A Curbside Conversation with Parkicity & Journey
- The Journey Team
- Jun 5
- 17 min read
Why are curbs such a battleground? They’re where people park, where delivery vehicles double-park, where planners make tough decisions - and where Peter Richards and Lauren Mattern have spent the better part of the last 10-15 years trying to make them work better. This blog post is a conversation between Lauren Mattern of Journey and Peter Richards of Parkicity. Collectively, they have worked on landmark parking and curbside management strategies such as SFpark, two Southern California Association of Governments curb strategies that encompassed nearly 200 cities, Atlanta, Toronto, Los Angeles, and Bellevue, to name a few – even some London boroughs.
Given their work and travels across North America and the UK, the two caught up virtually to pick each other’s brains about curbside management best practices and oddities, plus their favorite and least favorite things happening at the curb.
Pete: I feel weird introducing you as I’ve only met you virtually, but Lauren – who are you, where are you, and what company are you with?
Lauren: Hi Pete! I’m Chicago based with colleagues in Austin and Boston. I've have done curb work nationally and in London. I got the curb bug back in 2009 when I joined the SFpark team in San Francisco, just as a lot of the modern wave of parking tech was coming online, enabling much-needed policy reforms. I’ve always had a strong Transportation Demand Management (TDM) lens that informs my curb approach too – so tackling parking policy and all other curb uses together comes naturally. I founded Journey last year coming back from a stint overseas.
Pete: Hi Lauren! I’m Peter Richards, I’m from Toronto, Canada (so I’ll forgive ‘neighborhood’ being spelled ‘wrong’ throughout this article….). Earlier in 2025, I started my own company, Parkicity (sounds like ‘electricity’, so park-iss-ity, not Parky City!), which does consulting for the somewhat niche areas of curbside management, parking strategies, and mobility studies, alongside work on technology and policy. I previously co-founded the curbside management software product, CurbIQ, and was in charge of it for the first six years of its operation.
Lauren: Okay, we’re here to talk curbs. We have a lot of varied experiences, so I am excited to talk to you, learn from you, and share a few things from my world. Let’s dive in.
How We Got Here
When did you first become aware of curbside management?
Lauren: I was working more in city planning and urban design when I heard whispers of a large Donald Shoup experiment in San Francisco brewing. Something about the idea of taking academic ideas and wrestling them into reality was appealing. I hopped on board in 2009. The project really tested the whole dogma of the transportation industry at the time – they were policy purists, focusing relentlessly on Shoup’s research and tuning out years of industry “best practices” that had gotten us nowhere. I will say, the transition from ideas on paper vs on messy city streets is super interesting and requires a fidelity to a vision but a lot of study of human behavior and operational functions. The projects focused on pricing but opened the door to better curb management, with the ethos: if we better managed metered parking you can have more flexibility in how we use curb space. We also had sub-projects on accessible loading, color curb programs, car share spaces, and delivery loading – and one of my favorites, city employee permit abuse. The term curb management became popular a few years later.
Pete: I always thought SFpark looked super cool, and generated a ton of great insights and metrics. On my end, Toronto released a curbside management strategy RFP back in 2015 – sort of the dawn of the curbside era in terms of nomenclature. Without sounding dramatic, little did I know that this project and the word ‘curbside’ would completely change the course of my career. The scope contained many elements of items that I had contemplated before but then pushed into new but logical areas of exploration - the film and entertainment curb usage (which is a multi-billion dollar industry in Toronto), events, emergence of pick and drop offs due to Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and eCommerce - all elements that aren't always covered in traditional parking master plans or transportation master plans.
As the study progressed, we couldn't find other studies to leverage or review for best practices except Seattle, which I believe was the first formal study completed in North America (or possibly Washington DC). However, funny enough, connecting it to SFpark, the Program Manager was an expert advisor on the Toronto curbside strategy, so I got to understand that a lot more and straight from the source, too.
Lauren: Is that project where CurbIQ was born?
Pete: Not directly, no. But it led me, and a few others who supported the project, to think that the way the industry was going was digital, and that foundational knowledge about the curbside was missing. You can’t go on Google Maps and see where a city’s loading zones or even parking spots are. Most cities don’t even know this information and can’t access it. I helped create a software (and am an inventor on a patent) around digitizing curbside regulations, keeping them up to date, and integrating with data sources to help plan and optimize the curbside.
What are some of the differences you've noticed in curbside management as you move geographically across North America and beyond?
Lauren: Ten months back from the UK I’m still occasionally struggling to switch back to curb from kerb...
Pete: Yes, curb is spelled 'curb' in North America, and 'kerb' in the UK and Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, for example. My colleagues in Canada didn’t believe me when I told them this! And then, generally, some folks call it curbside management, while others call it curb management or curb space. A subtle difference and doesn’t seem to be consistent across specific geographies from what I can tell.
Lauren: I find what a curb study is really depends on how that lane is used now, how wide the roadway is, and what we know what functions the street needs to accomplish – role of transit prioritization, freight corridor, or bike network.
Pete: That’s true. Another nugget that I'll share that I've observed is that there isn't a word for curb in languages such as French, Spanish, and German. This makes the common understanding, the growth, and the discussion around this topic a little cumbersome and confusing at times. Outside of nomenclature, I would say one difference that I have observed is that large parts of America use curb paint to denote the curbside regulations. For example, red is no stopping, blue is accessible parking, yellow is loading, etc. Due to Canada being a real-life snow globe for a lot of the year, any curb paint would simply be covered in snow, rendering the paint useless. This is where signage is important.
Lauren: Ah yes, there are big east coast vs west coast differences there. I will say I learned in California that it’s a huge amount of work to keep the curb paint fresh and legible. Really interestingly – in the UK the digital atlas of curb use is the “source of truth” about what the curb rules are (and if you’ve broken them!). In the US, the signs or paint need to be clear to make a rule enforceable - user experience matters. UK government's requirements for digital mapping have put UK cities ahead on that front.
What is your perhaps unpopular opinion on curb as a revenue source?
Pete: I think every curb use should be charged. Parking has been charged for almost a century. The last few years, cities and curb technology vendors have tried to charge for loading zones and deliveries, to mixed success in my opinion. But I think all curb usage should be charged - including pick up and drop offs. The incentive can be premium, safe zones in key locations. But why should some users pay and others do not?
Lauren: You’ll find no bigger fan of pricing – but I was frustrated with the dominant messaging a couple of years ago in the industry: “unlock the value of the curb.” That’s because during the SFpark days, we invested so much effort into separating conversations about revenue and the curb. For too long, meters had been used to fill budget gaps – the discussion about rates wasn’t policy driven. So, I don’t like that base framing and prefer a policy lens – and then within it using pricing as a tool where it makes sense and can truly control demand. I think also after watching so many start-ups attempt to monetize mobility and fail, I have just somewhat accepted it has to be managed as a public good. If pricing deliveries and pick-up/drop-off can help manage demand/usage trends toward better outcomes, I’m all for it – but I still think there is a lot to learn there about the nature of the demand and what drives better outcomes - and some huge feasibility challenges there too.
Pete: That is a great point – I have also seen many startups try and monetize the “trillions” of commerce dollars and parking citations that are happening at the curb side, that perhaps the realities of the ecosystem such as enforcement, privacy, and dynamic timing, just may not be realized the way people theorize, despite my desires.
Lauren: It’s funny – during one project we got massive pushback from adding carshare spaces on-street at a reasonable fee – neighbors demanded they pay a massive meter recovery fee – citing that private companies should pay full price. Never mind that a personal vehicle is also private, has no public good value, and was getting a low rate. Of course, you and I know that shared mobility companies don’t exactly rake in billions. So I’m a big fan of monetizing pick-up/drop-off and deliveries when the technology allows in upcoming years (a huge if) and where we understand how it will impact demand (seems like a massive research need – are you seeing a research boon there?) – and of course the pricing signals for parking couldn’t be more important to healthy curb and street functioning. But I do bring a TDM lens to allocation – lots of things just won’t make money but still need space and I’m okay with that.
Pete: Another great point. Some transportation systems – I’m looking at you, transit and bikeshare – save money in other ways and are basically designed to run at a loss. I’ve heard cities complain that implementing (insert helpful mobility feature here) will decrease money made from parking citations, and therefore is not a good idea. Congestion is one of those intangible costs that may not directly show up as a line up on a budget but is an inherit betterment of the system that we aim to improve.
Curb Data and Curb Technologies
How much data is *really* needed?
Lauren: Some – but not as much as you think. We basically get what we have regulated for – so if a client has short time limits and we know how limiting that is on usage rates, I hate to see them spend a lot on counts unless they need it for local political conversations and would advocate for sampling. I’m a big fan of using meter data extensively – something cities already have – and testing some occupancy to understand how good of a proxy payment data can be.
Pete: I guess it depends on the goal and the client. I am a big believer in curb supply (or inventory), as it sets the stage for equitable, holistic analysis and understanding the trade offs.
In terms of demand or utilization data, again it depends on the goal. I think periodic seasonal data could be all that is needed for some studies and municipalities (such as using drones via Parkalytics). Similar to your thoughts, another good and "free" source is transaction data, which I don't think has been used to its full effect and is a large source of untapped data with a wide user base.
However, some curbs require what I call "always on" data, be it cameras or sensors. Sometimes they can be overkill, but they can provide very granular data, which could also be augmented with transaction data to complete the picture.
How is that for a wishy wash answer?
Lauren: No, I agree – it depends on the policy questions needing answering – it’s very contextual and not a canned, standard response. I love having robust data but of course we need to know going in how it will be used, maintained and updated for it to be super useful for the medium or long-term. Having robust data sets is really a long-term relationship, not a one-time effort! There is definitely a time and a place for doing some really in-depth collection. In the SFpark days the team was going to effort to try to measure the impacts on real world concerns – how much extra circling is taking place, any impact on business revenue from changes, etc. Of course you and I know that ideally you have data for both on- and off-street parking helps understand the full ecosystem. I must agree with you that a great inventory is an amazing place to start – how you keep it updated is a massive question that actually delves right into the operations of a whole transportation division.
In short, data and tech are wonderful tools but won’t get you out of the need for good policy common-sense.
When it comes to monitoring curb activity - whether it's delivery zones, dwell times, or utilization - how do we know when to use real-time sensors, mounted cameras, GPS-based solutions, or just periodic manual surveys or flying a drone every few weeks?
Pete: We touched on this above, but it depends on the right tool for the task. Sometimes you need “always on” data. Sometimes you need to be able to see the vehicle and verify it is permitted in the space, and also automatically collect payment or enforce it. Sometimes there are areas where it is difficult, costly, or unsafe to collect data, where drones can cover a large area with one person, and a periodic drone flight and transaction data mashup gives you 80% of the insight at 20% of the cost. A lot of companies are starting to put together existing data with small spot checks, combined with some predictive modelling and interpolation, to calculate high quality estimates of demand. I think it boils down to cost, project goals and outcomes, accuracy required, study area size (and therefore scalability), and analysis of the alternatives.
Lauren: I try to think about all the use cases for the data sources: is this for planning purposes, for ongoing inventory, or for daily operations? The longer-term moves like having an updatable inventory and ongoing trackable data sets require a long-term relationship with your data set and a very different approach to budget and staffing sustainability. It’s critical to make sure those type of solutions have operational durability and buy-in to avoid wasting money. Other data tools give you a small sample from which to extrapolate meaning. That’s great too – and the important thing is not to confuse the use cases.
What role should private companies play in curb management? Are we overcomplicating the curb with too much tech?
Pete: I think a lot of the parking policies that Donald Shoup envisioned when he wrote The High Cost of Free Parking are only recently easily technically possible, through the advent of many of these curb management software and hardware companies. Things like real-time availability and dynamic pricing are not really things that cities can easily provide without these tech companies. Even something seemingly as simple as understanding and maintaining your curb inventory digitally is something the vast majority of cities struggle to do themselves. That being said, I do think some companies are solutions in search of a problem, and while the theory may make sense, the solution is not grounded in reality. It is tech people attempting to wade into transportation without the background and ‘boots on the ground’ experience that is often needed.
Lauren: Agree - technology has unlocked much improved management opportunities for parking in particular. The advent of wireless meters, license plate software, mobile payments, and easier data tools has unlocked so much. Other challenges are harder to solve for: managing loading demand requires different tools. Asking “is this scalable” and “is this durable” usually helps sort what will last. Of course there is a learning curve for some tech worth learning from. But, I do still see some overselling of immediate potential for tech solutions at the curb. I don’t mind testing things – but endless piloting can become a distraction from good policy fundamentals. The digital inventory aspect is always important – but that’s an extremely long-term decision that should be robust enough to last for generations of practitioners, ideally.
What We Tried (and Why It Worked or Didn't)
How can cities manage the explosion in deliveries of all kinds as well as other curb uses?
Lauren: I think about this a lot: is it theoretically possible to service the huge boom in deliveries of goods and people we are seeing? The paucity of information about the quantity and location of those demands is our biggest blind spot. It appears loading stopping is now surpassing circling for parking as one of our most disruptive curb uses and yet it's the one our management and pricing tools most struggle to deal with – at scale at least.
In some cities it’s now become culturally acceptable due to lack of enforcement that a vehicle can pause nearly anywhere at any time for drop-off of some kind. The culture of our roads has changed dramatically due to the rise of TNCs and the delivery economy – with no repercussions for double parking. It’s a fundamental culture change of how drivers use streets. It has implications for how to protect bike, transit, and pedestrians – we have to assume any open curb can be blocked at any time and therefore separate uses more. That reduces some of the viability of prior flex zone concepts, in my experience.
Pete: I also think about this. I used to do a lot of traffic operations work and signal timing coordination. You would try to optimize for peak hour volumes and flows, while balancing the needs of side street pedestrians (especially by schools). Some traffic cycles would have little to no main street volume while others would seemingly have a massive queue due to side street green time. It varied quite a bit, and despite technology to try and make it dynamic, it was (and will likely always be) an imperfect system. I think the same can be said about the curb. Yes, there are recognizable time of day and day of week patterns, but travel patterns are dynamic – weather, transit impacts, delivery surges, events, etc. – that even with dynamic curbs, the variety of demands will almost never match the supply. Perhaps this can be solved with cities moving towards dynamic curbs vs. the static curbs they have today, aligned with pricing. Perhaps more uses will need to happen off-street or on-site. I think progressive cities and technology can support a lot of this, but to your point, the ad hoc nature of things and the rigid aspect of the curb regulations aren’t aligned quite yet.
What’s one curb policy that seemed like a great idea but totally flopped in practice?
Lauren: The longer I practice, the harder time I have justifying residential permit parking programs. Interestingly, when they were first established in the US in the 1970s, they faced significant legal challenges on constitutional grounds. The issue made its way to the Supreme Court and courts had very differing opinions on its legitimacy. A ruling eventually paved the way for widespread adoption as long as cities show a rational connection to legitimate public interest. With technology options today I find it a bit of a stretch that resident-only permits with no public pricing option can truly be in the public interest. I find in practice it’s a nearly impossible issue to get right – the window for successful, sound policy making is quite narrow.
Pete: Curb reservations for delivery vehicles. On paper, it’s elegant: book a space in advance, guarantee access, reduce circling. But in reality? Deliveries and travel times are so variable and unpredictable that actually making your time slot is a challenge. A few cities rolled out systems without enough education, pricing strategy, or enforcement. Reserved spots sat empty, while drivers unfamiliar with the system or without the app then double-parked next to them. The tech was usually built before the rules were clear, and the rules didn’t always match how curb space actually functions. I still believe in the idea, but only if it’s paired with real-time flexibility, clear communication, and some carrots (like discounted reservations) and sticks (like enforcement or time limits). Otherwise, it's a "great-on-slide-deck, messy-on-street" kind of policy.
What’s one change to curb space you think would cause instant public uproar - but is actually justified?
Pete: Paid parking in general still seems to be a hot topic, especially in smaller municipalities. Same with free on-street residential parking. But in terms of an uproar, I would say something around the issuance, monitoring, and payment associated with accessible parking. It is a justified use and access is crucial, but many studies have shown the misuse of these passes and placards, with some people keep the placards of their deceased relatives, or getting unwarranted extensions from their doctors. The technology exists for payment and enforcement, and studies in some cities have shown that cracking down on the misuse of these spaces would free up a lot of on-street curb space.
Lauren: You sound like you’re primed for Shoup’s third pillar of parking benefit districts! True – we need to continue to get better at telling the story of why charging is needed. Regarding accessible parking – good point. I was involved in a couple of policy efforts on the topic informed by disability advocates and transportation planners alike. I came to think a two-tiered solution helpful where the free parking placards are rigidly focused on those with dexterity hurdles – and there are so many ways to improve accessibility for everyone else in other ways, including zone siting and design details.
What We Like and Dislike at the Curb
What’s your favorite curb strategy that you didn’t write?
Lauren: The Lambeth Kerbside Strategy covering that borough in London is great – it tracks how the space is used, how that matches (or doesn’t match) their goals, and then sets targets for making progress each year to close that gap. It’s very directive – very clear – and rather than spending a great deal of time saying every street or district is unique, it acknowledges that every street needs to function better. Stormwater management is a big theme so it calls for stormwater urban drainage systems on every block recognizing that universal need. I believe it also takes a clear-eyed view of sidewalk accessibility and the need to move things off of the “pavement” (British for sidewalk) and into the curb lane to allow for wheel accessibility and for more walking space.
Pete: That’s a tough one. I would lean towards San Francisco – embarrassingly, I had it printed and sitting on my bedside table for months – it’s so pretty and well laid out! It is interesting since it followed the SFpark program in its development, it is a smaller city footprint but pretty dense. San Francisco is also an early adopter of many technologies (whether they agree or not) – Uber first launched there, Waymo had SF as one of its first deployments – so there is a lot going on to consider.
What is your favorite curb treatment?
Pete: I generally like clever, adaptive treatments that create (dual purpose) curb space vs. fixed and rigid designations. One example is from the Curbside Management Strategy in Toronto, and how they turned fire hydrants into taxi stands (and shameless plug – you can read all about it in the Parkicity blog post on it here).
Lauren: I like strategies that clear sidewalks for improved accessibility – so a plan to move bins, trees, or street furniture further out into curb lane to (effectively) widen sidewalks. One far-flung example of that would be consolidated garage and recycling bins, European style (now coming to New York). I'm always impressed with well-designed stormwater or shade curb uses that improve the experience of being on the street while doing double duty of adding shade and improving water management – sometimes trip duty when they bump out for a shorter pedestrian crossing or serve as a buffer for cyclists or pedestrians.
Pete: This seems like a good question to have people submit comments or post on our feed to crowdsource an answer! For any readers, please do comment on this post or LinkedIn and share your favorite creative use or treatment you’ve seen.
What’s your curb pet peeve?
Lauren: Time limits! The way people travel is only getting more flexible. The idea of super rigid travel patterns seems very outdated. I’m pretty surprised at how many shorter time limits are still out there – when we have pricing to control demand and keep a space open, rather than outdated time limits. I don’t like the idea of chasing a customer away early from a shopping or dining trip.
Pete: That’s an interesting point that I hadn’t considered! On my end, I think it is carving up the curbside into too many specific or assigned uses, and to your point, not being flexible. While I think it may be challenging and costly to implement, I feel the future of the curb will be dynamic and flexible. I know the theory is there, but I’m unsure if the reality will truly catch up. But outside of key assigned parts of the curb, such as for accessible needs or perhaps loading, segregating your curbside for ‘this use’ which may sit empty all day and then punishing the busy users who want to use that empty curb space seems counter to what cities should want to do at the curbside.
Curbs are an evolving topic – let us know what you found most helpful or want us to chime in on next. Reach out if you want to talk about curb strategies.
Lauren Mattern can be reached at lauren@journeymobility.co and at Journey’s website.
Peter Richards can be reached at pete@parkicity.com and at Parkicity’s website.
