Dynamic Curbside Management: Keeping Pace with New and Emerging Mobility and Technology in the Public Right-of-Way, Part 1: Dynamic Curbside Management Guide and Part 2: Conduct of Research Report (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 C H A P T E R 1 Background Curbside management is a critical need and exciting new arena for innovation in communities across the United States. Cities of all sizes must address daily curb demands from a range of modes, users, and functions. Over the course of a single day, a curb lane could be used as an express transit lane during commute hours, midday on-street parking, passenger loading in the early evening, and overnight delivery. Accommodating these myriad uses, and modes can be a logistical, data, supply, and decision-making challenge for any jurisdiction. Municipalities must balance the demands of well-established uses, like parking, with accelerating emerging technologies such as micromobility, delivery drones, and anticipated autonomous, connected, electric, and shared (ACES) vehicles. Additional complexities from the COVID-19 pandemic have shifted demand in package deliveries, socially distant pedestrian passage, recreation, exercise, and alternative curb uses (such as for outdoor dining spaces). Dynamic curbside management, a distinct subset of curbside management, allows for a flexible and effective approach to these challenges, leveraging technology and data in ways that have previously not been available or well understood. Dynamic curbside management enables a higher efficiency of achieving broader transportation goals by optimizing the curb space to align with community values, and state and regional goals. An optimized curb at the local level can support regional and state goals around congestion reduction, air quality improvement, economic development, safety, equity, accessibility, travel time reliability, and freight movement. Dynamic curbside management is typically managed at the local level, state DOTs and MPOs play a crucial role. Collaboration and expertise from MPOs and state DOTs with local jurisdictions can make the difference between a successful or unsuccessful dynamic curbside management program. Introduction to Curbside Management Curbside management drives the planning, measuring, managing, allocating, and enforcement of the uses and users of the curb by a government agency (IPMI, 2021). Curbside management is an overarching strategy that is tied to explicit goals related to the optimization of mobility and safety of all users at the curb. Curbside management can be applied at the state, regional, and local levels. The complexity and detail of curbside management may depend on the needs across the agency, nature of goals identified, geographic coverage area, different functional road classifications, roadway ownership, functional control and maintenance responsibilities, and land uses and density. Curbside management should ensure all allocation of curb space is done in a fair and equitable manner for all curb users and uses. Functions of the curb require holistic approaches across multiple levels of government as stated by the Shared-Use City: Managing a Curb (2018), “The curb materializes the interface between the transport function of the street and its other uses. As such, curbs are the points where streets generate value for citizens and cities. This is because transport systems do not necessarily generate value through movement per se, but rather, do so when people or goods stop moving when they arrive at their destination.”

5 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Curbside Inventory Report (2021), the International Parking and Mobility Institute (IPMI) Curbside Glossaries (2021), and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Curbside Management Practitioners Guide (2018) are key resources for the definitions, basic elements, and toolboxes associated with overall curbside management. This Guide builds on and cross-references those foundational documents. History of Curbside Management U.S. cities have been managing curbside access for over half a century, primarily in the form of parking regulations. Oklahoma City was the first to manage the curbside in 1935, and Washington, DC, installed curb meters downtown in 1938 and charged users 5 cents per hour for parking (Pérez et al., 2021). Pricing has been one of the most ubiquitous strategies that jurisdictions have used to manage the curb, in addition to placing time limits on curb access and restricting access to particular types of vehicles (Pérez et al., 2021; Zalewski et al., 2012). For decades curb regulations were static, and parking rates could remain unchanged for years at a time. Oftentimes, changes were made only once a problem arose and became pressing enough to gain the attention of policymakers and stakeholders, which is referred to as the “incremental approach” that is primarily reactionary (Zalewski et al., 2012). Zalewski et al. identified two common models of curbside management based on semi-structured interviews to describe the state of curbside management in 2012. The first model is the framework model where cities analyze the street network and group streets by type and function according to goals. As a reference, the authors cite the Lower Manhattan Street Management Framework, an ambitious effort to create standard street typologies that began in 2004. At the time, Lower Manhattan was the fastest-growing residential neighborhood in New York City and had seen dramatic redevelopment in the wake of September 11, 2001 (Lethco et al., 2009). Due to increasing levels of pedestrian, vehicular, and transit activity on local streets, a need for improved street management was identified. All of the streets in Lower Manhattan were categorized as five street types according to their primary function: access and through streets, activity streets, support streets, and residential streets (Lethco et al., 2009). Streets classified as “access” and “through” primarily serve vehicles; streets classified as “activity” and “residential” primarily serve pedestrians; and “support” streets are primarily used for delivery, loading, and parking lot access. The second model that Zalewski et al. (2012) identified is the performance pricing model, which is a demand-responsive approach to curbside management. In this model, a price per unit of curb is applied so that demand for the curb more closely matches the supply. This approach began after Shoup (2006) published seminal research about the congestion caused by vehicles “cruising for parking.” This phenomenon occurs because the demand for parking outstrips the supply, indicating that the curb is underpriced. The objective of performance or demand-responsive pricing is to set the price so that a target occupancy (around 85%) is met. This approach requires consistent monitoring of supply and demand. Since then, other major cities have developed street management frameworks, including some that are specific to the curb lane. For example, Seattle created a framework model in their 2015-2035 Comprehensive Plan. The framework established six primary functions of the flex zone: mobility, access for people, access for commerce, activation, greening, and storage (Seattle Department of Transportation, n.d.). Using this framework, they can establish priorities for use of the flex zone according to the street type and surrounding land use as displayed in Figure 1.

6 Figure 1. City of Seattle Flex Zone Priorities According to Surrounding Land Use Source: Seattle Department of Transportation, n.d. Changes in Curbside Management Demand Based on a literature review of curbside management, the demands for curb space are changing (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2018; NACTO, 2017; Populus, 2020; Schaller, 2019). The demand for the curb has increased over the past ten years with the introduction of ridesourcing companies, growth in docked and dock-less shared mobility (e.g., e-scooters), and a significant rise in e-commerce, which has contributed to a sharp increase in on-demand delivery (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2018). Ridesourcing offers passengers the ability to be picked up and dropped off at their desired destinations, which has led to an increase in the demand for short-term curbside uses like passenger loading zones. Demand for passenger loading zones has particularly intensified at airports and areas with concentrated nightlife. Additionally, the demand for package and meal delivery has increased substantially, placing additional importance and significance on curb use and function. To address these changing demands, curbside management is needed to allocate competing demands across a finite space. The two important dimensions of changes at the curb that has necessitated more curbside management (Marsden et al., 2020; Schaller, 2019) • intensification in the demand for curb use and • diversification in the demands for the space. Research conducted by Fehr & Peers and Uber Technologies examined passenger throughput at five study locations in San Francisco and observed that demand for passenger PUDO zones exceeded supply at four of the five locations (Fehr & Peers, 2018). As for commercial delivery, a University of Washington study found that inadequate space for loading leads to delivery drivers loading in unauthorized areas (Girón- Valderrama et al., 2019). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. cities quickly implemented temporary curb programs by allocating curbside parking spaces to facilitate social distancing, curbside pickup, and outdoor dining (Transportation for America, 2021). These efforts have reinvigorated conversations about streets as community spaces and have catalyzed a growing movement to make some of these changes permanent (Bliss, 2021; Casillas, 2021; Shatkin, 2021). Looking to the future, cities are anticipating the eventual deployment of ACES vehicles, which may intensify demands for passenger loading zones. While the timeline for widespread commercial deployment in urban areas is uncertain, several autonomous vehicle companies are testing ACES vehicles on public roads in cities like San Jose, CA; Phoenix, AZ; and Pittsburgh, PA (Korosec, 2020; Rosenblatt, 2020; White, 2020), and the rollout of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in the short term create opportunities for reimaging curb space use. Researchers have modeled the potential impacts that ACES could have on congestion if they circle endlessly while waiting for a passenger in order to avoid parking charges during

7 periods of lower demand (Millard-Ball, 2019). Ridesourcing drivers are more likely to pull over and park during slow periods. However, unlike human drivers who may choose to pull up in front of a bus stop or stop in a travel lane to pick-up or drop-off, ACES vehicles are programmed to follow laws and regulations. This means ACES vehicles will need to access designated loading zones to pick-up and drop-off passengers. Anticipating and planning for the commercial deployment of ACES requires comprehensive curbside management (Howell et al., 2019). Shifting to Dynamic Curbside Management San Francisco was one of the first cities to manage the curb based on a performance standard when they launched an innovative demand-responsive program called SFpark in 2011, made possible by advancements in information technology. Between 2011 to 2013, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) piloted a new parking system at 7,000 parking meters and parking rates were adjusted approximately every eight weeks to find the lowest rate possible to achieve parking availability targets (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 2014). A total of 13 rate adjustments occurred during the pilot period. This effort required the installation of in-ground parking sensors to estimate parking occupancy in pilot and control areas, as well as “smart parking” meters that wirelessly communicate payment status. While the pilot was largely hailed as a success, it was a resource- and technology-intensive undertaking. In an evaluation of the SFpark pilot, the authors mention that the pilot required technology that “required a lot of hand coding,” that “most technology used did not meet initial expectations” and there were issues with parking sensor accuracy and reliability, enforcement challenges (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 2014). Despite these challenges, the SFpark pilot marked an important step forward in the evolution of curbside management and advancements in smart parking technologies. Shortly after in Washington DC from 2014 to 2017, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) deployed parkDC to explore demand-based parking management in Penn Quarter and Chinatown with a multimodal and “asset-light” approach (District Department of Transportation et al., 2019). By taking an asset-light approach, DDOT managed the curb with the minimum amount of hardware and infrastructure to reduce the high costs (Pérez et al., 2020). These demand-responsive pricing strategies reflect a shift toward dynamic curbside management. How Dynamic Curbside Management Supports Broader Transportation Goals Curbside management is needed to support sustainability, equity, accessibility, and safety goals. In less congested locations or places where fewer demands for the curb are competing, conventional curbside management strategies like painted curb and signage may be sufficient to meet these goals. Increasingly, however, dynamic curbside management is necessary to proactively and comprehensively balance uses in support of these goals. Dynamic curbside management provides an opportunity to flexibly determine the highest and best use for the community among the multiple uses and users that typically access the same curb through a day, week, or year. Understanding what uses are occurring block by block is necessary before establishing priorities. Once those are clear, dynamic curbside management enables higher efficiency of achieving broader transportation goals. Key Issues Addressed by Dynamic Curbside Management Historically, curb space has been primarily allocated to the storage of private vehicles through the provision of short- and long-term curbside parking. The widespread availability of free or underpriced parking negatively impacts travel behavior and induces vehicle travel. Free or underpriced curbside parking encourages private vehicle ownership and causes drivers to circle the same location in search for parking, referred to as “cruising,” which contributes to a string of negative externalities (McCahill et al., 2016;

8 Weinberger, 2012; Shoup, 2006). As vehicles accelerate, decelerate, and idle more frequently, while looking for an on-street parking spot, tailpipe emissions can increase (Eisele et al., 2014). Prioritizing space for parking over transit can reduce the reliability, frequency, and efficiency of transit and eliminates potential space for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and design on the curb. However, reducing on-street parking, especially in high-density areas with low-income populations, may also disproportionately impact those with no transit options to their workplace or key services. Outside of short- and long-term curbside parking, the new and increasing demands for curb use are creating safety challenges as well: vehicles picking up and dropping off passengers in active travel lanes, double parking in bicycle lanes, and pedestrians crossing to access vehicles. These demands can contribute to an overall increase in exposure/potential conflict points, which can have serious safety and accessibility implications. Overall, to address these issues, knowledge of community demographics and needs must play a role in determining the prioritization of curb space for various modes of transportation and uses.