Smart Cities: Technologies and Policy Options to Enhance Services and Transparency

Fast Facts

Cities across the nation are using "smart city" technologies like traffic cameras and gunshot detectors to improve public services. In this technology assessment, we looked at their use in transportation and law enforcement.

Experts and city officials reported multiple benefits. For example, Houston uses cameras and Bluetooth sensors to measure traffic flow and adjust signal timing. Other cities use license plate readers to find stolen vehicles.

But the technologies can be costly and the benefits unclear. The data they collect may be sold, raising privacy and civil liberties concerns. We offer three policy options to address such challenges.

Highlights

What GAO Found

Cities use smart technologies to improve transportation and law enforcement services. Smart transportation systems include technologies that can be used to detect the number and speed of vehicles traveling along roadways. Data from these technologies generally feed into a transportation management center, which enables traffic managers to analyze this information. Smart technologies that support traffic management use data collected from roadside sensors and sensors within vehicles.

Some cities use automatic license plate readers and acoustic gunshot detection systems to support law enforcement operations. Among other uses, automatic license plate readers can be used to cross reference images of license plates with lists of wanted vehicles. When a match is identified, police can be dispatched to the vehicle’s location. Similarly, acoustic gunshot detection systems can pinpoint gunfire location.

Houston TranStar Traffic Management Center

City officials stated that smart technologies can benefit their delivery of transportation and law enforcement services. However, assessments of benefits are difficult to develop. Researchers stated that agencies may use multiple law enforcement or transportation technologies, making any attribution of effectiveness for individual technologies difficult. For example, Houston TranStar officials stated that its operational success can be attributed to technologies and personnel and that any benefits cannot be attributed to any single technology. Similarly, a law enforcement official stated that in a large city, it can be difficult to expand the use of technologies for law enforcement throughout the city. For example, acoustic gunshot detection systems may not reduce gun crime in the city but only shift it to another area.

Experts stated that cities generally lack transparency on smart technologies’ intended use because individuals are told of potential benefits but not potential risks. These experts said that, as a result, individuals and communities often have little knowledge about how smart technologies function or the risk they may face from misuse of their data. Research has found that smart technology data may be used to identify individuals, which increases the potential for scams and can result in economic harms such as increased insurance costs. Experts stated that individuals should ideally be able to consent to use of their data. However, absent conditions for individuals to provide consent, local elected representatives may have a role in approving the use of smart technologies that collect data on individuals. These officials could, for example, establish privacy advisory boards and support use of data governance practices in cities’ contracts with vendors.

GAO identified three policy options, in addition to the status quo, that may help with implementation of smart city technologies. The purpose of these options is to provide policymakers—who may include Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, academia, industry, and other interested groups—with a broader base of information for decision-making.

Policy options that could enhance the benefits or address the challenges to the implementation and operation of smart technologies within cities

Facilitate improved collaboration to evaluate technology use

Implementation approach:

Policymakers could facilitate collaboration among stakeholders to conduct and share more evaluations on the effectiveness and risks of smart technologies in transportation and law enforcement.

• Partnerships between local or state governments and academic researchers could better focus on local needs and the extent to which smart technologies can be effective in particular communities.
• Academics and other stakeholders could better coordinate research efforts and help ensure that existing research resources are better targeted and results more widely shared, helping to avoid duplication, overlap, or fragmentation of research efforts.

• Partnerships between local or state governments and academic researchers may require deliberate planning and consultation across sectors to identify roles and responsibilities of groups best suited to conduct research and make effective use of resources.
• Some government entities and experts may require additional resources, such as staff with specific skill sets, to fully collaborate in research efforts.

Increase transparency when procuring and using smart technologies

Implementation approach:

Cities could increase transparency in the use of smart technologies by (1) providing information to individuals and the public of the potential benefits and the potential risks associated with the use of smart technologies, including from the misuse of data collected by smart technologies, and (2) requiring third parties to obtain consent before collecting data, where practical.

• City governments could help build trust between the city governments and individuals by providing a clear understanding of (1) how smart technologies function; (2) the means by which the city will store, protect, and dispose of data on individuals and control access to these data by third parties, such as data brokers; and (3) the costs, benefits, challenges, and risks presented by use of the technologies.
• Transparency may reduce the chance that use of the technologies will be disrupted due to misconceptions about their use.

• Informing individuals about smart technologies and its implementation—considering that multiple language translations might be needed—may be time consuming, which can delay implementation.
• Informing individuals about smart technologies may require multiple approaches that may become prohibitively expensive.

Develop and share effective data governance practices or standards

Implementation approaches:

Policymakers could work to develop effective practices or standards for data governance and provide training for city procurement officials on them to ensure all city employees, as well as all vendors and contractors, adhere to or adopt such practices and standards.

• Data governance standards for cities and vendors may help protect individuals from bad actors and may reduce instances of scams, stalking, or other harms.
• Cities’ data governance agreements with vendors could set terms that protect data on individuals, thereby reducing the likelihood of harmful outcomes.
• Data governance standards can help individuals understand how their data will be protected.

• Different levels of government (federal, state, local) may be better suited to implement different data governance standards.
• City procurement officials may require training or technical assistance to write contracts that protect data, clarify data ownership, and provide a means to ensure vendor compliance through monitoring or enforcement.

Status quo

Implementation approach:

Policymakers could take no further interventions, allowing current activities to continue.

• Policymakers could observe outcomes achieved under the status quo and later consider policy actions.
• Cities not currently using smart technologies could delay acquisition until sufficient evidence regarding their effectiveness is available and issues regarding privacy are addressed.

• Maintaining the status quo may not be responsive to transparency and data governance challenges, resulting in unresolved or exacerbated risks with increased use of smart technologies..

Source: GAO. | GAO-25-107019

Why GAO Did This Study

Cities are increasing their use of smart technologies, which are at various stages of adoption, to improve services. Smart technologies integrate cameras and other sensors with communications equipment that transmits data, which can be analyzed to improve city functions.

Those cities using smart technologies may collect large quantities of data obtained either directly or purchased from data brokers. Experts stated that transparency on the use of technologies and controls around managing data is important to successful implementation. Because data from some smart technologies can potentially be used to identify individuals, cities also face issues related to privacy and civil liberties.

This report examines (1) how smart technologies can impact a city’s ability to deliver services, (2) the benefits and challenges of using smart technologies, and (3) policy options that could help enhance the benefits or mitigate the challenges of using smart technologies.

Based on GAO analysis of different areas where cities use smart technologies, this report focuses on transportation and law enforcement services. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed working papers and other documents; interviewed federal and city officials, academics, and stakeholders from industry; conducted site visits in Atlanta, Houston, San Diego, and the San Francisco Bay area; and convened a 2-day meeting of experts with assistance from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. GAO is identifying policy options in this report.

For more information, contact Brian Bothwell at BothwellB@gao.gov.

GAO Contacts

Media Inquiries

Public Inquiries

Topics