Chapter 3 · EV11

Cross-Domain Coordination Precedents: Curb Management Models

Date collected: 26 May 2026

Summary

Curb-management precedents—parking meters, loading zones, bus stops—show multi-agency coordination frameworks transferable to AV pick-up/drop-off governance

Headline Finding

Multi-domain curb management requires formal coordination structures across transportation, enforcement, planning, and operator management. Three models—NYC DOT, London TfL, and Amsterdam—demonstrate that successful curb governance depends on institutional architecture, not just technology. Clear governance structures, multiple stakeholder alignment, and domain integration are non-negotiable.

NYC DOT Curb Management Pilot (2023–Present)

Coordination Structure:

Primary agency: NYC Department of Transportation (DOT)
Partnership model: Columbus Avenue Business Improvement District (Columbus Avenue BID), local stakeholders
Multi-domain partners:
- NYC Housing Authority (waste container pilots, curb allocation)
- Transit Tech Lab (curb sensors, real-time bus information)

Governance Model:

Neighborhood-first approach with multi-stakeholder design process
Initial deployment: Upper West Side (Manhattan), expanding across boroughs
Integration domains: waste management, transit operations, commercial activity, data collection

Key Outcomes:

Established data collection infrastructure for curb utilization monitoring
Public outreach portal for community feedback on curb allocation
Modular expansion model (proof of concept, then scale across neighborhoods)

Governance Lesson for CAM: NYC’s approach shows that curb governance requires explicit coordination across traditionally siloed domains (sanitation, transit, enforcement). The neighborhood-first model prioritizes stakeholder alignment before technology deployment—a critical lesson for CAM governance.

Source:

London Kerbside Code and Multi-Borough Coordination (TfL)

Coordination Structure:

Primary authority: Transport for London (TfL)
Multi-level governance: TfL central policy, 33 London boroughs local authority
Operator coordination: dockless bike share, e-scooter operators, delivery service providers
Data-sharing arrangement: MDS-equivalent standards for operator compliance

Governance Model:

Kerbside loading guidance balances stakeholder needs: residents, businesses, delivery operators, transit
Borough-level case-by-case decisions on removal of parking/loading/stopping spaces
TfL provides framework; boroughs implement locally with TfL oversight
Trials proved that clear hours, visible rules, and proper operator onboarding determine compliance more than technology

Coordination Mechanisms:

Local Implementation Plan (LIP) funding creates legal duties and multi-year commitment
Data-led programming and monitoring (operators must provide usage/compliance data)
Consistent governance frameworks across boroughs ensure operator compliance

Key Outcomes:

Successful operator onboarding and compliance without complex enforcement technology
Multi-year scheme sustainability through formal institutional commitment
Reduced operator churn through clear, consistent rules

Governance Lesson for CAM: TfL’s experience shows that multi-jurisdiction coordination (central + local) requires clear delegation of authority and formal funding mechanisms. Operator behavior is shaped by institutional clarity, not just technology. Consistent governance frameworks across jurisdictions enable scale.

Source:

Amsterdam Smart Mobility Programme (2019–2025)

Coordination Structure:

Multi-department partnership: Amsterdam city departments + related programs
Cross-domain stakeholders:
- Transport & mobility (shared e-vehicles, neighborhood eHubs)
- Energy (charging infrastructure, grid congestion management)
- Planning & land use (eBuurthubs neighborhood hubs)
- Data governance (MRA-platform Smart Mobility, making data accessible to governments)
- Knowledge institutions: AMS Institute, universities (HvA, UvA, VU), research partners (TNO, SQI)

Governance Model:

Integrated transport-energy planning (addressing underground congestion and charging coordination)
Data accessibility platform (MRA-platform Smart Mobility) for shared decision-making
Formal coordination forums: value sessions, “oval table logistics meetings”
Collaboration across government, business, and knowledge institutions

Domain Integration:

Shared electric mobility: bikes, scooters, cars in neighborhood eHubs
Charging infrastructure integrated with energy grid management
Planning coordination between transport and utilities
Data governance through shared platforms

Key Outcomes:

Demonstrated feasibility of transport-energy integration in dense urban environment
Established data-sharing platforms for multi-actor coordination
Moved beyond transport silos by making energy grid impact visible to planning decisions

Governance Lesson for CAM: Amsterdam shows that cross-domain coordination requires three elements: (1) explicit integration across historically separate departments (transport, energy, planning), (2) shared data platforms that make trade-offs visible, (3) formal coordination forums (not just bilateral agreements). This is the institutional model CAM governance will need to replicate.

Source:

Thread