Skip to main content
European Commission logo print header


Final Report Summary - CITY-HUB (City-Hub)

Executive Summary:
The European project City-HUB had as main objective to provide a model to develop new or enhanced interchanges. The research has been based on the analysis of the current practice, through a 27 case studies and a deep consultation process both with stakeholders and users.
This project has focused on the design of “efficient interchanges” aiming to provide guidance and recommendations for constructing, managing, operating and using an interchange in order to enable seamless mobility, travelling efficiency, user satisfaction and performance. Different typologies of interchanges were defined. Firstly, the analysis of basic aspects of functions and logistics of an interchange gives an idea of the order of magnitude of the interchange size. Secondly, from this size jointly with the surrounding local constraints of the interchange result the interchange typology.
It was also defined the City-HUB life-cycle that consists of a four step process: the first step identifies needs, policy goals and stakeholders involved (i.e. Identification); then the second step is oriented to obtain a clear vision of the interchange agreed between all the stakeholders (i.e. Validation); the third step is to deploy the interchange (i.e. Deployment); and then the fourth step introduces the assessment and monitoring process (i.e. Monitoring and Assessment).
The City-HUB life-cycle was based on three required elements for the planning, implementation, functioning and assessment of an interchange:
• Governance, which incorporates the identification of the stakeholders, and interchange users, their roles, methods for developing a cooperative scheme for efficient and mutually accepted decision making, development of business models and monitoring and assessment of the implementation performance.
• Services, which are related to the physical design, transportation modes, information provision at the interchange about the interchange itself and about the trips, and visitors’ facilitation during their stay at the interchange.
• Users’ needs and expectations in the interchange design and operation, which involve conducting surveys for data collection about their perception of service quality.
The detailed analysis of the case studies have served to identify some good practices and led to some key recommendations for developing interchanges. They consider the points of view of users, operators and local governance actors. Those practices
The City-HUB project ends with a proposal for City-HUB model which includes all the phases of the interchange development and monitoring, along with the corresponding governance actions for each of the phases.

Project Context and Objectives:
The European Commission has started on a path towards the upgrading of urban interchanges for increasing public transport use along with many Public Transport Authorities worldwide (COM 2001). A key role for increasing the use of public transport and soft modes and the reduction of private motorised trips is related to users’ perceptions and preferences in respect to time savings and time use during the intermodal trip (Crozet and Joly 2004). Various other studies using a pure utility approach show that transfer time is perceived as negative and as a disutility (Mackie et al. 2001). Therefore, the introduction of interchanges increases the use of public transport (Monzon et al. 2013, Di Ciommo et. al, 2009, Brons et al. 2009).
To pay more attention to the physical location where the transfer happens will be a key issue for attracting additional users of intermodal trips. The novelty of the City-HUB approach has been to focus the attention on the physical space where people interchange between two modes of transport. It has adopted an holistic approach including three key domains for managing, operating and using an interchange: governance, service and user requirements.
The aim of this project has been to provide methodological guidelines based on the results of the research related to the integration of design and management of an interchange for responding to travellers’ desires. That is to propose the roadmap for the City-HUB Model that aims at providing guidelines that support stakeholders in realising successful interchanges. The final objective was to propose innovative instruments and define guidelines to improve urban interchanges. Finally, it defined the implementation process in different situations and scenarios across Europe using selected case studies based on new and improved urban interchanges. To that end the project based its research activities on the detailed knowledge of the state of the art and the consultation process with stakeholders and users’ experiences and expectations.
Within the project a consultation process was designed to understand the key factors for efficient interchanges from the point of view of stakeholders and users. After a comprehensive literature review, this process was based on operation and performance data collection and surveys. The process was based on the analysis of 27 selected interchanges and stations.
The semi-structured interviews of operators and managers in 16 surveyed case studies settled the basis for developing the analysis and proposals for the Governance and Services of Interchanges. The 2,000 attitudinal surveys in the 5 Pilot Case studies served to identify the key factors for travellers at interchanges. This included their perceived quality of the existing services and the need for improvement. In summary, this process allows us to define the City-HUB model that considers all the aspects for interchange deployment and management and also its integration in the local business and urban fabric. This model corresponds to the multiple faceted vision of stakeholders and users. The lessons learnt from these case studies served as inputs for validating the City-HUB Model through 6 additional case studies.

The project was structured into 8 Work Packages (WP), where WP1 was dedicated to management. Each of the rest of the WP had the following specific objectives.
WP2: Setting the Scene
The objective of WP2 was to identify the elements that determine the quality of urban and interurban interchanges. The sub-objectives for Work Package 2 were:
• Review and synthesis of existing literature, research projects and other material to understand what makes a good interchange.
• Review of best practices to identify examples of interchanges that have demonstrated good practice.
• To bring results from both reviews together and define key intermodality factors. This should offer new insights on how to encourage better complementarity and coordination in multimodal interchanges to achieve seamless journeys.
• To validate these findings and key factors with key experts in the field (in a workshop).
• To learn from an assessment of 5 pilot case studies to understand good practice, obstacles and improvement potential from existing interchanges as input to the City HUB model.
WP 3: Efficient and Smart Design
The main objective of WP3 was to identify and define best practice related to the design of transport interchanges. The following themes were covered:
• Complementarity and co-ordination of modes, Intermodality: in particular considering connectivity between modes, information systems and building elements.
• People focused and energy efficiency: in particular considering the distribution of facilities and services, carbon emissions, energy efficient design and operation, and people needs.
Within this overall objective, the WP also aimed to undertake interviews with practitioners and a survey of interchange users, as well as an analysis of the findings from WP2.
WP4: Integrated Management
Based on case studies from WP2 and additional questionnaires, WP4 analysed the organisation of interchanges in terms of operational functionality, management, practicalities, services and efficiency.
The objectives were to analyse management and business models; interconnectivity and integration of information, services and ticketing including incident, breakdown and emergency management and information; energy efficiency and carbon footprint of interchanges; and impacts on the local economy. Innovative services in the interchanges or terminals were also considered.
WP 5: City-HUB Model
The main objective of WP5 was to gather the results of WP3 and WP4, providing methodological guidelines for integrating design and management models and develop the City-HUB Model. The final objective is to propose innovative instruments and define guidelines to improve urban interchanges.
WP 6: Validation through Case Studies
The objective of WP6 was to validate proposed solutions for effective and smart design from WP3 as well as proposed integrated management solutions from WP4 by use of specific case studies across Europe. The outcome of WP 6 has been the validation of the City-HUB draft model developed in WP5.
WP 7: Stakeholders’ Involvement and European Transferability
The main objective of WP7 is stakeholder involvement, in close co-operation with WP8 (Dissemination and Fora). WP7 facilitated the involvement of stakeholders in the process of reviewing best practice, defining guidelines for designing, planning and managing an urban interchange station and developing and validating the City-HUB model. This has ensured that the City-HUB handbook provide guidance that is ‘fit for purpose’ and can be easily applied by a wide range of potential users in a broad range of situations.
WP8: Dissemination and Fora
The main aim of WP8 was the dissemination of the project’s results to the research community and relevant stakeholders, including local and regional authorities, transport operators, end-users’ organizations, as well as the organization of fora with local stakeholders on new and innovative technologies, related policies, etc. Particularly, the objectives of WP8 were the following:
• The promotion of the project’s activities and intermediate outcomes.
• The participation in conferences and other events.
• The development of an internet-based tool for the continuous provision of information of the project’s process.

Therefore the final objective of the project was to propose a model for developing new or upgrading existing interchanges: the City-HUB model. It should be a flexible model able to give an answer to the need of different types of cities and intermodal situations.
Project Results:

Over recent decades, integrated transport has become one of the most prominent topics and areas of interest, in which the contribution of the EU has been realised by the formation of concrete policies in the topic, the creation of funding transport facilities and the definition of priorities for different transport networks (Adamos et al. 2012).
As a follow-up to the 2011 White Paper, in 2013 the European Commission produced the “Urban Mobility Package”, which introduced the concept of “Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans” (SUMPs) (Annex I to COM (2013) 913 final 2013). The concept defines the basic characteristics that a modern and sustainable mobility and transport plan should include, and comprised the balanced and integrated development of all modes as one them.
Good practices of urban passenger interchanges in Europe were firstly presented in the GUIDE (Group for Urban Interchanges Development and Evaluation) project (Terzis and Last 2000). In their analysis, interchanges were considered as an inescapable feature of supporting seamless public transport.

There are several relevant issues to consider regarding multimodal trips in urban areas. Although European transport research budget funding for intermodal policy and technology projects is 10% of the total transport research budget (TRI-Value, 2014), the results in terms of impacts on increasing intermodal trips remain very low. This means that cities require greater effort, to improve the understanding of the key factors for increasing public transport trips through improving intermodality, and that this process of transferring from one mode to another usually takes place in more efficient conditions at modal interchanges. Different multimodal trips require different types of interchanges.
The City-HUB project starts from an holistic approach taking into account these different perspectives and including elements affecting the quality of an interchange for the transport services; the different stakeholders; and the city itself (see Figure 1).
The City-HUB vision of interchanges starts by establishing the needs of urban mobility patterns and how to use scarce space in urban areas for a transport interchange. The function of an interchange station is to reduce distance between two different urban areas and, therefore to facilitate multi-activities patterns. The location and design must pay attention to social aspects such as accessibility and social exclusion issues. Information and Communication technologies have a key role for assuring solutions and their efficiency. But all these technical and urban mobility aspects should fit within adequate business models for strategic stakeholders to promote and manage interchanges.
The main added value of the City-HUB vision is that it provides a multidisciplinary approach, which amalgamates relevant scientific and policy aspects. These refer not only to specific mobility issues, but also to technology, economic, land use planning and social concerns.
One of the main priorities of the City-HUB vision is related to the current concerns of EU policy makers on urban mobility, in particular with the need to improve the quality of public transportation services. According to the Transport White Paper (COM 2011), mobility is vital for the internal market and for the quality of life of citizens as they enjoy their freedom to travel. In this context, the quality, accessibility and reliability of transport services will gain increasing importance in the coming years, inter alia due to the growth of the population, urban sprawl and the need to promote public transport (Ewing 2008; Vuchic 2005). Comfort, easy access, reliability, attractive frequencies of services and intermodal integration are main characteristics of service quality. The availability of information over travelling time and routing alternatives is equally relevant to ensure seamless door-to-door mobility.
In this context, urban transport interchanges play a key role as components of public transport networks to facilitate the links between different public transportation modes, particularly the connection of bus services to the subway and metropolitan railway system (Vuchic 2005). Research literature shows that the benefits of urban interchanges mainly relate to time saving, better use of waiting time, urban integration, and improving operational business models (Di Ciommo 2002).
In summary, the City-HUB project has developed an integrated model which embraces the different aspects of an interchange in order to decrease the barriers to the use of public transport, improve the quality, and propose a business model related to the interchange typology. The approach will help frame pathways to obtain maximum efficiency by upgrading existing urban interchanges or by building new ones and make these more efficient and accessible to all users.
The City-HUB Model aims to provide guidelines that support stakeholders in realising successful interchanges based on the results of the City-HUB project related to the integration of design and management of an interchange in response to travellers’ desires. The City-HUB project has based its research activities on the detailed knowledge of the state of the art, the consultation process with stakeholders and users’ experiences and expectations. The implementation process was carried out in different situations and scenarios across Europe using selected case studies based on new and improved urban interchanges.
Within the City-HUB project, the consultation process was designed to understand the key factors for efficient interchanges from the point of view of stakeholders and users. After a comprehensive literature review, this process was based on analysing operations and performance data collection and surveys. The process was based on the analysis of 27 selected interchanges (Figure 2).


In the recent document, “Thematic Research Summary: Passenger Transport” (2013) the focus is placed on integrated transportation services, through information provision and intermodal coordination, where different transportation modes are interconnected. Intermodal mobility necessitates the concurrent adaptation of the following elements:
• The geographical location;
• Interconnected transportation modes;
• Infrastructure (physical) and technological facilities;
• The system’s operation including the cooperative schemes required for the interconnection of the transportation modes, operators and system providers.
Interest in the quality of urban passenger interchanges in Europe has been growing since the beginning of this century and this has resulted in several research studies. The GUIDE project (Terzis and Last 2000) was probably one of the first to identify existing European research and practices concerning urban interchanges. It highlighted that an interchange is an inescapable feature of public transport and assessed best practice in terms of functional specification and design. The project defined distinct aspects of interchanges that were found to be of relevance for seamless public transport systems (such as accessibility, facilities, image and information provision).
Urban transport interchanges interconnect mainly different transportation modes, which complement each other to accommodate a person’s journey from its origin to its destination. When interconnection is properly designed and managed, a lot of benefits arise for users, focusing on time savings, owing to reduced transfer time and efficient traveling. This can be achieved through coordination of public transport services and the provision of integrated information to the users. Another aspect of interchanges is providing services to travellers waiting to change modes, thus utilizing the facility for purposes other than traveling. Of course, with this transformation, interchanges become attractors for visitors, which increases the usability of the facilities, improves the image of the urban area and which can promote the development of local businesses.
On the other hand, in order to ensure integrated and efficient transport of passengers between different transportation modes and between several routes, an urban transport interchange should (Pitsiava-Latinopoulou and Iordanopoulos 2012):
• Provide reliable and adequate level of the direct services offered, such as information and ticketing;
• Develop satisfactory facilities serving the transfer in service areas and waiting areas/platforms, through offering amenities, internet access, comfort, etc.;
• Provide adequate accessibility to the site for all users (especially the disabled);
• Afford assistance to travellers with navigating aids, so that they can find their way from where they are to where they wish to go, both within the interchange, as well as to and from the local vicinity (way-finding);
• Offer easy and seamless navigation and movement of users, improving also their understanding, enjoyment and experience (legibility); and
• Allow users to move around the interchange under several alternatives, providing at the same time clear connections to existing routes, facilities and services (permeability).
User perception is most commonly considered when assessing an interchange (Litman, 2012) and thus it is crucial to understand users’ opinions. It is commonly accepted that the design and operation of a transport interchange may influence the physical experiences and psychological reactions of a traveller, and thus an efficient design and operation should attract travellers and should be linked to the sustainability of an interchange. The GUIDE project (2000) underlined the major influence that interchange design could have on the general perception of travellers using public transport.
Based on the results and findings of recent European projects on intermodality, (e.g. GUIDE, MIMIC, LINK, ORIGAMI, CLOSER, INTERCONNECT, City-HUB itself), a number of “barriers” to intermodal mobility emerge. In spite of the efforts made at EU level in forming policies to enhance passengers’ intermodal mobility, there is still not sufficient in-depth elaboration of them in transportation operations.
The CLOSER project formulated a list of the main interchange-related barriers and the recommended remedial actions, depicted in Table 1 (Auvinen et al., 2012).

Urban public transport can provide a feasible alternative to individual car transport; however, the availability of opportunities for direct journeys when using public transport is limited and the majority of trips require a combination of modes, thus shifting from one mode to the other. An incentive to increase public transport utilization is to integrate such operations at interchange facilities (Banister 1999).
The role of an interchange is to enable passengers to change from one route or mode to another, taking into consideration that they may need to exit the system or wait for their connection. Although larger interchanges are being designed to offer a variety of commercial and retail opportunities for travellers, it is important to note that the core design of the interchange should be focussed on transport transfers.
When assessing the performance of passenger intermodal transportation, a set of indicators may be used to address the different aspects that form the physical, service and institutional interfaces.
In terms of the physical interface, the supply side performance and the terminal properties are assessed. Supply side performance is connected to energy use, investments, performance and efficiency in the utilisation of resources, financial performance, social standards and transport volumes/flows. These issues may also be relevant throughout the journey. Terminal properties are aspects of the specific terminal or transport leg interface, capturing the design, location and accessibility, scope of services offered, signage, space and capacity offered, as well as the technology and equipment possessed.
Institutional interfaces are addressed through the assessment of the organisational and institutional structure. This structure refers to the role of, and relations between, organisations (stakeholders), e.g. ownership, responsibility for infrastructure and operation, and the institutions that affect these organisations, such as regulations and financial structures. These issues apply throughout the journey, meaning both the access and egress, travelling and interfaces/terminals. Organisational and institutional structure is affected by policy objectives and measures that affect the entire transport system, including objectives connected to modal split, environmental effects, efficiency and safety, as well as measures that initially can be divided into broad categories such as economic/financial, legal and physical/infrastructure.
Information and fare interfaces are related to the level of service, which represents the quality and cost that is delivered to the customers, including concepts such as relations with customers, comfort, cost, flexibility, frequency of services, information delivered, reliability of service, safety and security issues, integration of services, integration of fares/tickets, as well as time use and efficiency in the operations. Level of service may be considered at different assessment levels and on different legs within a journey.

The empirical work on the interchange typology was based on a qualitative survey undertaken at sixteen selected interchanges through interviews with practitioners, transport planners from transport authorities, transport operators or those in charge of interchange business development. This information has been complemented by the detailed analysis of five pilot case studies. The analysis focused on the functions and logistics aspects including daily passenger traffic, types and number of transport modes, services and facilities, and the location in the city, and on local impacts as well.
The analysis of the collected information and opinions identified two “dimensions” or groups of aspects that interact to define the needs of the “interchange place” and consequently the size of the building and its characteristics (see Figure 3).
The first group of aspects (Dimension A) is related with the internal functions and logistics of an interchange, including transport elements of the interchange and the services and facilities for fulfilling the transfer functions properly. This dimension determines the size of the terminal building.
The second group (Dimension B) includes the external aspects of the city environment that affect how the building could be in reality. That dimension includes the location of the interchange within the city and how the interchange plan is in conflict, or not, with the existing land-uses in the surrounding area.

The first group is related to the functions and logistics aspects, including: demand, modes of transport, and services and facilities. They are not independent and can be defined as follows:
• Demand – the number of passengers is the first aspect to define the interchange size; this aspect defines the need for space and access characteristics. Three levels of this aspect are ranged: (1) less than 30,000, (2) between 30,000 and 120,000, and (3) over 120,000 passengers/day.
• Modes of transport – the second aspect is related to the modes of transport included in the interchange and their degree of importance. Three different levels resulted from the qualitative analysis: (1) interchanges with buses as the dominant mode of transport; (2) interchanges with rail as the dominant mode of transport; and (3) two or more public transport modes or different lines of the same mode jointly.
• Services and Facilities - This group is related to the number and quality of services and facilities located at an interchange. Services and facilities will depend on the volume of passengers transferring in the interchange. It could have three different levels including: (1) a few kiosks or vending machines; (2) a few retail shops, cafes or food facilities for travellers; or (3) the location of a shopping mall integrated with the interchange.

This dimension has three interrelated aspects to consider in an aggregated way. The first is related to the relative location of the interchange with respect to the main local demand attractions. But the building of the interchange is also affected by the kind of activities developed around it. If the city considers the transport interchange as part of its urban development plan of the area it is even more important. The description of these aspects is:
• Location in the city – the geographical aspect of an interchange is related to its location in the city. The qualitative analysis of twenty-one interchanges shows that urban interchanges could be classified as being located in: (1) suburban areas; (2) at the entrance to the city, where major public and private transport modes connect the outside with the inside of the city or a different part of the city; (3) in the city centre, where people interchange mainly for moving inside the city or within the peripheral urban areas.
• Surrounding area features – the activities located in the surrounding area could support, or become a limitation to, the activities associated with the interchange. Green areas, or heavy industry, could be a limitation, but a large commercial centre or sport fields could foster the use of the interchange for access to transport and the use of services inside.
• Integrated Development Plan – the interchange infrastructure could be part of a local development plan to encourage economic and urban development, especially when urban regeneration policies are needed. We can see that commercial development, new housing and offices are more likely to occur when an interchange is integrated into a development plan. The consequent involvement of local government will be required when the interchange infrastructure is integrated into a local development plan.

The left hand side of Figure 3 shows the causal relationships among the two dimensions of the interchange place: functions and logistics, and local constraints. The functions and logistics aspects define the physical size of the interchange (i.e. the building structure of the terminal) and its form (i.e. design). Therefore interchanges are characterized by a flow of travellers, the number of public transport modes that serve the interchange, and their associated retail and commercial outlets among other services and facilities. All together these attributes will determine the need for space and the setting for all these activities in an ordered and coordinated way. The interchange size would be classified by: Small, Medium and Landmark.
A small interchange place is characterized by low passenger flows, a small number of transport modes that service the interchange, only a few kiosks or basic facilities inside. A medium interchange place is characterized by an intermediate flow of passengers, a considerable number of transport modes and some retail and food facilities for travellers. A city landmark fits with a higher flow of travellers, a complete range of public and private transport modes and a significant retailing and/or an integrated shopping mall.
But the amount of space dedicated to the interchange is also affected by the local constraints, which determine the particular features of the building design. In the city centre the interchange building will be more constrained than in a suburb where the availability of space allows to affect a wider space to the interchange infrastructure. The combination of the two dimensions of an interchange place could define the typology of interchange as: Cold/Hot, Partially integrated and Fully integrated.

Let us consider the right hand side of the Figure 3. The complete interchange with several activities located inside also has local impacts that include the consideration of the economic and land use effects in the vicinity of the interchange. There is a clear interrelation among the size and its local impacts, and typology of the interchange. This relationship creates a dynamic causal chain.
The considered variables for these local impacts are: nearby shopping, new housing, new offices, and job creation. They could be detailed as:
• Nearby shopping –passengers using the interchange provide a business opportunity for the area where the interchange is located. This has been identified as having a clear effect of changing the activities of shops in the surrounding areas and the creation of new opportunities to serve travellers’ needs.
• New housing – interchanges could have an impact on the local economy and land use. New housing can be constructed on the top of or near to the interchanges. New housing development could be possible when land use constraints are relatively low and vacant land is available for use nearby. When the interchange is part of an urban regeneration policy this land could be designated as greenfield or brownfield
• New offices - New offices can be placed on the top of or nearby to the interchange. Office development could be possible when land use constraints are reduced and an area of green or brownfield land is available locally.
• Jobs creation – a key factor for evaluating the local economic impact of the interchange is related to job creation. No statistical study is available for estimating the number of new jobs at an interchange scale. However our qualitative analysis shows that in some cases of interchange development job creation is observed. This element requires the involvement of local government and the owners and businesses in interchanges.

Inter-action between relevant actors involved in each of the steps of the interchange life-cycle results in established governance structures. The Figure 4 shows the governance process alongside the City-HUB life-cycle. There are basically four steps which are shown in the figure: Identification, Validation, Deployment and Monitoring and Assessment.

What makes an interchange successful? Various factors are important, including: integrated management of the interchange; integration with the local area; the relevance of different typologies, (i.e. different interchanges need different facilities); essential and desirable features; and the different zones of an interchange.
Services are a key aspect in determining quality and success. These depend very much on the space available and passenger flows. It is important to consider the most appropriate use of space when deciding which facilities the interchange needs to contain. These will have implications for the functions provided and the services required. Three different zones are identified within an interchange: the Access/Egress Zone; Facilities and Retail Zone and the Transport/Transfer Zone, each with a different focus of services.
As shown in the Figure 5, the Access/Egress Zone should provide facilities and services for the different types of users arriving at and leaving the interchange: pedestrians, cyclists and motorised transport (such as taxis or kiss and ride). Key facilities that should be provided in this zone are those that assist safe, efficient movement in and out of the interchange such as convenient access; signposting and way-finding; direct routes for pedestrians and cyclists with traffic control measures (such as pedestrian crossings where necessary); and information about the local area, including taxi and dial a ride information. For those with bicycles or vehicles, secure parking is essential whilst waiting areas with shelters should be provided for those waiting for public transport modes.
The Transport/Transfer Zone is where users will be waiting for transport modes within the interchange. Here there should be convenient access for all, which is easy to navigating. Waiting rooms and shelters fitted with CCTV for security should be available to travellers, with up to date travel information and help points if staff are unavailable.
The Facilities and Retail Zone is the part of the interchange where users who have more time available to spend at the interchange (such as leisure travellers) can do activities such as shopping or eating while they wait for their transfer. Therefore, shops and food outlets, toilets and seating areas should all be provided. This zone also covers ticketing facilities and should provide real time information to ensure users are kept up to date with any delays or changes to their travel.
The ‘Access/Egress Zone’ is where facilities concerning the local area and transport services are focused. Travel information and intermodal services spread across both the ‘Access/Egress Zone’ and the ‘Arrival/Departure/Transfer Zone’. Facilities, including retailing, are based within the ‘Facilities Zone’. Some facilities are common, fundamental elements that are applicable to all types of interchange and should be considered within both the planning process and operational management phases. In each of these zones, the facilities can be separated into those that are ‘essential’ and those that are ‘desirable’. Essential facilities refer to those required to provide a basic level of service for users, with desirable facilities increasing the attractiveness of the interchange to users.

As travel patterns become more complex, many public transport users have to make transfers between different modes to complete their daily journeys (Hernandez et al. Submitted). It is essential therefore to make interchanges attractive places to transfer in order to achieve or maintain a high level of public transport use. In this respect, measures oriented to improve PT service quality are required, such as reducing the inconvenience of transfer and providing a seamless travel experience. In this context, the EU Green Paper on urban mobility (COM 2007) emphasized that sustainble mobility aims to address three challenges: reducing congestion; improving the quality of public transportation services to achieve a modal shift from private car to public transport; and promoting soft modes - walking and cycling. Moreover, total travel time directly influences trip choices. Good connectivity at public transport stops and stations is therefore critical to the effectiveness of the overall transportation network (Iseki and Taylor 2010).
Urban transport interchanges play a key role within transport network since they allow different modes to be used in an integrated manner. Nevertheless, transport stations in general must be considered multimodal facilities where travellers not only are passing through; they are also spending time there (van Hagen 2011). For this reason, public transport users are particularly affected by the quality of the service provided. Terzis and Last (2000) highlighted that transport interchanges should meet sustainability standards and also be attractive for users given that their physical experiences and psychological reactions are significantly influenced by the design and operation of the interchange. In this context, capturing the user´s experience and perceptions is crucial to achieve the most appropiate policy measures for public transport interchanges.
Although several studies have been undertaken for evaluating user´s satisfaction with the quality of public transport services (e.g. dell’ Olio et al. 2011), evaluation methods rarely have been adapted for measuring users´ requirements, as well as their perceptions of the quality of urban transport interchanges during their operation (Dell’Asin et al. 2014; Hernandez et al. Submitted).
Consequently, an ad-hoc travellers´attitudinal survey was designed and implemented in five European interchanges in order to capture user´s views and perceptions related to different aspects and elements of an interchange. The results obtained from the analysis are used to validate findings to improve the experience of intermodal trips and provide inputs for the City-HUB Model.
In this respect, the key factors efficient urban transport interchange for users were defined (Hernandez and Monzon). Likewise, a novel methodological framework is developed which allows interchange managers to formulate approriate strategic decisions oriented not only to enhance the transfer experience but also to improve the quality of service (Hernandez et al.).
The travellers’ satisfaction questionnaire contained 37 items relating to various aspects and elements of an interchange, classified in eight different groups (see Figure 6). These aspects and elements are based on the findings from the literature review (PIRATE 2001; Terzis and Last 2000; Durmisevic and Sariyildiz 2001; Iseki and Taylor 2010; Abreu e Silva and Bazrafshan 2013). Moreover, one question about the overall satisfaction with the interchange was included. Each respondent was asked their satisfaction level with each of the items and their overall satisfaction using a 5 point-scale (a Likert scale) from 1 (strongly dissatisfied) to 5 (strongly satisfied). Thus the Traveller satisfaction survey allows us to know the user´s perceptions of the performance of an existing transport interchange. This first step of the assessment process reveals the user´s satisfaction level with regard to different aspects and elements of an interchange related to transport services and facilities.

A set of 5 urban transport interchanges (Figure 2) were selected as pilot case studies in order to capture user´s views and experience and assess good and bad practices, obstacles and potential improvements from the daily operations of existing public transport interchanges. They were selected considering a balance in terms of geography and heterogeneity in terms of modes, ownership structure and size. The case studies selected were:
• Moncloa interchange (Madrid, Spain)
• Kamppi interchange (Helsinki, Finland)
• Ilford Railway Station (London, United Kingdom)
• Köbánya-Kispest interchange (Budapest, Hungary)
• Railway Station of Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki, Greece)
The location as well as the transport modes involved are key variables to determine the category of a multimodal transport stations (Pitsiava-Latinopoulou and Iordanopoulos 2012). Therefore, all of the interchanges selected play a key role in multimodal trips in their corresponding cities.

In this respect, the results obtained in the pilot case studies reveal that users are generally satisfied with an average overall satisfaction higher than 3 in a 5-points scale; high average satisfaction rates in Kamppi (3.94 from 5), Moncloa (3.92) and Köbánya-Kispest (3.61) interchanges, and acceptable average rates in Ilford Railway Station (3.16) and Railway Station in Thessaloniki (3.13). Regarding the satisfaction rates by gender and age groups, no significant differences were found. Table 2 shows the aspects of the interchange most and least valued by users. ‘Access’ to interchange achieves the highest average rate in all cases, except at Ilford Station, where ‘Travel Information’ occupies the top position. At Moncloa, Kamppi, and Köbánya-Kispest interchanges, all dimensions rate higher than 3.00. So it could be said that travellers are satisfied with each aspects of the interchange. On the other hand, users from Ilford and Thessaloniki are not very satisfied with some of these aspects, such as ‘Comfort and Convenience’, ‘Image and Attractiveness’, ‘Emergency situations’, as well as, in the case of Thessaloniki, ‘Safety and Security’. These categories scored less than 3.00.

The results obtained from the application of the 'Assessment process' in the Pilot Case Studies lead to the following conclusions (Figure 7):
• Some elements have generally a high importance for users regardless of the context of the interchange. These elements are: ‘Internal design’ and ‘Safety and Security inside the interchange’.
• Some characteristics exert little influence on users’ overall evaluation, such as ‘Transfer distances between different transport modes’, ‘Distance between facilities and services’, ‘Number of elevators, escalators and moving walkways’, ‘Availability of cash machines’ and ‘Telephone signal and Wi-Fi’. Nevertheless, users´ satisfaction with regard to distances, both of transfer and facilities, is generally high. Regarding the availability of cash machines and telephone signal and Wi-Fi, they can be considered top-quality factors, i.e. if they are not presented there will be not any negative influence on the users’ overall evaluation, however if they are presented they could act as aspects that encourage a strong improvement or worsening of users’ overall evaluation.
• Although the features and context of each interchange are completely different, the results obtained show key common factors and attributes in all cases. These key common factors define an urban transport interchange under a dual approach: ‘as a transport node’ and ‘as a place’.
• Factors that better define an interchange ‘as a transport node’ are aspects related to information provision - travel information and signposting - and transfer conditions - distances and coordination between operators. In contrast, design & image, indoor environmental quality, services & facilities and elements addressed to improve the comfort of waiting time are directly linked the quality of the interchange ‘as a place’. Finally, safety & security is of vital importance for users in both approaches.

All the activities at the interchange, or in the surrounding area, depend on how travellers perceive their added value for their daily trips and associated activities. Therefore we need to understand travellers´ perceptions and needs in order to provide high quality in the services associated with the interchange activities. Figure 8 shows all the elements and interrelations along the City-HUB life-cycle. However all the actions of the interchange life-cycle involve some Governance measures that should be performed in parallel.
Therefore each of the phases of the life-cycle has its correspondent part in the Governance stream as shown in the Figure 8. The last stage of the cycle consists of monitoring the interchange outputs, which serve as the basis for further improvements in response to the changing the external conditions that constituted the initial goals for developing the interchange, in that way closing the double loop formed by the life-cycle and governance actions.
The whole City-HUB life-cycle needs to be managed by the Governance actions corresponding to each of the steps of the process. There are Governance actions linked to the Identification phase which defines policy goals and in which stakeholders could actively participate. The next phases are related to the Validation and Deployment where the Governance actions consist of getting the identified stakeholders involved, each of them playing its proper role. This interaction defines which should be the appropriate business model for the specific needs and requirements of the interchange. Finally Governance in the Monitoring and Assessment phase aims to enhance the performance of the current interchange by producing indicative guidelines for its improvement. This will be the start of the retrofitting process to adapt the interchange to the changing needs and business activities around it.

Each interchange has to look for the fulfilment of these two dimensions:
• Transport interchange characteristics
The interchange plays a primary role in the city as a node where some transport activities are concentrated: transfers between different transport modes or different services of the same mode. Transport activities are the fundamental part of the interchange; otherwise it would not be an interchange. But linked to those transport services there are other activities that improve the transport ones. Those are services linked to transport (ticket offices, luggage, etc.) but also other services that profit from the number of travellers transferring in the interchange: e.g. retail/food outlets.
There is a two-way relationship between the transport and interchange services that provide positive synergies. On the one hand, the more and better quality services placed within the interchange, the higher the perceived quality of transport services, and on the other hand, new businesses arise as the travellers who transfer inside the interchange could become customers of the different shops and services.
Everything should be properly integrated. Therefore users have two totally connected views of the interchange: as a transport node and as a place.
The development of those views in an integrated way depends on the clear identification of requirements and needs of all stakeholders that should define the appropriate transport interchange characteristics. These characteristics constitute the first dimension of the specific interchange that is going to be developed or renewed. Therefore the interchange characteristics depends on the number, and type, of transports modes and the number of travellers (trip demand). It also depends on the types of services and facilities that are provided.
These considerations provide the elements for designing the urban transport interchange as part of the Validation & Deployment phases. As shown in Figure 8 it has two elements: Building Design and what we call Atmosphere.
• Urban integration
The second dimension is referred to the bidirectional interrelations between the activities inside the interchange and those located in the surrounding area.
The first direction of those interrelations is from the local area towards the interchange: what is located in the territory affects its development: i.e. local constraints. These effects are dependent on the location of the interchange: city centre, suburbs, city-border, etc. Its functionality is linked to that location. It is also linked to the character of the surrounding area: residential, commercial, business oriented, etc. Finally a major constraint could be the urban development plan for the area. It could define the available land for building the interchange and its auxiliary installations, the type of land-uses it is possible to develop, etc. An extreme case could be if the area next to the interchange was a green area or had a hospital, then some of the activities that could foster the business model of the interchange would not be developed because of use restrictions.
The second direction of interrelations is from the interchange itself towards the area around. This is associated with the activities and people attracted to the interchange as a place. This dimension includes the impacts on local activities. These impacts are linked to the services inside the interchange and provide an interface that enlarges the interchange effects: more businesses will develop because the surrounding area has good access to the transport node, and travellers perceive more benefits from the interchange location. There is again a link between what happens inside the interchange and the activities located in the surrounding area.
These effects are considered within the Urban Integration box which belongs to the Validation & Deployment phases.

Three broad types of interchanges have been defined with different requirements for the governance of the interchange life-cycle. Once all the interchange dimensions and elements have defined the type of interchange that is necessary in each particular case, an ad hoc business model should be identify to develop and to manage it properly.
The type of business model is linked to the definition of Policy goals and the Identification and Involvement of Stakeholders in the two first phases of the life-cycle. As a result it is possible to build the most convenient type of business model to achieve the defined policy goals in close interaction with the stakeholders.
A diverse set of definitions for the term business model and its components has emerged since it firstly appeared in scientific literature (Bellman et al., 1957). But the term has generally been applied to companies, aiming to gain advantage in defined markets by conceptualizing an interrelated set of decision variables in a venture strategy (Morris et al., 2005). In the case of interchanges we propose the concept of business model defined by Osterwalder (Osterwalder, 2004; Osterwalder et al., 2005), but with necessary adaptations for intermodal terminals where the products are the transport activities and other services.
Osterwalder analysed the semantics of the concept of the “business model”. On the one hand, the term “model” means simplification of reality and “business” the activity of providing goods and services involving financial, commercial or industrial aspects. On that basis, he defined a business model as an analytical tool containing a set of objects, concepts and their interrelationships to express the business logic of a company. This tool must represent what value is provided to customers - as an interaction of supply and demand - in a simple and understandable way, and what are the financial consequences. Under these considerations, Osterwalder defined the nine objects, or concepts - building blocks - of which a business model should be composed. There are blocks referring to the infrastructure (offer) side and others dedicated to the customer interfaces, which include target customer and the distribution channels. Costs and revenues are included in the financial blocks. All the products and services are bundled by the value propositions of the model, which gives the strategic view of the business.
This theoretical frame of business model was adapted to the activity of interchange stations in the HERMES project (EU 7 FP, 2010/2012), which aimed at exploring and thus developing models for interconnectivity. Until that moment, the application of business models in the transport sector was underdeveloped, except for a few cases of air transport terminals (Macario and Van de Voorde, 2010). Based on the development of HERMES project, a new configuration of the building blocks is proposed for the case of urban transport interchanges. Table 3 shows its structure, where on the left we can find the building blocks associated with the supply, and on the right the building blocks associated with the demand of customers – or passengers. The value proposition in the central block corresponds to the possible measures for improving the services provided in the interchange stations, by analysing existing supply and demand.On the left side the first column of the table lists the identified stakeholders and how they perform their role. They offer services for the different activities located at the interchange building and manage the resources for that end – see second column. On the right hand columns, first it is necessary to identify the users’ characteristics to define the business relationships – second right hand column. At the bottom the table shows the financial part of the business, which are the costs and the revenue sources. And finally, the core of the table is dedicated to identifying the actions to get the maximum benefits out of all the actors and assets of the interchange.
Although they are not part of the interchange business model, the activities located there also play a role in making the business model more or less robust both at present and in the future.
Each type of interchange would have a different business models. Thus, the cold/hot type of interchange would have a very simple one: there are very few types of travellers and transport modes who require only the basic facilities. They are easy to finance and to manage. The business model becomes more complicated for the partially integrated type of interchanges. And for the fully integrated ones the business model could be a complex challenge because of the large investments involved, the coordination of many different stakeholders required for putting different economic activities in place with different management priorities and pay-back periods.
Finally, it worthwhile saying that any business model should not be static because any interchange must be able to respond to changing demands and technologies. It should be updated and adapted to the changing future situation through the Monitoring and Assessment phase. This is a continuous process of assessment and policy adjustment in continuous dialogue among all the stakeholders: promoters, operators, public bodies, travellers’ associations, etc. It also includes feedback from travellers, who have a different way to express their preferences. We need to customize the travellers’ surveys for each specific interchange to get valuable feedback from users.

The interchange cycle does not finish when the construction is completed and all the services are settled. A number of activities should be carried out in order to assure the usefulness of the interchange activities or even improving them with experience. That means a continuous process of Monitoring and Assessment. This process should be coordinated by the interchange manager in close contact with the public authorities that promote it and the stakeholders which finance and promote the different activities: transport operators, cafes, and retailers etc.
The first task is to check the achievement of the initial policy goals as defined in the Identification phase. Then it is necessary to undertake an analysis to know if the goals are still all valid. Normally this will be not the case, because new requirements and needs could appear with time, demanding new activities or the modification of the initial ones.
Then it is necessary to evaluate the urban integration aspects of the interchange; that means to check if the foreseen local impacts are as expected in the medium-long term. The environmental impacts should also be assessed to identify which activities could produce negative impacts. This is not a simple process and for that end it is necessary to get the stakeholders´ opinions through ad hoc surveys and interviews. Those opinions should be complemented with data collected in the area: e.g. the number of new housing and offices, shops, changes in the number and type of jobs, etc. Environmental quality standards should be also measured: e.g. noise, pollution and green areas deterioration.
Users’ opinions are also very important to enhance an interchange. It has been shown how it is possible to know which are the travellers’ expectations and their value of the perceived quality of the services when using the interchange: i.e. the transfer among modes, retail and other services, that minimize the penalty of changing from one mode to another.
The results of this assessment phase are really the basis for assuring the quality of the interchange along its life-time. Based on these assessments the business model could be updated, incorporating new stakeholders and modifying the priorities as necessary. That means considering new activities inside the interchange or in the area, and also new development plans. The Quality Plan should report what has already been achieved and enhance it with new activities. All in all the interchange is a good place to promote innovation and new solutions. ITS services are very much linked to urban transport. The large number of users and the high demand for changing information needed inside the interchange – coordination of the different transport modes and services – convert it into a living-laboratory to test, and develop, new ICT based solutions.

The EU Green Paper on urban mobility (EC 2007) points out the three challenges of sustainable urban mobility: reducing congestion; improving the quality of public transport services to attract trips from private cars; and promoting soft modes such as walking and cycling. But how to increase public transport patronage when urban sprawl is leading to more complex travel patterns, reducing the attractiveness and performance of public transport. Public transport trip distances, and duration, are increasing in urban and metropolitan areas (Banister 2011).
As a consequence, a significant percentage of urban trips are becoming multimodal or multistage, connecting different public transport services in chain to complete the trip from origin to destination. Therefore transfers between modes or lines are now a significant structural element of integrated urban transport systems (Navarrete and Ortuzar 2013). Some authors (Guo 2008) studied how transfers between the interurban/commuter rail and metro networks affect the modal split in several cities. Navarrete and Ortuzar (2013) analysed the penalty of transferring between buses and metro in Santiago. Their results clearly indicated that travellers perceive their trips penalised by transfer time.
Therefore the solution is not an easy one. Mobility patterns are becoming more multimodal but the transfer penalty is considered important. How can the public transport network be made competitive with cars in this difficult context? Therefore improved interchanges could be the answer, or at least part of the solution, to make public transport system more attractive with a higher quality in comparison to cars.
However this is not an easy task, because the design of interchanges depends on so many factors. The City-HUB Model aims to provide the basis for making interchanges attractive to help public transport be more competitive in the complex mobility patterns of advanced cities.

The French anthropologist Augé (1995) said that multi-modal passenger interchanges are examples of anthropological ‘non-places’ from the social point of view. They are not places where social relations could be developed, and have a lack of sense of history and identity. However Bertolini (2006) found that they are, on the contrary, places with clear spatial dimensions, but they have complex uses where there is no dominant group of users. The target has been to understand who the users of interchanges are and what are their needs. According to Edwards (2011) a transport interchange is a more complex transport facility than a conventional station that allows travellers to transfer from one mode to another. It said that there are two main definitions of interchange; one related to the infrastructure vision which means that an interchange would be a place where several modes of public transport interconnect. The second vision is based on users: a place where people transfer between two or more public transport modes. The two visions are complementary, but both together do not provide the completed vision of the interchange. It is something more than a building where there several transport modes, and where many people transfer between them. The challenge is to convert a “non-place” into a key element of the transport system which provides clear added value for travellers. If this target is achieved, the weakest point of the system – the need to transfer - could be converted into a strong point to make public transport more attractive and competitive. In many countries interchanges become “places” rather than “spaces” that restructure urban centres or remodel cities.
Therefore, we need an integrated vision to consider the interchange “habitat”, including all the activities that take place inside the interchange building and the relationships between those activities located around and the ones inside.

Integration is a multidimensional objective that should be pursued at various levels. The first level is among different transport modes to assure a seamless quality transfer between them. The time associated with distances between transport services are important to travellers, especially for those with mobility impairments, as each transfer can accumulate substantial time within a door to door journey. It should therefore be a goal of an interchange to have the distances between transport services as short as possible. The distance between modes is important, but also the good connectivity and way-finding for facilitating multimodal trips. It is necessary to consider the degree of “integration” between the different transport modes and not only the existence of different transport modes that may coexist. For instance, does a unique interchange space exist where all the transport modes could display their own departure times?
The good connection among transfer paths and waiting areas are crucial for passengers. Time dedicated to transfer and waiting is clearly penalised in comparison with travel time. Depending on the type of transport services, the location of waiting areas, near the gates in urban services, or separated in long distance ones, would reduce the negative perception of waiting. In same cases it could be reversed if the place is comfortable and has good communication and reliable displays of information; free Wi-Fi could make the stay perceived as positive. The interchange manager should co-ordinate all these different elements for favouring multimodal journeys.
Therefore, interchanges need to be designed so that they provide logical and easy passenger movement. Overcrowded areas and long queues to pass through ticket barriers reduce traveller comfort and efficiency. A poor quality travel experience is one of the key reasons given for not choosing to travel by public transport.
The degree of integration between modes is implicitly dealt with in terms of information, way-finding and distances between modes. Integrated ticketing is a related issue. The aim of the City-HUB Model is to capture such elements and provide relevant stakeholders with guidance relating to the main elements related of interchange development. For instance, in cases where the interchange does not offer information across modes, the interchange assessment would show that it needs to be corrected. This illustrates the importance and challenge connected with analysing the interchange status.
The second level of integration is between the transport activities and the services and facilities provided at the interchange. Some of them are directly related to serving passengers, such as ticket offices and luggage handling. Coordination between services and resources within the interchange, as stated in the offer side of the business model, is necessary. Every element of the supply should be designed, and allocated, in the interchange space to improve efficiency for passengers. Shops and cafes should located separated from transfer flows but not be located too far from them and the waiting areas. Ticket booths should be near the departure platforms with luggage storage nearby.
The third type of integration has a managerial character. It refers to how to manage all the activities in the interchange in a coordinated way, resolving any conflicts between the different activities and priorities. This goal requires an integral vision of everything looking for the best coordination of activities, services and business within the interchange space along the different times of the day/week. It also includes the location of access/exits gates which affect, either positively or negatively, those activities located in the vicinity of those crowded points. Criteria for way-finding and information provision could make the difference in this regard. It is strongly recommended that an independent interchange manager is employed to coordinate all the stakeholders and activities.
Multimodal city-hubs have clear influence on economic activities and land uses, particularly in their surrounding area. However, it is not clear how transport hubs establish their links with economic and social activities around. The size and the role of the city-hub (i.e. the interchange typology) within the transport network, providing direct links to the main cities, may explain the development around it. This wider dimension of the interchange requires a fourth level of integration: the interchange with the activities located around it. This kind of integration could be clearly fostered if a specific Development Plan exists which addresses all the interchange elements in a proper way.
The issue of integration between the interchange and the city, in particular connected to urban regeneration, has been included in the City-HUB Model. It emphasises this aspect through the recommendation to “identify policy goals/needs” at the beginning of the life-cycle. An important point of the model is to evaluate the policy goals and plans that might affect the interchange in the final stage of the life-cycle.

Abreu e Silva, João, and Hossein Bazrafshan. 2013. “User Satisfaction of Intermodal Transfer Facilities in Lisbon, Portugal: Analysis with Structural Equations Modeling.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2350 (12): 102-10.
Adamos, Giannis, Eftihia Nathanail, and Eleni Zacharaki. 2012. “Developing a Decision-Making Framework for Collaborative Practices in Long-Short Distance Transport Interconnection.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Transport Research Arena 2012, 48: 2849-58.
Auge, Marc. 1995. Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London & New York: Verso.
Auvinen, H., P. Christiansen, and I. Markuceviciute. 2012. Decision-making guidebook for the interconnection between short and long-distance transport networks. Deliverable 6.3 CLOSER - Connecting LOng and Short-distance networks for Efficient tRansport.
Banister, David. 1999. “Planning more to travel less: land use and transport.” Town Planning Review 70 (3): 313.
Banister, David. 2011. «The trilogy of distance, speed and time». Journal of Transport Geography 19 (4): 950-59.
Bellman, Richard, Charles E. Clark, Donald G. Malcolm, Clifford J. Craft, and Franc M. Ricciardi. 1957. “On the Construction of a Multi-Stage, Multi-Person Business Game.” Operations Research 5 (4): 469-503.
Bertolini, Luca. 2006. “Fostering Urbanity in a Mobile Society: Linking Concepts and Practices.” Journal of Urban Design 11 (3): 319-34.
Brons, Martijn, Moshe Givoni, and Piet Rietveld. 2009. “Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43 (2): 136-49.
Crozet, Yves, and Iragaël Joly. 2004. “Budgets temps de transport : les sociétés tertiaires confrontées à la gestion paradoxale du ´bien le plus rare´.” Les Cahiers scientifiques du transport, n.o 45: pp. 27-48
Dell’ Olio, Luigi, Angel Ibeas, and Patricia Cecin. 2011. “The quality of service desired by public transport users.” Transport Policy 18 (1): 217-27.
Dell’Asin, Giulia, Maria Eugenia Lopez-Lambas, y Andres Monzon. 2014. “Key Quality Factors at Urban Interchanges”. Proceedings of the ICE - Transport, mayo, 1-10.
Di Ciommo, Floridea, José Manuel Vassallo, and Arturo Oliver. 2009. “Private Funding of Intermodal Exchange Stations in Urban Areas.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2115 (12): 20-26.
Di Ciommo, Floridea. 2002. "L’accessibilité: l’enjeu prioritaire de la nouvelle politique des transports publics à Naples." In Bernard Jouve, Les politiques de déplacements urbains en Europe by. L´Harmattan: 135-159.
Durmisevic, Sanja, and Sevil Sariyildiz. 2001. “A systematic quality assessment of underground spaces – public transport stations”. Cities 18 (1): 13-23.
Edwards, Brian. 2011. Sustainability and the Design of Transport Interchanges. USA and Canada: Routledge.
European Commission. 2001. White Paper. European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. COM (2001) 370 final. Brussels.
European Commission. 2007. Green Paper: Towards a new culture for urban mobility. COM (2007) 551 final. Brussels.
European Commission. 2011. White Paper. Roadmap to a single European transport area – Towards a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. COM (2011) 144 final. Brussels.
European Commission. 2013. A concept for sustainable urban mobility plans. Annex 1 to COM (2013) 913 final. Brussels.
European Commission. 2013. Thematic Research Summary: Passenger Transport.
Ewing, Reid, Tom Schmid, Richard Killingsworth, Amy Zlot, and Stephen Raudenbush. 2008. “Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity.” Urban Ecology, 567-82. Springer US.
Guo, Zhan. 2008. Transfers and Path Choice in Urban Public Transport Systems. Ph.D. thesis. Transportation Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
HERMES. 2011. Interoperability Barriers to Intermodality and Interconnectivity of Passenger Transport. Deliverable 4.I HERMES - High Efficient and Reliable Arrangements for Crossmodal Transport.
Hernandez, Sara, and Andres Monzon. “Key factors for defining an efficient urban transport interchange: users’ perceptions.” Submission to Cities. Track number JCIT-D-15-00256.
Hernandez, Sara, Andres Monzon, and Rocio De Oña. “Urban transport interchanges: a methodology for evaluating perceived quality.” Submission to Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Track number TRA-D-14-00648R1.
Iseki, Hiroyuki, and Brian Taylor. 2010. “Style versus Service? An Analysis of User Perceptions of Transit Stops and Stations.” Journal of Public Transportation 13 (3), 23-48.
Litman, Todd. 2012. Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Macário, Rosário, and Eddy Van de Voorde. 2010. Critical Issues in Air Transport Economics and Business. Routledge.
Mackie, P. J., S. Jara-Dı́az, and A. S. Fowkes. 2001. “The value of travel time savings in evaluation.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 37 (2–3): 91-106.
Monzon, Andres, Andrea Alonso, and Maria Eugenia Lopez-Lambas. 2013. “Key Factors Affecting the Efficiency of Transport Interchanges.” Presented in 13th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR). Rio de Janeiro. Brazil.
Morris, Michael, Minet Schindehutte, and Jeffrey Allen. 2005. “The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective.” Journal of Business Research, Special Section: The Nonprofit Marketing Landscape, 58 (6): 726-35.
Navarrete, F. J., and J. D. Ortuzar. 2013. “Subjective valuation of the transit transfer experience: The case of Santiago de Chile.” Transport Policy 25, 138-147.
Network Rail. 2011. Guide to Station Planning and Design. Issue 1, Network Rail, London.
Osterwalder, Alexander, Yves Pigneur, Christopher L. Tucci. 2005. “Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept.” Communications of the Association for Information Systems: Volume 16, Article 1.
Osterwalder, Alexander. 2004. The business model ontology: A proposition in a design science approach. Ph.D. Thesis. Université de Lausane.
PIRATE, 2001. Final Report. PIRATE- Promoting Interchange Rationale, Accessibility and Transfer Efficiency. Sheffield.
Pitsiava-Latinopoulou, Magda, and Panagiotis Iordanopoulos. 2012. “Intermodal Passengers Terminals: Design Standards for Better Level of Service.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Transport Research Arena 2012, 48: 3297-3306.
Terzis, George, and Andrew Last. 2000. GUIDE - “Urban Interchanges - A Good Practice Guide” GUIDE, Final Report.
TRI-Value. 2014. TRI-Value: Ex-post evaluation of Transport R&I in the FP7 “Cooperation Programme” Consortium. Final Report, European Commission.
Van Hagen, Mark. 2011. Waiting experience at train stations. Twenty University. Eburon Academic Publishers. The Netherlands.
Vuchic, Vukan R. 2005. Urban Transit: Operations, Planning, and Economics. United States of America: John Wiley & Sons. 
Potential Impact:
The City-HUB project results are summarized in the City-HUB model that have the following potential impacts:
A) For city and transport authorities
– Guidelines for analysing the need for interchanges. Then it provides tools for identifying which is right typology of interchange for each particular case.
– It helps to identify which are the possible stakeholders to promote and finance the interchange.

– It indicates which governance process is necessary and who are the relevant actors in each of the deployment phases of the interchange.

B) For transport operators and interchange developers
– Transport operators is the most active group of beneficiaries of good transport interchanges. They reduce operating costs and increase the number of passengers by reducing transfer disruption.
– In many cases transport operators are engaged in the promotion and deployment of transport interchanges. Normally they participate in collaboration with construction companies and financial institutions. For all of them the City-HUB model provide a clear idea of what the interchange should be and which element and factors should be consider to achieve successful results.
– Financing a new of upgrading an existing interchange requires a clear definition of the business model based on the type of interchange. The City-HUB model provide a method to define the business model in each particular case.

C) For identifying users needs
User satisfaction rates are essential for increasing the number of users if the PT system and the users of interchanges. Therefore, to know their perception on the quality of transport services and the facilities at the interchanges are a key element to get more users and increase their satisfaction of the whole system.
– The City-HUB model provide a sound methodology for assessing the interchange performance. That outputs of the proposed methodology allow to identify the key factors for enhance the different services and facilities at the interchange.
– Missing services and facilities and bad performance assessment results lead to settle the actions for solving the problems. On the contrary good results allow to identify the strong points of the interchange to achieve better results.

D) For measuring the local impacts and foster local business
One of the achievements of the City-HUB model is that consider interchanges in their urban context. Therefore location in the city, activities in the surrounding area and the integration into the urban development plan are key elements of the model. Therefore the City-HUB model pay attention not only to the business inside the interchange but also to those located in the surrounding, having an interactive relationship with those located inside.
– The City-HUB model allow to identify where and which activities could be a successful complement for the interchange. Therefore new commercial business and new housing and offices developments could be identified. All together would produce the creation of new jobs in the area and its economic regeneration.

– In the medium-long term new activities would happen if city planners provide the right socioeconomic environment. Therefore the interchange could produce a positive impact in the area and in the city to a larger extent. The City-HUB model provide guidelines to identify possible new activities and developments, how to allocate new resources in the area and to promote innovation.

The participation of more than 70 stakeholders and experts in the City-HUB workshops shows the broad interest in the topic. Many of them are already engaged in the business of interchanges and showed their interest for the foreseen impacts of a sound EU policy for improving intermodality through better interchanges at European level.

Throughout the project’s lifecycle, City-HUB partners paid special attention to the spreading of excellence, the exploiting of results and the dissemination of knowledge. In fact, the consortium of City-HUB was built up by prosperous research organizations and universities staffed by experienced researchers and practitioners who were able to carry out the scientific work, but also to establish a coherent network with relevant to the project stakeholders, including representatives of a) several administrative levels of the decision making processes followed in urban interchanges; b) transport operators; c) infrastructure managers; d) academic and research communities; and e) demand side users. The cooperation of City-HUB partners with the members of this stakeholder network was very successful during the 30 months of the project duration. Specifically, through the Transport Visioning Events that were organised during the 3 City-HUB Stakeholder Workshops, the stakeholders’ opinion and feedback was being retrieved in several phases of the technical progress of the project.
Both on-line and off-line dissemination tools were used for the promotion of the project’s findings, the transfer of knowledge, the promotion of the project’s activities and actions, and the awareness and involvement of relevant stakeholders. The consortium respecting the environmental impacts, made efforts to adopt and implement a paperless strategy, where it was possible, and enhanced the digital promotion of its activities.
Based on the initial dissemination plan the consortium has indicated and scheduled several dissemination activities for the period after the closing of project, which are planned to be carried out individually by the cooperating partners.

The main scope of the City-HUB dissemination strategy was to encourage the use of foreground and the uptake of the project’s results so as to make as great as possible the impact on the issue of designing and planning sustainable and efficient urban transport interchanges. The project, through its scientific work has made a significant progress in this issue, based on its vision for city interchanges, which starts by establishing the needs for urban mobility patterns and the use of scarce space in urban areas, paying attention to social aspects and information and communication technologies, and involving strategic stakeholders through management and business strategies.
The knowledge and experience that City-HUB partners acquired during the project will be documented to a book entitled “CITY-HUBs: Sustainable and Efficient Urban Transport Interchanges”, which will be published in 2015 by the Taylor and Francis Group.
Meanwhile, the results of the work conducted throughout the project’s lifecycle are expected to contribute to the design and operation of new and/or upgraded urban transport interchanges, were and will be spread out to the general public under four alternatives:

I. Awareness of the project work and scope, and presentation of the results to the general public.
The official website of the City-HUB project is hosted at the website address: and was the main source of information for any interested parties, who were able to obtain information about the progress of the project, as well as the public deliverables and reports. As the website will remain online, it will continue to be one of the main dissemination tools for the project’s results in the future. The rest social media accounts of City-HUB, like “FACEBOOK”, “TWITTER”, “YouTube” and “GOOGLE+” will also remain active after the closure of the project.
Supporting the promotion of the project’s objectives and results, a significant number of dissemination tools and materials were designed and developed, most of which are available for reading and downloading through the projects’ website: a) Newsletters; b) Leaflets; c) Posters; d) Fact sheets; and e) Press releases. For the period that the website will be online, these materials will also be available and open to the wider audience.
After the closure of City-HUB, partners will continue to use both the dissemination materials and the technical reports of the project, in order to further promote City-HUB in the general public.

II. Presentation and discussion of the project results with stakeholders.
From the very beginning of the project, a list of stakeholders had been developed, and three main groups had been defined: a) expert reference group; b) stakeholders’ advisory group; and c) case study reference group. The consortium members cooperated successfully with these stakeholders, and apart from their input for the technical improvement of the deliverables and reports of the project, the stakeholders were the linkage of the consortium to the creation of a coherent and wide audience for the dissemination of the project’s results.

III. Fora, transport visioning events, workshops and conference.
During the project’s lifecycle, several events took place, which enhanced the technical work of the project, and contributed to the dissemination of the project to a wide audience. Specifically, an initial Stakeholder Workshop was organised for the presentation of the project, the collection of data and information and the identification of problems and barriers to urban interchanges. The second Stakeholder Workshop was organised to test the findings of WP3 and WP4 and to retrieve stakeholders’ point of view. The City-HUB model validation workshop was the third Stakeholder Workshop and feedback about the model’s operation was received.
In addition, fora with local stakeholders were organised during the project, and interesting discussions were made between the City-HUB partners and representatives of local authorities, transport operators, policy makers and the business community.
The City-HUB Final Conference was a great opportunity to present significant results of the project and propose innovative solutions on how to design and operate sustainable and efficient interchange stations.
The presentations made and the material prepared for each of the above event are available in the project’s website.

IV. Publications related to the project’s methodological approach and results.
Based on the mid-term and final results of the project, the consortium members prepared scientific papers and submitted them to journals, or presented them to national European and international conferences and workshops. Each publication or presentation based on the project’s methodology or results included a reference acknowledging the support of the European Commission and the consortium.
The publications and the participations of the consortium members to conferences and workshops, contributed to the dissemination of the project to academic and research communities, but also the general public.

During its lifetime City-HUB organised and implemented various dissemination activities, aiming at promoting the scientific findings of the project and reaching the widest audience possible.
A dissemination plan was documented in the first month of the project’s lifecycle, which outlined the main dissemination activities and events that would take place during the project implementation, and the materials that would be produced for the widest promotion of the project’s results. The plan defined the audience of dissemination, separated into stakeholders, specifically three groups, thus expert reference group, case study reference group and stakeholders’ advisory group, and potential users, further separated into transport and terminal operators, transport policy makers and influencers, academic/research communities and planning/design companies, and general public/demand side users. In addition, the dissemination plan worked as guidance for the dissemination of the project’s activities, and as a supporting tool for the consortium members, including for example, guidelines on how partners could identify opportunities for the promotion of the project’s outcomes and how to prepare several documents, i.e. press releases, presentations, etc.
All presentations and documents, having public dissemination level, are available for reading or downloading in the project’s website, while the rest with confidential level are stored in the restricted area of the website and are available for City-HUB partners. Lastly, a password protected area is included in the project’s website, which allows the exchange of information between the partners and City-HUB stakeholders.
Key dissemination tools and activities, indicated in the dissemination plan and subsequently produced or realised are:

I. Official project website
The official website of the City-HUB project is hosted at the website address: and was the main dissemination tool of the project. The website was being updated in real time with information relevant to the project, and was linked with the social media accounts of the project that were also informing about the project activities in real time. The website will be maintained and hosted after the end of the project.

II. Logo, presentation and deliverable templates
A logo and additional graphics were developed and used for the design of the website, the social media networking accounts and the dissemination material of the project. Also, a brief project presentation was prepared outlining the goals and objectives of City-HUB, the work plan, the expected impact, the consortium and contact details. Lastly, templates for deliverables and powerpoint presentations were designed and used by partners for the preparation of the project’s deliverables and the presentations they made in meetings, Workshops, Conferences, etc.

III. Newsletters
A yearly newsletter (June 2013, September 2014 and February 2015) was designed, published and distributed. The newsletters are also available for downloading from the project’s website.

IV. Leaflet
A leaflet was designed and produced by City-HUB. The leaflet outlines the objectives and expected impact of the project, and presents briefly the pilot and validation case studies. The leaflet is available for downloading from the project’s website.

V. Posters
Two posters (landscape design and portrait design) were designed and used for the promotion of City-HUB in the project’s events such as the Stakeholder Workshops, the Fora with local stakeholders and the Final Conference, as well as at any other event where members of the City-HUB consortium participated. The posters are available for downloading from the projects’ website.

VI. Press releases
Nine press releases were written and distributed to the media at specific milestones of the project, i.e. in the beginning of City-HUB, before and after each Stakeholder Workshop, and before and after the Final Conference.

VII. Fact sheets
Twenty fact sheets were written and disseminated throughout the project’s lifecycle, summarizing key findings of City-HUB’s deliverables.

A TWITTER account ( was developed for the promotion of the project’s activities, usually through links to the official project website.

IX. FACEBOOK account
A FACEBOOK account ( was developed and used for the announcement of the project’s activities and news. This account is linked to the project website and the TWITTER account of the project.

X. YouTube channel
A YouTube channel of the project hosts related to the project video material (

XI. GOOGLE+ account
A GOOGLE + account ( which is used for the dissemination of the project’s activities to the general public.

Following the concept of round table discussions, two fora were organised in Volos, Greece (May 2014) and in Oslo, Norway (September 2014) between City-HUB partners and local stakeholders, representing local authorities, transport operators, policy makers and the business community.

XIII. Transport visioning events
The scope of the Transport Visioning Events (TVEs) was to combine several engagement techniques and encourage stakeholders to formulate and express their expectations from the project. This process was followed in the three City-HUB Stakeholder Workshops.

XIV. Stakeholder Workshops
During the project’s lifecycle, three Stakeholder Workshops were organised. Particularly:
The first City-HUB Workshop took place in Budapest on March 21st 2013, aiming at identifying perceived gaps and further research and policy needs with respect to the practical delivery of good practice in interchanges. The Workshop was directly related to Work Package 2 (Setting the scene) in which a review was conducted on existing knowledge related to accessible urban multimodal interchanges, practice and theory. Three Transport Visioning Events ran in parallel at the 1st Workshop covering the following topics:
a. Transport operators and managers view: Design, integration and accessibility.
b. Policy and governance: Intermodality and society issues.
c. Users’ view, defining inputs for stated preferences and attitudinal survey.

The second City-HUB Workshop was organised in London on 3 February 2014, and aimed at addressing the issues of travellers’ attitudes and practitioners’ requirements. This Workshop was directly related to Work Package 3 (Efficient and smart design) which focused on the design of transport interchanges, with the purpose of identifying and defining best practice. The second main topic of the Workshop was related to Work Package 4 (Integrated management) which analysed the organisation of interchanges in terms of operational functionality, management, practicalities, services and efficiency. Four Transport Visioning Events were organised during the 2nd Workshop addressing the following topics:
a. Good practices.
b. Customer satisfaction priorities.
c. Business and management.
d. Land uses and economic impacts

The third City-HUB Workshop was held at the premises of the Centre for Research and Technology Hellas in Thessaloniki, Greece on October 9, 2014. This Workshop was directly linked to WP5 (City-HUB Model) and WP6 (Validation through case studies). The objective of the Workshop was to retrieve stakeholder opinion on the appropriateness of the identified key factors of urban transport interchanges and validate the preliminary formulation of the City-HUB model through its application on the selected project case studies. Four Transport Visioning Events were organised during the 3rd Workshop addressing the following topics:
a: Key factors of an urban transport interchange:
a1: Transfer services: Daily operations and users.
a2: Management structure and city integration.
b: Validation process through case studies:
b1: Transfer services: Daily operations and users.
b2: Management structure and city integration.

XV. City-HUB Final Conference
The City-HUB Consortium organised its Final Conference “Urban Interchanges: how much integration we need?” in the premises of the French Institute of Science and Technology for Transport, Development and Networks (IFSTTAR) in Lille, France on 19 February 2015. The Conference was organised under two sessions “an Urban interchange concept” and “Guidelines for monitoring and assessment”, followed by a round table with the topic: “Recommendations for European interchanges: City-HUB Model”.

XVI. Participation of City-HUB partners to Conferences, Workshops and other events
In total, 42 presentations were made during the project’s lifecycle. Twelve of these presentations were given at 11 international conferences, and the relevant full papers were peer reviewed and published in the proceedings. Following the process of abstract peer review, 5 presentations were given by consortium members in national, Pan-European or international conferences in Greece, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Latvia and Belgium. City-HUB was also introduced in 12 more events in the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Norway, Finland, Greece and France.

The protection and exploitation of the project’s Foreground is formulated in EC-GA Article II.26 – Article II-29, and the terms have been agreed by the consortium in the City-HUB Consortium Agreement, regarding the joint ownership and the transfer of Foreground. Regarding intellectual property rights, a three-level approach has been agreed. More specifically, the existing knowledge and know-how of the involved partners that may be used by the consortium for the needs of City-HUB will remain the property of the partner-owner. As far as the knowledge and know-how that will be developed throughout the project’s lifetime is concerned, it is agreed that this type of property, will be available to all partners participating in the project. Any additional knowledge developed within the project will be part of the demonstrators’ (case studies) property and will be permitted for use by the consortium under specific terms and conditions of transfer and use.
Each partner of the consortium was responsible for assessing whether the results of any Work Package were capable of being exploited, and will make use them after the closure of City-HUB. All terms and conditions referred above the protection of the Foreground have to be considered.
List of Websites:
The City-hub website can be found in the following link:

Professor Andrés Monzón
Transport Research Centre-Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (TRANSyT-UPM)
Escuela de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos
Madrid, Spain
Tel: +34913365373