Curb Space as Urban Infrastructure Budget

Both items reframe city planning as a question of scarce physical and procedural capacity, not only money. Seattle’s multibillion light‑rail boom shows how space, permitting, construction labour and interagency tradeoffs (right‑of‑way, bridge engineering) constrain transport outcomes—the same governance framing the 'curb budget' idea applies to transit corridors, station footprints and bridge logistics.

Both items treat public space as a scarce, budgeted asset requiring explicit allocation decisions. Sailer’s article documents a concrete contest over municipal land use (public golf courses in D.C. and Chicago) and shows why cities must consider spatial tradeoffs and political consequences when converting publicly owned recreational space into premium, revenue‑oriented projects.

Cowen/Smith point to land‑use and permit rules that allocate where large grocers can operate; this is the same category of argument as treating urban space (here 'M' industrial land and special permits) as a scarce infrastructural budget that channels what services appear where. The actor is NYC City Council zoning and the policy lever is permitting for >10,000 sq ft grocery stores (Walmart East New York example).

The article makes the same point as the existing idea: bus stops are a form of curb allocation that must be budgeted and managed; the Works in Progress spacing data and SF/Vancouver pilot outcomes concretely illustrate how treating curb/stop allocation as a scarce infrastructure budget produces faster service and lower operating costs.

Both the article and the existing idea reframe mundane urban assets (here: a bowling alley and associated cheap local pastimes) as scarce, allocable city resources that get redistributed by planning decisions; the Rowans closure is an example of treating a block’s land as a housing 'budget' rather than a mixed set of public‑facing institutions, just as the curb‑budget idea treats curb frontage as a scarce asset requiring explicit budgeting.

Both pieces reframe public physical assets as allocable, budgeted resources. Sailer’s article describes treating access to marquee national‑park experiences as a priced, scarce public good (charging foreigners more), which parallels the existing idea’s argument to treat curb space as a budgeted asset to manage competing uses; both use pricing/allocation as governance levers for public‑space scarcity.

Wing drones load inside fenced areas in Walmart parking lots; scaling drone delivery converts curb and parking into logistics infrastructure (loading zones, no‑fly corridors, emergency access) — precisely the kind of urban 'curb budget' trade‑off the existing idea warns cities must reckon with.

The article documents how pizza’s historic business model relied on delivery logistics (boxes, driver fleets, curb pickup) and now faces displacement by delivery apps and different cuisines—precisely the operational tensions the 'curb budget' idea highlights (how curb allocation and last‑mile logistics determine what urban services scale). Actors/evidence: Papa John’s CFO quote, Datassential counts of restaurant types, and bankruptcies illustrate the operational and curb/logistics pressures.

The article’s core claim — that physical environmental assets (reefs) are effectively managed by an implicitly budgeted public space (permits, agency time, legal constraints) — parallels the 'curb budget' framing that treats limited physical urban assets as scarce, allocable infrastructure. Here the scarce asset is reef area and agency permitting capacity rather than curb frontage.

ProPublica’s tracing of dozens of affected commercial flights reframes overhead space launches as an allocation problem—like the 'curb'—where available airspace for civilian flights is being consumed episodically by rocket tests, requiring explicit budgeting and allocation among agencies and users.

Both pieces treat a limited physical public resource (the curb in cities; cabin/seat space on aircraft) as a budgeted asset whose allocation determines functional outcomes. The new study treats premium seats and load factors as allocable capacity that, if reconfigured, yield large emissions savings—an operational, infrastructure‑style argument analogous to the 'curb budget' framing.

Although the article focuses on rural/suburban fights rather than urban curb allocation, it highlights the broader governance lesson that physical space is a scarce municipal asset; blocking centers reflects local choices about how land and shared infrastructure (water, roads, power) are budgeted and allocated.

Eide’s argument about who uses and who avoids public libraries maps to the same logic that treats urban assets (curbs, sidewalks, libraries) as constrained budgets requiring allocation choices and interagency coordination — the library’s usability depends on how city policy allocates space, services, and enforcement.

The article’s key insight—treating constrained transmission capacity as the real scarce resource that dictates what renewable capacity can be added—parallels the 'curb budget' framing that reassigns emphasis from individual projects to an explicit allocation constraint across a shared public asset.

Both pieces reframe urban bottlenecks as allocation problems in public infrastructure rather than simple policy disputes: the article points to environmental review and regulatory thickets that act like a depleted 'back‑of‑house' (the same governance logic that treats curb allocation as a constrained budget). The actor connection is municipal/federal permitting regimes that block capacity (development, curb uses).

Both pieces treat urban transport as a problem of scarce public infrastructure and tradeoffs: Regan & Kahn show fare changes alone don’t deliver speed/reliability or modal shift at scale, which reinforces the 'curb budget' argument that cities must manage physical space, service quality, and funding priorities (not just price) to achieve climate and access goals.

Noah Smith highlights mayoral moves (e.g., Daniel Lurie’s PermitSF ordinances and Zohran Mamdani’s pledge) to remove permit fees for sidewalk tables, storefront signage, and similar street‑facing uses — a direct instance of treating curb/frontage rules and permitting as a budgeted urban asset that determines small‑business viability.

Both pieces reframe urban service tradeoffs as a budgeted allocation of scarce public assets: the CTA bailout article documents a political choice to expand service and spending despite falling demand, which parallels the 'curb budget' idea that cities must explicitly allocate limited public space and resources (e.g., parking vs. containers vs. transit frequency) rather than assume unlimited options.

The newsletter’s 'ugly buildings' take is about how design/aesthetics affect neighborhood acceptance of housing; while that idea is more about visual politics than curb budgets, it connects to the broader argument that very concrete, spatial trade‑offs (how blocks are used or look) determine housing feasibility and political choices.

The ProPublica investigation implies a similar governance lesson: public lands are a limited public asset that functions like an infrastructure budget and requires explicit allocation tradeoffs (ecology, taxpayer cost, private benefit). Treating grazing allotments as an unaccounted subsidy obscures the true budgetary and ecological constraints, just as the 'curb budget' frame clarified urban resource tradeoffs.

The Central Park proposal to convert drives into an e‑vehicle/delivery superhighway is a dispute over allocating finite public right‑of‑way to competing uses (pedestrians vs. electric mobility), echoing the existing idea that the curb/drive is an explicit, budgeted urban asset that determines feasibility and tradeoffs.

Zipcar’s withdrawal reduces shared vehicle supply and will alter curb/parking dynamics in UK cities; the company explicitly cites rising energy costs and an expanded London congestion charge as financial pressures—illustrating why cities must treat curb allocation, charging access, and transport subsidies as budgeted infrastructure choices rather than incidental regime details.

The article highlights how depot siting and curb/adjacent land use (charging depots near residences) produce hard tradeoffs—noise, traffic, lighting—showing the same 'curb/space budget' logic: AV logistics compete with residential needs and municipal asset allocation.

The article exemplifies the broader pattern that physical infrastructure (here, jail capacity) functions as a binding 'budget' for policy: closing Rikers without replacement converts a planning/permits decision into a de facto policy outcome (decarceration/abolition) rather than a purely legislative one.

Like the 'curb budget' idea—which reframes contested public space as an explicitly allocated infrastructure budget—this article reframes public‑land grazing as a scarce land‑use budget mismanaged by law and agency capacity: the 2014 auto‑renewal rule effectively reallocated oversight capacity away from ecological stewardship, analogous to treating curb allocation as a hidden constraint rather than an explicit planning choice. The actors are Congress (2014 mandate) and the Bureau of Land Management/Forest Service (agency implementation and data showing rising percentages of unchecked grazing).

The redesign proposal effectively reallocates finite park roadway capacity into prioritized lanes for different actors (pedestrians, moderate micromobility, high‑speed devices), illustrating the same notion that street/drive space is a scarce urban budget that requires explicit allocation decisions and trade‑offs—and that failure to treat it as such produces conflict and hidden costs.

The sanctuary forces an explicit accounting of scarce spatial assets (402 hectares, water availability) and tradeoffs—analogous to treating curb or urban land as a budgeted asset—highlighting that creating large conservation refuges requires explicit spatial budgeting, interagency coordination, and acceptance of opportunity costs.

Both pieces reframe physical property and its allocation as a structural political constraint that shapes policy choices: Kling’s essay argues land‑ownership norms channel citizens toward expecting government support (not laissez‑faire) for housing, while the existing idea treats the curb as a budgeted public asset; each shows how property regimes convert physical space into enduring policy politics.

Christian Wolmar’s critique about city‑center integration and the article’s note that hyperloop requires new access infrastructure ties to the idea that urban right‑of‑way and curb/terminal allocation — not just track or vehicle technology — will determine feasibility and political acceptability in dense European cities.

The NYC trash‑bin rollout analysis centers the curb as a constrained resource—trading off bins, parking, and bus/bike lanes—and explains the long timeline as an interagency coordination problem, exactly the 'curb budget' frame.

DSNY’s 2023 findings: 89% of street segments viable under a 25% curb cap; ~150,000 parking spaces removed; containerization reaches ~77% of residential tonnage amid DOT bus/bike lane expansions and FDNY access concerns.