Pittsburgh is facing a crisis of epic proportions. No, we're not referring to a strike by Port Authority workers. We mean the possibility that another transit contract will be approved without addressing the system's deep-set problems.

For too long, Port Authority and Allegheny County elected officials have reached agreement upon agreement with Local 85 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, buying labor peace in a labor town, only to lead to a day of reckoning for the long-term sustainability of this essential public service. That day is now.

With Port Authority drivers getting the highest top hourly wage in any metro area when adjusted for cost of living, with four times as much spending on retiree health care as Philadelphia's system (even when SEPTA has three times the employees) and with full retirement benefits awarded to employees after only 25 years of service with no age requirement -- this is a system doomed to financial failure.

A state-appointed fact-finder, however, found a way to bridge the gap between the competing proposals of labor and management. The report by Jane Rigler, a former Dickinson University law professor, didn't give either side all that it wanted but offered gains to both parties, on the way to securing the transit system's long-term future. It called for 3 percent annual wage increases, for instance, although management offers none. It recommended a normal age requirement -- 60 -- for post-retirement health care benefits, while the union wants no minimum age.

Last week the Port Authority board voted to accept the fact-finder's proposal, but the union's executive board rejected it. While that ends the role of the fact-finder, there's nothing to prevent the parties from agreeing on that package or another just like it. Local 85 President Patrick McMahon said yesterday, however, in response to a call by County Chief Executive Dan Onorato for a rank-and-file vote, that members would not be allowed to consider the plan.

That's a mistake.

Ms. Rigler's report had the makings of a transit-saving compromise, and the union leaders' rejection suggests they are the ones who are living in the past and resistant to negotiation.

We say let the workers vote. Let them decide if this is compensation worth working for.