AS COMMUTERS and students enter the third day of having to ask themselves how to get where they need to go - with no clear idea of how long the ordeal of the SEPTA strike will last - maybe we should be asking another question: Is it time to considering subjecting SEPTA to binding arbitration?

This would mean that transportation workers would forfeit their ability to strike in exchange for arbitration, currently used in contract negotiations for police officers and firefighters, who are barred by state law from striking. If the negotiating parties can't agree, contracts are decided by a panel of three mediators.

Police and firefighters are considered essential for public safety. Mass transit is essential, too, for the economic survival of the city and the region and its residents. Mass transit is also essential to making the city and the region more sustainable.

Under binding arbitration, commuters would no longer have to worry about waking up one morning to find that the buses aren't running because of a strike. Union members would still have collective bargaining, but disagreements wouldn't cause the system to shut down.

The Transit Workers Union has supported the idea in the past, but SEPTA management says it prefers the collective-bargaining process that is in place. (Binding arbitration is often seen as producing generous contracts for workers.)

New York City switched to binding arbitration for transit workers after a strike in 2006. In Canada, the city of Ottawa is considering switching to arbitration after a 52-day strike shut down its mass- transit system.

Whether or not arbitration is a viable option, it's clear that some new thinking is needed. The city has endured the mess of transit strikes in the past, but they come at a steep price, which is paid for mainly by citizens.