Smart cities - an analysis of smart transportation management

  • Bharat VermaEmail author
  • Rita Snodgrass
  • Bill Henry
  • Buck Smith
  • Tugrul Daim


Following an extensive literature review, there appears to be no universal definition of a smart city and over the last decade, it has become a useful branding tool for ICT firms to sell their products to municipalities. Following the changing political climate, the adoption of smart city innovations has slowed as funding is no longer secured. As a consequence, municipalities found themselves in a position where they were no longer focusing on product-centric solutions. The risks involved in investing public funds in new programs is high, so the municipalities should be aware of them and attempt to mitigate them. This report contains a STEEP analysis to outline the benefits and risks of smart city innovations and a comparison of seven mid-sized US cities implementing different programs has been performed to contrast the different approaches to implementation. Beyond the technology involved, most of the research has pointed to governance of smart city programs as the greatest indicator of success or failure. Cities with a strong mayor’s office and a top-down governance found it more difficult to carry through with these programs, but cities run by strong city councils have a bottom up governance that is best suited for smart city innovations. Additionally, the trend appears to be shifting from large scale projects that often carry a high price, to implementing several projects on a pilot basis to determine which will have the greatest probability for success in the future. While additional research is needed, this report hopes to add to the existing literature and provide greater insight into the rapidly evolving innovations surrounding smart city development.


Smart Cities STEEP Analysis Digital Transformation USA 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities. Scholar
  2. Austin, C. of. (2016a). Live From Austin, Texas: The Smart City Challenge. Retrieved from
  3. Austin, C. of. (2016b). Smart mobility roadmap. Retrieved from
  4. BADZMIEROWSKI, B. (2016). Go Denver App: Will It Help Find Better, Cheaper, Faster Ways to Get Around? Retrieved from
  5. Barns, S. (2018). Smart cities and urban data platforms: Designing interfaces for smart governance. City, Culture and Society. Scholar
  6. Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. F. (2018). Smart innovative cities: The impact of Smart City policies on urban innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Scholar
  8. Christine Kendrick, K. M. (2017). Smart Communities: Portland’s Smart Cities Evolution. ISOCARP.Google Scholar
  9. City, Kansas, C. of. (2018). KCMO Comprehensive Smart City Update. Retrieved from
  10. City of Denver. (2016). Denver Secures $6 Million Grant to Advance Smart Transportation Initiatives. Retrieved from
  11. City of Denver. (2018). Connect Multimodal. Retrieved from
  12. City of London. (2018). London Data Store. Retrieved from
  13. Cocchia, A. (2014). Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In Smart city, 13–43.Google Scholar
  14. Columbus, C. of. (2016). BEYOND TRAFFIC: The Smart City Challenge. Retrieved from
  15. Columbus, C. of. (2018). Smart Columbus. Retrieved from
  16. Deakin, M., & Al Waer, H. (2011). From intelligent to smart cities. Intelligent Buildings International. Scholar
  17. Driverless Seattle - Tech Policy Lab. (2018). Retrieved from
  18. Enbysk, L. (2013). Smart cities technology market to top $20 billion by 2020. Retrieved from
  19. Francisco, C. of S. (2016). Smart Carpool Pilot. Retrieved from
  20. Francisco, S. (2016a). City of San Francisco - Meeting the Smart City Challenge. Retrieved from
  21. Francisco, S. (2016b). Smart City Challenge 2016 - Harnessing the Future of Emerging Mobility Services and Technologies. Retrieved from
  22. Franks, H. (2013). San Francisco taps open data for city apps. Retrieved from
  23. Frayer, L. (n.d.). Free Wi-Fi On Buses Offers A Link To Future Of “Smart Cities.” Retrieved from
  24. Fung, B., & Shaver, K. (2018). More than a dozen cities are challenging the FCC over how to deploy 5G cell sites. Retrieved from
  25. Golub, A. (2016). Community-based Assessment of Transportation Needs to inform City of Portland Smart Cities Plan.Google Scholar
  26. Innovation frameworks for smart cities - Mobility innovation center. (2018). Retrieved from
  27. Jesner Clarke, R. (2013). Smart Cities and the Internet of Everything: The Foundation for Delivering Next-Generation Citizen Services. IDC Government Insights. Scholar
  28. Joshi, S., Saxena, S., Godbole, T., & Shreya. (2016). Developing Smart Cities: An Integrated Framework. In Procedia Computer Science. Scholar
  29. Kapustka, P. (2012). Wi-Fi on Buses and Trains: Better Service Ahead. Retrieved from
  30. Kern, K., & Bulkeley, H. (2009). Cities, Europeanization and multi-level governance: Governing climate change through transnational municipal networks. Journal of Common Market Studies. Scholar
  31. Komninos, N. (2012). Intelligent cities: Innovation, knowledge systems and digital spaces. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lara, A. P., Moreira Da Costa, E., Furlani, T. Z., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2016). Smartness that matters: towards a comprehensive and human-centred characterisation of smart cities. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity.
  33. Lea, R. (2017). Smart Cities: An Overview of the Technology Trends Driving Smart Cities. IEEE.
  34. Lee, J. H., Hancock, M. G., & Hu, M. C. (2014). Towards an effective framework for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Scholar
  35. M. Polese, R. S. (2000). The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Management of Change. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mair, R. (2015). How will city infrastructure and sensors be made smart? Retrieved from
  37. Manson, S. M. (2001). Simplifying complexity: A review of complexity theory. Geoforum. Scholar
  38. Niaros, V., Kostakis, V., & Drechsler, W. (2017). Making (in) the smart city: The emergence of makerspaces. Telematics and Informatics. Scholar
  39. Palomo-Navarro, Á., & Navío-Marco, J. (2017). Smart city networks’ governance: The Spanish smart city network case study. Telecommunications Policy. Scholar
  40. Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2015). Public space design of knowledge and innovation spaces: learnings from Kelvin Grove Urban Village, Brisbane. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity.
  41. Papa, R., Gargiulo, C., & Galderisi, A. (2013). Smart Cities: Researches, Projects and Good Practices for the City. Laboratory of Land Use Mobility and Environment.
  42. Petit, J., & Shladover, S. E. (2015). Potential Cyberattacks on Automated Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.
  43. Pittsburgh, C. of. (2016a). Pittsburgh’s Smart City Challenge application. Retrieved from
  44. Pittsburgh, C. of. (2016b). SmartPGH | “Electric Avenue.” Retrieved from
  45. Pittsburgh, C. of. (2016c). SmartPGH | Mobility Optimization Along Smart Spines. Retrieved from
  46. Pittsburgh, C. of. (2016d). SmartPGH | Smart Streetlights. Retrieved from
  47. Pittsburgh, C. of. (2016e). The SmartPGH Consortium. Retrieved from
  48. Portland, C. of. (2018a). News Release: PBOT penalizes e-scooter company Skip for failing to serve East Portland, violating pilot program rules. Retrieved from
  49. Portland, C. of. (2018b). Portland Urban Data Lake (PUDL). Retrieved from
  50. Portland, C. of. (2018c). Shared Electric Scooter Pilot. Retrieved from
  51. Portland, C. of. (2018d). Smart Cities Steering Committee. Retrieved from
  52. Portland, C. of. (2018e). Smart City PDX Guiding Principles. Retrieved from
  53. Portland State Inside PSU | Digital City Testbed Center. (2018).Google Scholar
  54. Roundy, P. T., Brockman, B. K., & Bradshaw, M. (2017). Journal of Business Venturing Insights The resilience of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Business Venturing Insights. Scholar
  55. Scheel, C., & Rivera, A. (2013). Innovative cities: in search of their disruptive characteristics. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development. Scholar
  56. Schiller, B. (2014). A Grassroots Environmental Sensor Network, So You Don’t Need The Government To Say The Air Is Okay. Retrieved from‐grassroots‐environmental‐sensor‐network‐so‐you‐dont‐need‐the‐government‐to‐say‐ the‐air‐is‐
  57. Silva, B. N., Khan, M., & Han, K. (2018). Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society. Scholar
  58. Spinak, A. Chiu, D. & Casalegno, F. (2008). Sustainability innovation inventory, connected urban development. Retrieved from
  59. Thierstein, A., Wiedmann, F., & Salama, A. M. (2013). When the Oryx takes off: Doha a new rising knowledge hub in the Gulf region? In Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers 2013. Scholar
  60. Trindade, E. P., Hinnig, M. P. F., da Costa, E. M., Marques, J. S., Bastos, R. C., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Sustainable development of smart cities: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity.
  61. United Nations, & Affairs, D. of E. and social. (2013). World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. Highlights and Advance Tables. Population and Development Review. Scholar
  62. US Department of Transportation. (2017). Smart City Challenge. Retrieved from
  63. van den Buuse, D., & Kolk, A. (2018). An exploration of smart city approaches by international ICT firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Scholar
  64. Yiftachel, O., & Hedgcock, D. (1993). Urban social sustainability. The planning of an Australian city. Cities. Scholar
  65. Yigitcanlar, T. (2006). Australian local governments’ practice and prospects with online planning. URISA Journal.Google Scholar
  66. Yigitcanlar, T. (2015). Smart cities: an effective urban development and management model? Australian Planner. Scholar
  67. Yigitcanlar, T., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities? Land Use Policy. Scholar
  68. Yigitcanlar, T., & Lee, S. H. (2014). Korean ubiquitous-eco-city: A smart-sustainable urban form or a branding hoax? Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bharat Verma
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rita Snodgrass
    • 1
  • Bill Henry
    • 1
  • Buck Smith
    • 1
  • Tugrul Daim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Engineering and Technology ManagementPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations