chance to hear the arguments and decide in a referendum.