Why do we think it's correct to "blame drivers for congestion"? Should we blame transit riders for overcrowding?
May I suggest that I think you're misreading the post to which you are replying.
I don't think it was assigning blame-worthiness to drivers per se; but rather to the City for not taking actions which would reduce the number of people choosing to drive.
Even if one only sought to hold the modal share constant, where population in both the City proper and the region are rising significantly, and there is no way in which to accommodate the proportionate number of new drivers/cars on existing roads.........
You (the general) are facilitating increased congestion by not seeking to reduce the modal share of driving/private automobile use in the City.
I say this, as a car owner, and driver for over 30 years, by the way.
If you actually want to achieve less 'congestion', there are some things you can do, by way of reduced parking on main streets (parallel parkers slow traffic), fewer traffic lights, better timed lights, more turning restrictions etc.
But in saying as much, the biggest single contributor to less congestion is replacing 30-40 private cars with one bus.
To do that, you need an integrated strategy that makes parking more expensive, driving a bit less convenient (see turning restrictions and less conveniently located parking); while also making other options more attractive (more frequent buses, 40-ride monthly fare caps, lower-cost GO Train trips, more frequent and faster moving buses/streetcars, more reliable service, and more amenities such as washrooms, retail etc. that make a trip more pleasant by transit.
Frankly, I find this attitude (which I also had in the past) quite disrespectful and counterproductive. At the end of the day, drivers, just like everyone else on the road, are just regular people trying to get from A to B, and making their own choices based on travel times, cost, safety, etc. about how they want to do that. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the City to manage our roads and enable fast and reliable transportation, and not the fault of individual road users for choosing what is for them the fastest, safest, or most convenient option. And I think it should be obvious that the City's management of our roads leaves a lot to be desired - from chaotic, poorly executed, and uncoordinated construction projects, causing the streetcar network to become a practically unusable mess and creating numerous large disruptions to vehicle traffic for long periods, to their ham-fisted implementation of LPIs (
) causing unnecessary delay to everybody, etc...
Again, I think the consensus position here is that many things the City does could be done better, and should be done better.
But part of that is reducing or eliminating parking from surface transit corridors, raising the cost of street parking, and permit parking to fair market value, and
yes, by all means, fewer traffic lights and better timing of same; in part, associated with fewer transit stops, further apart, to a reasonable limit.
And back to bike lanes - while I am broadly in favour of cycling, we can't just deny that vehicle capacity decreases and vehicle travel times (i.e., congestion) increase when vehicle lanes are replaced with bike lanes, or that cycling volumes, especially on the outer parts of the cycling network (Bloor West into Etobicoke, Danforth) are generally still low compared to vehicle traffic volumes. There are real trade-offs to be made here and how you weigh each of the pros and cons is really a matter of opinion. For example, Bloor West from Shaw to Avenue saw bike lanes mostly replace parking, while at intersections (which are the most important limiting factor for vehicle capacity), the road went from 2 lanes per direction to one lane+ left turn lane; i.e. there was not much change in actual road capacity. Considering these things, as well has the fact that these bike lanes are relatively well used, I fully support them. Meanwhile, Bloor west of Jane typically saw bike lanes replace an entire traffic lane in each direction, causing a significant loss in actual road capacity. Combined with the very low bicycle traffic relative to vehicle traffic, and a relatively empty sidewalk that cautious cyclists could and would use, and the case for these bike lanes is obviously much weaker.
I am happy enough to agree that the cycle tracks from Jane St, westward were somewhat higher impact than those to the east.
I might go so far as to say, its not the section I would have prioritized at that time.
However, i do think its important to consider that there is no other place for cyclists to cross the Humber, unless dropping all the way into the valley and coming back up again, nearby.
Once you get to the other side, you run into the problem of where else you would provide a cycling option. There is no continuous, parallel E-W road within 2 blocks north or south of Bloor West here.
There isn't really an alternative option. Its still fair to say there may have been better places to use precious political capital advancing cycle tracks in the near term. But if you came back to this spot in 5 years or 15 years, you would still face the same trade-offs.
I've had a quick look at the road configuration here. If you removed any landscaped medians, any parking or loading zones and any left-hand turn lanes, you can generate 2 continuous car lanes per direction of travel + cycle tracks, though some trimming of wider bits of sidewalk would also be required.*
But I would hesitate to assume the net impact on traffic, given the removal of said turn lanes the likelihood of illegal parking/loading blocking the curb lanes.
I should add, the alterations in question would be quite substantial in cost, as in many millions of dollars. So that too is a trade-off to be weighed.
* lest I get myself in trouble here, I measured a couple of specific locations where I could clearly identify curb to curb distances and applied that uniformly, the actual ROW almost certainly varies, and I didn't attempt an analysis of that level of detail.
