I think I finally have this Bus Rapid Transit thing figured out.

For years I've been appplying evidence-based thinking, business-case modelling and rationalee to the proposal to build a dedicated roadway beside Pembina Highway for diesel buses.

I've read all the reports, interviewed the chief proponents and asked Winnieg Transit officials dozens of questions over the years about how this would work.

And it has always led any fair-minded person to the obvious conclusion: It doesn't make financial or environmental sense to spend $330 million on a dedicated roadway for diesel buses alongside Pembina Highway that would, at best, only marginally improve what we already have.

The objective of any good rapid transit plan is to move people quicker and more efficiently between locations.

The goal is to convince commuters to leave their cars at home and take transit because it's easier, more comfortable and faster than a traditional bus.

Trouble is, the proposed BRT -- a diesel bus on a separate roadway that would make a dozen stops between confusion corner and the University of Manitoba -- would do almost none of that.

There are no reliable estimates in any of the studies that shw how a BRT from downtown to the U of M could transport passengers much faster than te existing system.

Even if you ask staunch proponents of the plan, like Coun. Jenny Gerbasi, how much faster BRT could transport people from downton the U of M, they can't answer. It's an annoyingly realistic question for people like Gerbasi because it ruins their plan. They prefer to live in the abstract.

What I finally figured out yesterday, though, is Bus Rapid Transit isn't about evidence-based thinking. It's not about making sound, rational arguments on how to improve transit and attract more riders.

It's a psycholocalical thing.

We want BRT because it makes us feel good. It makes us fee like we're living in a big city.

Not a single city councillor yesterday could articulate how BRT would get people out of their cars and into diesel buses. That didn't matter.

What mattered was flowery, pie-in-the-sky language about how "momentous" and "historical" a day it was for Winnipeg.

Mayor Sam Katz, who I once believed had common sense on issues like these, even said the project was "sexy."

Ugh. What a stench from the past that was.

Even some of the councillors who voted in favour of ths white elephant -- including Bill Clement and Justin Swandel -- were s guarded in their support, they made more arguments against it than for it.

Swandel said there were probably better ways of spending this money to improve transit. Yet he voted for BRT anyway. Go figure.

There were only two people in the council chambers who applied any common sense to this thing.

Coun. Scott Fielding was the only councillor who voted against the plan.

He argued quite rightly that it made no sense to spend this kind of money on a transit system that would at best have only marginal benefits.

The only other person wh applied some rationale to the issue was social activist Nick Ternette -- an apponent BRT -- who got kicked out of the chamber yesterday for yelling "bulls---" and "lies" when Gerbasi continued to mislead Winnipeggers about the benefits of BRT.

After five years of debate and endless, nonsensical ramblings from councillors like Gerbasi and Dan Vandal, emotion and sentimentality have finally won out over common sense. It's not the first time. And I suspect it won't be the last.

It's a pity.