## 2 Background to Smart Mobility  
Smart mobility as a concept has its roots within the smart cities model: driven by policy, technology, and community, the primary goal of smart cities is to deliver productivity, innovation, livability, wellbeing, sustainability, accessibility, and good governance and planning [13]. The conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 demonstrates this concept through a simple input-output-impact model. In the context of smart cities, the transportation system could be considered an asset of the city which is implemented through various drivers, including technology, policy, and community. When successfully implemented, these drivers should lead to more desirable outputs (or outcomes), the result (or impact) being a smarter city--or in this case a smarter mobility system [13]. Built into this concept of smart cities is the notion of smart mobility [10; 14]. Similar to the broader smart city concept, smart mobility is partially driven by community and policy; however, much of the focus is on using technology as a way to transform the transportation system while addressing the societal, economic, and environmental impacts associated with PMV, including issues regarding transport disadvantage [15; 16]. Some of these innovations such as \"demand responsive transportation\" (DRT) have been implemented by local governments as a way of offering services to those most in need or replace underutilized public transport systems. They are often viewed more as an extension of the existing public transport network than a stand-alone system [17]. Similarly, ubiquitous infrastructure (\"U-Infrastructure\") harnesses technological advances in ICT, \"intelligent transportation systems\" (ITS), and digital networks to improve efficiency of urban infrastructure [18]. Other systems including car sharing, ride sharing, FFM, AV, and alternative fuel vehicles are driven by private industry and with rapid advances in technology they are likely to disrupt the transport system, whether their benefits are harnessed by governments or they are left to evolve organically [19; 20]. This was seen in 2015 in Australia following the introduction of Uber's ride sharing platform. Regulators were effectively left playing catch-up to a disruptive technology that was implemented and already in widespread use prior to the appropriate legislation being developed. The impact of this lack of foresight not only led to issues regarding overnight loss of value to taxi licenses [21] but has also led to concerns about the underpayment of workers [22], and an eventual oversaturation of the market [23]. There is an important distinction to be made here about how smart mobility innovation are introduced into the market and the importance of managing disruptive technology. While modern visions of smart mobility are generally optimistic and show a transportation system where everybody has equal access and PMV travel is replaced with services that users can access on-demand, the reality could be very different. In fact, as with the introduction of the automobile in the early 1900s, there is a risk that this new technology will create even greater issues that we were unable to see or predict due to a persistent cloud of optimism that shades our judgement. Thus, critical in the realm of urban governance is to develop an understanding of the potential contributions of smart mobility so that its impacts can be managed effectively and the societal, economic, and environmental objectives of the smart city are achieved [24]. Figure 1: Smart city conceptual framework (derived from [13]). The conceptual background for smart mobility outlined above underlines the importance of further investigating the contribution smart mobility can make to urban areas. This is particularly true with regards to the issue of transport disadvantage which could potentially risk further decline if smart mobility innovations are implemented into urban areas without any actions taken by decision-makers.