Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Assessing the Performance of Modal Interchange for Ensuring
Seamless and Sustainable Mobility in European Cities
Elisa Conticelli * , Gianluca Gobbi, Paula Isabella Saavedra Rosas and Simona Tondelli
Citation: Conticelli, E.; Gobbi, G.;
Saavedra Rosas, P.I.; Tondelli, S.
Assessing the Performance of Modal
Interchange for Ensuring Seamless
and Sustainable Mobility in European
Cities. Sustainability 2021,13, 1001.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13021001
Received: 28 December 2020
Accepted: 15 January 2021
Published: 19 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Department of Architecture, University of Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy; gianluca.gobbi@studio.unibo.it (G.G.);
paula.saavedrarosas2@unibo.it (P.I.S.R.); simona.tondelli@unibo.it (S.T.)
*Correspondence: elisa.conticelli@unibo.it
Abstract:
In the European Union, more than 70% of the population lives in urban areas. Achieving
more efficient and low-carbon mobility is crucial to ensuring urban systems are sustainable and
tackling important challenges, such as reduction of CO
2
emissions, air and noise pollution, and
traffic congestion. Identifying effective strategies and design solutions that boost multimodal mo-
bility and effective interchange among different sustainable means of transport can be a significant
contribution in this area. This paper presents an easy-to-use methodology to assess the performance
of policy measures and design solutions-oriented to foster modal interchange, with special regard
to the configuration of the interchange hubs. The methodology is based on identifying key factors
necessary to ensure an efficient multimodal interchange and the different types of interchanges that
are frequently present in the urban realm. By grouping the key factors into nine different domains,
and by weighing the key factors in relation to their importance, the methodology creates a decision
support system to assess the performance of the current interchange, as well as of different planning
and design scenarios. This methodology has been developed in the framework of the Interreg Europe
MATCH-UP project and is conceived to support both designers and decision-makers whenever they
have to reorganise existing transport hubs and policies, or design and plan new ones.
Keywords:
sustainable urban mobility; modal interchange; interchange hubs; key factors; decision
support system
1. Introduction
The constant rise of the global population, its concentration in urban areas and the
massive use of private cars have been increasing traffic congestion and its adverse conse-
quences on the environment and on human health, posing a big challenge to urban and
metropolitan contexts.
It is estimated that traffic flows will reach about 64% of all the travels made around
the world [
1
], while cars are currently generating around 12% of total CO
2
emissions in
Europe [
2
] which are the main cause of the global warming. Furthermore, traffic pollution
is responsible for great damages to human health: In 2016, premature deaths, due to air
particulate were around 4.2 million worldwide [
3
], of which about 500,000 in Europe [
4
].
Traffic also has important economic implications in terms of loss of efficiency of the pro-
ductive system. On average, the economic losses, due to traffic congestion are estimated at
around 1% of the EU’s GDP annually [5].
To revert this trend, a shift towards more sustainable and inclusive mobility is clearly
recognised as a global target. Indeed, the UN-Habitat New Urban Agenda [
6
] asks for the
promotion and prioritisation of public and non-motorised transport, to reduce congestion
and pollution, while improving efficiency, connectivity, accessibility for all, health, and
quality of life, thus stressing the role of public and shared transport, as well as of walking
and cycling as sustainable means of transport.
To make the shift towards more sustainable means of transport effective for reducing
traffic congestion, pollution, and GHG emissions, walking, cycling and public transport
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13021001 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 2 of 24
should be better interconnected. This means to promote intermodality, i.e., the use of differ-
ent sustainable means of transport optimally combined to ensure a seamless journey [
7
,
8
],
thus contributing to reduce traffic and to free public spaces previously occupied by cars.
The importance to have more interconnected means of transport is recognised world-
wide. In the US, the National Centre of Intermodal Transportations (NCIT) has been
pushing towards a national intermodal system [
9
], while in China there is a strong commit-
ment in introducing more interconnected transport systems by defining proper planning
and design criteria for building new stations or adapting the existing ones [
10
]. In Europe,
there is a clear political commitment for promoting multimodal and interconnected trans-
port [
11
]. Indeed, the European Commission considers transport efficiency a policy priority
for reducing CO2 emission; it can be obtained not only by improving infrastructures and
shifting passengers to modes with lower carbon emissions, but also by enabling passen-
gers to plan door-to-door multimodal trips [
12
]. On the same vein are the most relevant
European policy documents on transport: The Action Plan on Urban Mobility [
13
] and
the White paper on transport policies [
14
] stress the need of ensuring greater integration,
interoperability, and interconnection of transport networks, while the ELTIS guidelines [
15
]
for developing Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans consider intermodality as a key topic for
more sustainable cities. Modal interchange and multimodality are also promoted by the Eu-
rope 2020 strategy [
16
], which encourages to focus on smart and interconnected transport
as key elements for supporting EU economic growth. More recently, also the Commission
Communication “Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy—putting European transport
on track for the future” [
17
] emphasises the role of multimodal transport for increasing
the efficiency of the transport systems and boost the EU sustainable growth, while the EU
Green Deal Strategy states the need to move towards multimodality by strengthening the
concept of Mobility as a Service [
18
]. The Commission Staff Working Document Evaluation
of the White Paper [
19
] released in December 2020 includes multimodality among the key
measures to reach the main objectives of the White Paper, together with decarbonisation,
digitalisation, deployment of alternative fuels, concepts for sustainable urban mobility,
social issues. Therefore, it is essential that planning policies and design decisions are clearly
oriented to promote seamless journeys by strengthening the connection among transport
services and infrastructures, to create an interconnected and reliable mobility system that
is easily accessible by people.
Several policy measures have been proposed for promoting multimodal transportation,
mainly by disincentivising private vehicle usage and promoting public transport and active
mobility [
20
], while many research projects and initiatives have been led to foster modal
interchange in the European context [
21
]. Moreover, the role of technological enablers for
enhancing multimodal transport (e.g., ICT-enabled web, mobile, and big data applications)
has been largely investigated, underlining the interest of research in this field [22–24].
Despite these attempts, the predominant use of private cars is still high, especially in
those trips that are not well covered by public transport [
25
]. Therefore, specific measures
and tools for improving the interchange between services by designing urban spaces
suitable for easy interchange are still needed [
26
,
27
]. To be competitive towards the use of
private motorised vehicles, multimodal mobility necessarily has to be reliable, safe and
comfortable, while ensuring more flexibility in the user’s daily travel, giving particular
attention to the interchanges, which are the places where people can change between
public and private transport, which is the user’s least appreciated part of the trip [
28
], as
well as between and within public transport modes [
29
], where the possibility to ensure
direct journeys is limited, therefore an interchange between different transport services is
strongly needed [
27
]. Besides, it is necessary to enable policymakers to consider multimodal
mobility comprehensively, thus enabling to keep sectorial transport and urban policies
together, as well as planning and design decisions.
Starting from these assumptions, this paper presents the results of the Interreg Europe
MATCH-UP project, which aims at boosting an effective modal interchange among different
low-carbon means of transport by identifying and exchanging Good Practices of modal
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 3 of 24
interchange among different territories, with a special focus on interchange hubs. Notably,
the project addresses the transport hubs as the places where people change from one means
to the other, considering both those features that can be influenced at the policy level,
by favouring a better integration between sectorial planning decisions for managing and
coordinating the interchange among transport modes and services, as well as its design
characteristics. Beyond considering the tangible (design) and immaterial (policies and
technologies) influence of interchangeable on the user’s experience of travel, the project also
addresses the level of integration of the transport node within the urban realm, considering
the hub at the same time as transport node and as an urban place [30,31].
To this aim, a methodology has been defined to assess the performance of the modal
interchange that happens in urban interchanges, with the aim to assist decision-makers
and designers in comparing different planning and design scenarios, and thus, selecting
the most promising ones. The main structural elements of the methodology refer to
identifying different types of an urban interchange and the most relevant factors influencing
its performance against nine specific dimensions, affecting both the policy and design level.
The first step of the methodology is identifying the main types of interchange hubs
that occur in the urban realm (primary stations, secondary stations, metropolitan stations,
outskirt park and ride interchanges), which should allow different connections among
means and between the means and the urban context and need diversified facilities and
services according to their importance. Secondly, it considers the key design and planning
factors that enable an effective modal interchange in the transport hubs. These factors are
grouped into nine different interchange dimensions, which are detailed with reference
both to policy and design levels. Each identified key factor is then weighted according to
its importance in comparison with other factors and in relation to the interchange rank.
A result is an easy-to-use tool through which the user can assess and compare different
project or policy scenarios against their effectiveness in supporting modal interchange
among low carbon means of transport.
The article is organised as follows: In the first section, different types of transport
interchange are identified and described, while in the second section, the key factors for
a seamless interchange are introduced and discussed. The third section describes the
proposed methodology, explaining the functioning based on the weights given to the
different key factors, in relation to the interchange importance and the two decision levels
(policy or design). Finally, the main results and findings are discussed.
2. Interchanges in the Urban Environment
An interchange node can be generally defined as a place where two or more means of
transport interconnect. It is possible to identify a considerable number of interchange hubs,
ranging from the airports, concerning mainly long-distance and intercontinental travels,
to the main railway stations, hosting long-distance high-speed train services, and hubs
hosting transport services for shorter trips, at the urban or regional level.
The scientific discussion mainly focuses on public transport interchanges [
9
,
32
,
33
], i.e.,
places where at least two means of public transport are present, thus avoiding park and
ride facilities, where only one type of public transport is involved. Given the importance
of the urban dimension and the focus on the urban realm, in this research we decided to
focus on those interchanges that are usually present in urban areas, thus avoiding airport
interchanges—that are normally located outside the urban context—and by including park
and ride interchanges. This allows the research findings to address not only big cities, but
also medium-size ones, where approximately 70% of the world’s population live [
34
] and
can benefit from interconnected transport systems.
Transport interchanges can be classified in different ways. One way is to classify the
interchanges by considering the two main transport modes involved, thus concentrating
on two means at a time [
9
]. Typical transport interchanges identified through this method
are: Airport/railway, railway/bus, coach/car interchanges. Another way focuses on the
main transport means that characterise the hub [
32
], by identifying specific parameters for
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 4 of 24
the categorisation, such as location, level of daily demand (passengers/day), catchment
area that the hub is able to attract, types of transport modes that need to be catered and
services provided. A typical example of this classification has been applied in the research
concerning the railway stations [
10
,
27
,
31
,
35
,
36
]. An additional, but less specific, way of
classifying the interchanges relate only to the location and importance of the hub in the
territory, by considering categories, such as: Hubs within the urban centres, suburban hubs,
regional centres and public transport stops [
37
]. In this research, we propose a classification
that first considers of all those interchange hubs that are present in urban areas. Secondly,
we identify four categories based on the importance of the means of transport involved,
represented by the distances covered by those means of transport, their catchment areas
and their commercial speed, and the daily frequentation of the hub (Table 1).
Table 1. Interchange node typologies identified in the urban areas.
Reference Category Interchange Node Typology Transport Means Involved
A Primary station
High-speed, intercity train
Regional/Metropolitan train
Interregional/Regional coach
Metro/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Local bus and tram
Taxi
Private car/motorcycle
Sharing services (bike, scooter, car, etc.)
Bicycle
On foot
B Secondary station
Intercity train
Interregional and regional train
Metropolitan train
Interregional/Regional coach
Metro/BRT
Local bus and tram
Taxi
Private car/motorcycle
Sharing services (bike, scooter, car, etc.)
Bicycle
On foot
C Metropolitan station
Metro/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Local bus and tram
Private car/motorcycle
Bicycle
Sharing services (bike, scooter, car, etc.)
On foot
DOutskirt park and
ride interchange
Private car/motorcycle
Metro/BRT
Local bus and tram
Bicycle
Sharing services (bike, scooter, car, etc.)
On foot
Category A includes primary interchange nodes identifiable by the high-speed train
stations that host high-speed and intercity train services, ensuring long-distance connec-
tions. These hubs are frequently connected with a bus station and with other important
transport services, such as regional and local railway transport, as well as the peri-urban
and urban public transport. Finally, many other means that usually serve the city locally,
such as sharing services, taxis, and bikes, are frequently present near these hubs, needing
dedicated spaces and proper connections. Taxis need dedicated parking areas to pick up
the passengers and well-structured facilities for bicycles are needed, such as bicycle racks,
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 5 of 24
but also guarded bike parks. The bike- and car-sharing systems can complete the panorama
of possible means of transport connected to the others in the immediate surroundings of
these hubs through specific access points or parking zones. The interchanges belonging
to category A have the highest importance and consequently require the highest level
of services.
Category B is in most of the cases identifiable with the main railway station of capital
cities and differs from the previous one for the lower importance of the railway connections,
which are characterised by intercity and interregional trains or long-distance coaches,
especially when the railway services are not present. Category B interchanges also present
a reduced supply of services and facilities with respect to category A.
Category C refers to the interchanges of urban mass transit, such as metro, subways,
or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). They are basically the smallest stations, but can ensure a certain
number of interconnections with short-distance urban transport. These means are then
fundamental in high-density cities, having high capacity and commercial speed, but a
limited number of stops to grant the speediness of the service. Therefore, complementary
transport facilities are necessary to cover the first/last mile of the trip. The Category C
interchanges ensure a lower level of services for passengers than the previous categories,
considering the high frequency of the transit that implies less waiting time.
Finally, the Category D directly involves the park and ride interchanges, parking lots
usually located in the city outskirts, which are mainly dedicated to shifting from car to
public transport or shared means. They are mainly used by people coming by car from
the suburbs or nearby towns which are far from the major public transport connections.
They can leave their car and reach the city centre by using public transport, avoiding
increasing congestion and air and noise pollution in the central part of the city. Also, in
these interchanges, a minimum level of services is required.
The identification of the different types of node is fundamental for identifying different
types of facilities and service levels that are requested for ensuring an effective interchange
at the design level and then for assessing the presence of those services and facilities in
specific situations.
3. Key Factors for Seamless Interchanges
The physical and functional design of the interchange hub has a crucial role in assuring
an effective interchange. Hernandez and Monzon [38] analyse several studies concerning
transport interchanges, highlighting different dimensions that should be taken into account,
not only related to the efficiency of the transport connections, but also to the urban and
perceived dimensions that play a crucial role in attracting users and in increasing the
quality of time spent within the interchanges. They reveal that accessibility, information
provision, safety and security and comfort are the most frequent factors affecting the quality
of the interchange, followed by layout, internal connections, ease of movement, waiting for
areas and services, and facilities. This topic has been addressed by reports and manuals
issued by major cities and institutions, such as the Asian Development Bank [
39
] and the
City of London [
40
], as well as by several research projects, such as the FP7 City-HUB and
FP7 NODES.
Moreover, modal interchange could be affected by other measures that refer not only
to the local scale, but rather to the policy level. Well-coordinated transport services, as well
as tailored norms and regulations for good management and design of the interchange [
41
],
can optimise the travel experience of users [
42
], influencing the performance at the local
level, while policies oriented to change people’s behaviour towards more sustainable and
multimodal mobility can produce interesting results with low investments.
Within this framework, MATCH-UP project investigates both policy and project-
oriented aspects affecting the interchange, starting from the analysis of 15 Good Practices
of modal interchange collected within the four territories involved in the project. The Good
Practices involve low carbon means of transport and affect both the local scale and the
policy level.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 6 of 24
Within the framework of MATCH-UP project, the good practices have been analysed
and discussed by the project partners and their relevant stakeholders operating in the
mobility sector to identify first of all the domains that mostly describe the nature and per-
formance of the interchange, with regards both to policy measures and node features, and
consequently the main key factors (KFs) within each domain that influence the reliability
and efficiency of the interchange. In our research, a KF is intended as a design or a policy
feature of a certain domain that can influence the performance of the interchange. Basing
on the results of this discussion and taking into account the above-mentioned studies, the
research has finalised the identification of the KFs that should be considered for assessing
the performance of the policies and the hubs’ design.
Totally, a set of 52 KFs has been selected; they have been clustered into the following
nine main domains that characterise the interchange:
1. Accessibility
2. Quality of the Interchange Environment
3. Safety and Security
4. Efficiency of the Interchange
5. Planning the Interchange
6. Service Information
7. Service Coordination
8. Initiatives Intended to Change Citizens’ Behaviours
9. Policies, Norms and Regulations
These domains can affect differently the policy and project levels. While Service
Information is equally relevant for both the policy and project levels, even if with specific
facets, Accessibility, Quality of the Interchange Environment, Safety and Security, and
Efficiency of the Interchange can be influenced mostly at the project level, being related
with the specific features that characterise the hub spaces and organisation. These four
domains are particularly relevant in those planning measures that aim to integrate the
transport and the urban role of the hub. Therefore, they have also been considered as
simple KFs within the Planning the Interchange domain, which is relevant at the planning
level and comprises all the aspects that encourage better integration between transport and
planning policies affecting the hub too. Instead, Service Coordination, Initiatives Intended
to Change Citizens’ Behaviours, and Policies, Norms and Regulations are less influenced
by the interchange hub’s configuration, but can have a big role at the policy level (see
Figure 1).
Moreover, the KFs considered within the policy level domains refer mainly to policy
goals that we can find within urban and transport policies oriented to promote multimodal
transport, while the other KFs refer mainly to design features, characterising the interchanges.
In the following paragraphs, the nine different domains are described, together with
the related KFs that have been put at the basis of the assessment methodology developed.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 7 of 24
Figure 1. The nine domains identified and their relevance to the policy and project levels.
3.1. Accessibility
This category is recognised as highly crucial for ensuring an effective and reliable
interchange [
10
,
38
,
40
,
42
–
45
]. It considers a broad spectrum of factors that ease the acces-
sibility of the interchange nodes, ranging from the embedment of the universal design
principles in the hub’s space configuration to the presence of different transit access points
and to the quality and quantity of nearby pedestrian paths and cycle lanes.
The universal design principle applied in transportation is aimed at creating accessible
and inclusive infrastructures, providing the same opportunities to all, avoiding discrim-
ination in access, and ensuring social integration [
46
]. Notably, it focuses on designing
more accessible spaces for all means, on ensure high-quality spaces in every condition and
for every ability, being permanent or temporary. Additional facilities, as the presence of
dedicated staff and services helping people to get assistance for moving inside the node, are
recommended in the main transport hubs (cat. A,B) where distances and path complexity
are high.
High levels of pedestrian accessibility should be present not only within the transport
hubs, but also in their urban surroundings, linking the different transport access points
together and with the city pedestrian network. It is important to consider that, in every
type of hub, walking is always present as a means of transport and a privileged option for
actually moving from a means to another and within the hub spaces. This micro-mobility
is crucial for ensuring an effective interchange [
47
] inside the node and in the immediate
surroundings; therefore, it should be taken into high consideration, as well as the physical
space where the interchange should happen, by reducing unsafe situations mainly in road
crossings or by decreasing physical and visual barriers.
Similarly, the hub design should provide good accessibility conditions to all the means
of transport reaching the node. Cycling is another privileged choice to access the transport
hub [
48
], therefore ensuring good accessibility and safety of the area to cyclists is another
important factor to consider [
49
] for every type of transport node. This means basically to
provide proper and secure spaces for parking the bicycles near the access points to the other
means, positively influencing this transport choice [
48
]. Moreover, the transport hub has to
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 8 of 24
be easily accessible not only by walking and cycling, but also for those who reach the node
by car or motorcycle; therefore proper parking areas for private motorised vehicles are necessary.
Their configuration varies depending on the hub’s importance, ranging from parking slots
to overseen guarded parking with subsidiary services.
The provision of taxi stands and kiss and ride lanes for short time car parking in the
node proximity are other important factors to consider in the main transport hubs (cat.
A,B). They must be located in a position that guarantees a safe and quick get on and get off.
If the city is provided with an e-car recharging network, the parking areas where com-
muters leave their own car for the whole day can be equipped with this facility. The same
principle is valid for any shared mobility service. Likewise, dedicated parking areas and
access points to bike and car-sharing services eventually present in the urban context
should be located near the hub to ease the interchange.
Finally, it worth also mentioning wayfinding as a complementary KF to the general
layout of the interchange space, that reduces the need of signing [
40
] by giving indications
about the networks and the spaces of the interchange, based on the cognitive attitudes of
the users to interpret them [
50
]. Adopting wayfinding solutions is particularly important
in the biggest interchanges, where layouts and paths are complex and articulated and a
more careful design of the wayfinding expedients is therefore needed.
The KFs related to the Accessibility domain are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Key Factors (KFs) relevant to the Accessibility domain.
Accessibility
Key Factors Sub-Categories
Universal design
Interchange spaces designed for all passengers, particularly those
with reduced mobility (presence of boarding equipment, ramps,
escalators, staircase aids for bikes, wheelchairs, strollers, etc.)
Presence of dedicated staff helping people to get assistance inside
the node, particularly for those with impairments
Accessible pedestrian routes
Ensure routes in the surroundings have the same accessibility
standards as within the interchange node’s space and the
availability of good connections with the surrounding paths and
parking areas
Parking facilities (near the
interchange node)
Presence of cycle parking areas
Presence of parking areas for private motorised vehicles (cars,
motorcycles, etc.)
Presence of recharging facilities for e-cars
Presence of kiss and ride lanes
Presence of taxi stands
Shared mobility Presence of hiring spots of all the existing sharing systems in the
surroundings (car/bike/scooter/e-car-sharing systems)
Wayfinding
Basic design solutions to ensure consistent, clear, and
understandable signage, to help passengers moving within the
interchange node (maps, direction signs, and local main
information areas)
Additional design solutions to ensure consistent, clear, and
understandable signage, to help passengers moving within the
interchange node (totem pole, platform signage, light signals, etc.)
As mentioned before, accessibility should be considered also at the policy level, as a
general principle to ensure an efficient interchange, by adopting governance models and
policy measures that set priorities and accessibility conditions [
42
], as well as a maximi-
sation of the multimodality in the interchanges. In our methodology, we integrated these
concepts into the Efficiency of the Interchange domain.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 9 of 24
3.2. Quality of the Interchange Environment
Similar to Accessibility, this category is of great importance to design high-quality
interchange environments and to ensure the waiting time is pleasant [
44
,
51
]. It relates
to the interchange comfort and refers to the availability of facilities affecting the wait-
ing time
[10,38,40,45]
, from the basic ones, which should be present in each interchange,
to additional facilities and services provided in biggest interchanges. The category also
considers the “urban” dimension of the node in relation to the surrounding urban environ-
ment [30,31,43] with which it should be somehow connected.
While cleanliness and good maintenance are features requested in each node, the
importance of the interchange is the main deciding factor that affects the type and level of
facilities required, which have the role of making the node not only a pleasant place for
passengers, but also for people that can pass through the interchange for other reasons [
31
].
Toilets, seats, and covered areas are other basic facilities that should be provided at each
interchange, while additional facilities, such as catering, Wi-Fi connection, collection
lockers, and waiting areas are needed in the bigger nodes, where the waiting time can
be longer. The most important hubs are frequently conceived also as catalysts of many
and diversified commercial, retail, and entertainment facilities making the hub place a
destination in itself [
10
]. This affects the extent to which the hub can integrate with the
urban realm where it is embedded—being not an enclave, but a piece of the city.
To the same extent, it is crucial to increase the interchange node permeability to pedes-
trian paths to integrate it in the urban area, overcoming the barriers that can hamper the
connections with the surroundings [52].
Another important factor tightly linked with the previous ones relates to the perception
that the passengers and city users have when passing through or near the hub. Perception
is affected by the legibility and the architectural features adopted for designing the node,
elements that should be well studied, to reinforce the role of the hub as a landmark, mainly
for the hubs located in central urban areas (cat. A,B,C). The creation of well-designed paths,
attractive frontages, and clear perceptual links between internal and open spaces [
40
], as
well as natural enlightened areas [
10
] are key aspects for improving the perception of the
transport infrastructure as an urban place, stimulating its frequentation.
This category can have a role also at the policy level. The adoption of design standards
aimed at making the interchange not only an element of the transport networks, but also
an urban place, valorising the time spent during the interchange, is an important factor
that should characterise integrated transport and urban policies, dealing with promoting
multimodal integrated transport means within the cities.
Table 3lists all the KFs considered as relevant for the Quality of the Interchange
Environment domain.
Table 3. KFs relevant to the Quality of the Interchange Environment domain.
Quality of the Interchange Environment
Key Factors Sub-Categories
Urban realm
Presence of basic facilities (within or close to the interchange area): Toilets,
seats, and covered waiting areas
Presence of facilities that add value to the user’s experience, especially during
the waiting time (catering and collection lockers, WIFI, waiting areas, etc.)
Presence of additional services both for travellers and city users (retail) inside
and/or nearby the node
Permeability
High interchange node permeability from all directions to pedestrians (node as
an urban connection, not a barrier)
Perception
Clear relationship with the urban realm (e.g., using the same architectural style
to reinforce legibility)
Cleanliness High standards of cleanliness and maintenance of the node’s spaces (covered
spaces, waiting rooms, presence of bins, etc.)
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 10 of 24
3.3. Safety and Security
This category examines another critical aspect characterising the transport inter-
changes: Safety and security, inside and around interchange [
38
,
44
,
45
]—preventing both
accidents or dangerous situations, due to the intersection of different means of transport, as
well as crime and disorder [
40
], and undermining the real and perceived safety of the users.
Traffic safety is, therefore, an important factor to consider, which can be increased
by minimising the interferences between pedestrians and transport flow, adopting good
design solutions that prevent accidents and injuries to passengers.
Concerning personal security, design expedients, such as avoiding isolated, dark, or
segregated areas, as well as a security management system based on the installation of video
surveillance and security supervisions, are other KFs that have to be ensured in each hub.
Safety and Security issues can have a role also at the policy level, stimulating specific
measures aimed at increasing these aspects. In our methodology, they have been considered
as KFs for ensuring the efficiency of the interchange at the policy level.
Table 4lists all the KFs considered as relevant for the Safety and Security domain.
Table 4. KFs relevant to the Safety and Security domain.
Safety and Security
Key Factors Sub-Categories
Traffic safety
Minimised interferences between pedestrians and transport flow,
with urban design solutions that ensure high levels of safety,
especially in road crossing (lower speed limits near the stops,
pedestrian crossings, etc.)
Design for security
Design of spaces avoiding isolated, dark or segregated areas that can
be not safe
Security management Video surveillance, security supervision, etc.
3.4. Efficiency of the Interchange
While the assessment of the Quality of the Interchange Environment considers the
urban dimension of the interchange, the “efficiency” refers to the general functioning of the
interchange as a transport hub. It takes into consideration specific KFs like the availability
of space for daily transport activities and for future improvements, the organisation of
facilities directly tied to transport, and the presence of proper signals for drivers and users.
The availability of appropriate space for vehicles [
53
] stopping and passing by is a
crucial condition for interchange centres, avoiding time losses. Fast circulation inside the
node raises the overall commercial speed of trips and consequently the appeal of public
transport. The presence of appropriate signals for all types of drivers approaching the hub
is also an important factor to consider. Kiss and ride lanes, parking areas, cycling paths
and facilities, taxi stands should be clearly signalled, reducing congestion and confusion in
the interchange node and urban surroundings. This is valid for every type of interchange
hub—both big interchange nodes or small stations or Outskirt park and ride interchanges.
The proximity among the access points of the different means of transport with short
pedestrian distances is a crucial feature [
43
,
45
] to ensure comfortable and quick transfer
from a means to another, reducing time for the transfer and guaranteeing a reduced effort
for the users.
The efficient fare payment system and ticket validation is another KF that increases the
general efficiency of the transport node [
45
]. The level of service varies from the different
types of interchanges, from dedicated ticket offices to automatic machines, but a minimum
level of facilities, such as ticket vending and validation machines, should be ensured in
every node or within its immediate surroundings.
Another aspect to consider is the possibility to expand or reorganise the interchange node
by hosting new means of transport, enhance the existing ones or to simply rearrange the
node to adapt it to new needs. When designing interchange nodes, it is important, where
possible, to leave adequate space in the nearby of the hub and adopt flexible configurations,
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 11 of 24
to ensure easy reorganisations of the node. This factor might be disregarded in the bigger
hubs that host many transport modes and have been reorganised and enlarged with
several urban constraints, due to the existing urban infrastructures and buildings in the
surroundings [9].
Table 5lists all the KFs considered in this study within the Efficiency of the Inter-
change domain.
Table 5. KFs relevant to the Efficiency of the Interchange domain.
Efficiency of the Interchange
Key Factors Sub-Categories
Efficient vehicle movements
Presence of enough space for movement of transport vehicles
involved in the interchange (e.g., vehicles access, manoeuvring
or transit area, etc.)
Presence of proper signals for drivers approaching the
interchange area (e.g., stop or parking areas, transit routes,
service area, etc.)
Proximity (short pedestrian
routes for passengers)
Presence of short and direct routes for pedestrians connecting
facilities and destinations related to the passenger’s trip
Efficient fare payment and
tickets validation
Presence of ticketing machines in convenient locations to
purchase and/or validate tickets near the interchange node
Presence of ticket offices in convenient locations or near the
interchange node to purchase tickets
Flexibility in time and use Interchange node design that eases the accommodation of new
transport modes or the implementation of the same system
3.5. Planning the Interchange
Adopting proper policies favouring the interchange planning is crucial not only at the
design level, but also when specific urban and transport policies oriented to encouraging
modal interchange are defined. Planning the interchange in our study refers to a policy ap-
proach based on integrating different urban and transport policies and planning oriented to
boost an efficient modal interchange [
54
]. The search for close proximity in the localisation
of different transport hubs and stops, the establishment of minimum requirements for fare
payment and tickets validation or for ensuring safety and security are factors becoming
relevant policy goals at the policy level. Therefore, transport and urban policies oriented to
increase interchange efficiency can anticipate the factors that we have already described at
the design level, such as Accessibility, Quality of the Interchange Environment, Safety and
Security, and Efficiency of the Interchange.
Table 6lists all the KFs considered within the Planning the Interchange domain.
Table 6. KFs relevant to the Planning the Interchange domain.
Planning the Interchange
Key Factors Sub-Categories
Design standards for the interchange
as a transport hub
Promote efficient physical organisation of interchange spaces for a
good movement of passengers and vehicles
Design standards for the interchange
as an urban place
Ensure a good level of transport facilities for passengers in the
interchange space
Proximity Boost physical proximity between different means of transport
Efficient fare payment and ticket
validation in the interchange nodes
Promote the necessary equipment of ticketing stations and services
to purchase and validate tickets near the interchange node
Level of interchange Foster the maximisation of the no. of low-carbon means of
transport interconnected in the main transport hubs
Safety and security
Ensure good levels of safety (from traffic) and security conditions in
the interchange environment
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 12 of 24
3.6. Service Information
An important domain that can influence the decision to use public transport is related
to the provision of information [
55
]. This is particularly crucial when we consider the
interchanges and the transport services and ancillary facilities involved. The availability
of real-time information is fundamental for planning a journey. Customers aim to save
time and effort all along the journey by receiving reliable information to plan the trip [
25
].
Therefore, this category has important implications—both at the policy and design levels.
The service information provided can vary according to the importance of the in-
terchange. The systematic provision of basic information material and devices, such as
timetables and real-time information panels, is a necessary requirement for each inter-
change and affects both integrated transport policies and design solutions.
At the design level, in the most important interchange nodes, these basic information
services can be complemented by the presence of information offices and dedicated staff.
Likewise, at the policy level, two main kind of information services can be provided to
support users and customers in planning their trips and managing possible disruptions or
delays, namely: The establishment of traditional information services, such as call centres
or booking services, accompanied by online information tools, such as apps and website
providing real-time information and the possibility to book. The availability of both digital
and physical information points is conceived for making the information accessible to all,
including older adults or disabled people, that can benefit more from one service or the
other, depending on their level of disability or degree of digitalisation.
Table 7lists all the KFs included in the Service Information domain at both policy and
project level.
Table 7. KFs relevant to the Service information domain.
Service Information at the Policy Level Service Information at the Project Level
Key-Factors Sub-Categories Key-Factors Sub-Categories
Basic components of
service information at
transport stops
Promotion of a diffused
presence of timetables
and real-time
information panels Basic components
of service
information
Presence of fixed
timetable panels
within the node
Information services
Ensure the adoption of
call centers and other
services for delivering
information (booking
services also)
Presence of real-time
information and
timetable panels
within the node
Online information
Ensure the availability
of apps/websites
allowing passengers to
access information in
advance or while
travelling (integrated
journey planner)
Info point with staff
Presence of info
points/offices with
personal available to
help users
3.7. Service Coordination
This category of KFs (listed in Table 8) mainly refers to the policy level. It examines
the general coordination between the services carried out by different operators and the
provision of adoptable schemes in cases of service disruptions—both for minor delays and
critical events. It can also comprise the availability of an integrated fare scheme allowing
easy payments and access to different transport services, and the standardisation and
promotion of the Mobility as a Service (MaaS) approach.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 13 of 24
Table 8. KFs relevant to the Service Coordination domain.
Service Coordination
Key Factors Sub-Categories
Timetable coordination
Adopt coordinated timetables (departures and arrivals) of
different means of transport to reduce transfer time and improve
customers’ convenience
Delay management
Adopt procedures connecting services waiting for each other in
the event of minor delays, especially when frequencies are low
Adopt procedures in case of significant delays and
service disruptions
Ticket coordination Adopt an integrated multimodal ticketing system
Standardisation Foster uniform technical, service, and design specifications
(particularly information, ticketing, interchange design)
MaaS Promote the use of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) approach and
infrastructures for organising the service coordination
An important factor in this domain is the possibility to synchronise the departure
times of different transport means at a mobility hub, finding a balance between minimising
the waiting time and giving enough time for the transfer [
56
]. Several studies have been
elaborated on this topic [
57
–
60
] highlighting its importance for better management of the
public transport services. This aspect considers the timetable coordination of the scheduled
services, but also the delay management, i.e., the possibility to adapt the scheduled time for
better addressing possible delays of one means that should be kept synchronised with the
others. This last aspect is even more important when transport services are less frequent.
Another important factor for ensuring efficient transport service coordination is the
easiness of the payment for each service. The most effective and spread solution is to
provide an integrated ticketing service [
33
], including public transport services and facilities
in force in the hub and within the functional urban area. The availability of a unique
payment method for many transport services can have a positive effect also for promoting
Mobility as a Service (MaaS) approach among the city residents, changing their attitude from
owning a vehicle to accessing multiple choices of shared and collective means of transport,
choosing the one that best fits with the trip planned [
42
]. Stimulating MaaS approach has
advantages for the whole city by reducing street occupancy and reducing traffic emissions
and congestion.
Finally, it is important to introduce standardisation of design concepts to ensure the
legibility of the interchanges independently from their location in the city [
40
]. Maintaining
common formal and structural elements among the interchanges hubs and stops, such
as signals, facilities, furniture design, and communication and information material and
services, can ease identification and direction inside the hub. Standardisation can produce
important effects at the design level, stimulating better accessibility and quality of the node
design. These aspects have been already tackled in this paper within the Accessibility and
Quality of the Interchange Environment domains.
3.8. Changing Behaviours
Within this category, the policy actions that are beneficial to change behaviours are
analysed, to boost the adoption of mobility behaviours based on multimodality and on the
use of more sustainable means of transport, such as active mobility, public transport, and
shared vehicles.
These soft measures are gaining more and more importance, since they raise the aware-
ness on the effects of unsustainable mobility behaviours and on the benefits of changing
towards more sustainable and healthy mobility lifestyles. An interesting example promoted
at European level is the European Mobility Week [
61
] where local authorities are invited to
present initiatives for mobilising people towards more sustainable mobility behaviours.
The 2018 edition was focused on multimodal mobility, and 765 actions were submitted,
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 14 of 24
highlighting, on the one hand, the importance of the topic for boosting sustainable mobility,
and on the other hand, a big involvement from the local authorities and public bodies in
raising awareness on the benefits of multimodal mobility.
At the local level, there are many examples of traditional sensibilisation actions through
communication campaigns to show the advantages and environmental benefits of sustain-
able transport, and of bottom-up approaches tended to engage the users in promoting
these different behaviours. Moreover, more innovative approaches based on the learning
by doing and gamification have been implemented.
The learning-by-doing approach is a key policy strategy to educate people, and espe-
cially youngsters, to adopt more sustainable mobility behaviours [
62
], while bottom-up
approaches see users directly involved in proposing specific initiatives and measures for
changing towards alternative means of transport.
Gamification is a way to stimulate new behaviours through a competition between
citizens, who become players and are rewarded if they change their behaviours [63]. This
practice is frequently used in the transport sector to incentivise a voluntary shift towards
sustainable mobility without impositions [64] and has achieved successful results.
Table 9lists all the KFs considered within the Changing Behaviours domain.
Table 9. KFs relevant to the Changing Behaviours domain.
Changing Behaviours
Key Factors Sub-Categories
Learning by doing
Encourage practical activities and demonstrations that help users
discovering the benefits of multimodal, interconnected
transport system
Sensibilisation Promote communication campaigns that help users discovering
the benefits of multimodal, interconnected transport system
Gamification Promote competitions that help users discovering the benefits of
multimodal, interconnected transport system
Bottom-up approaches Foster the direct engagement of relevant target groups in
organising the activities
3.9. Policies, Norms and Regulations
This domain considers the establishment of different forms of collaboration, set by
shared protocols and agreements, and joint initiatives that are aimed to achieve high levels
of integration in the management of the transport networks and services among the
different stakeholders. By considering the interchange node, where multiple transport
companies might operate, efficient and innovative cooperation and business model schemes
are necessary to ensure a seamless interchange experience.
Besides agreements and protocols, a significant aspect refers to how the decision-
making process takes place. The co-creation of shared solutions through the activation of
round tables involving the key decision-makers and transport companies responsible for
the services connected with the interchange can produce positive effects in boosting the
modal interchange. Similarly, the engagement of citizens and users in co-creating mobility
services and solutions [
65
] can produce valuable results for achieving high-quality levels
of services and facilities for passengers within the interchange.
Table 10 contains all the KFs considered within the Policies, Norms and Regula-
tions domain.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 15 of 24
Table 10. KFs relevant for Policies, Norms and Regulations domain.
Policies, Norms and Regulations
Key Factors Sub-Categories
Joint governance and initiatives
Adopt targeted policy actions, framework conditions,
recommendations, norms, etc. involving different
transport service providers focused on promoting
multimodal low carbon mobility
Coordination and cooperation
Foster an interchange facility management agreement,
identifying interfaces and responsibilities between all the
parties involved in managing and serving the
interconnected services
Sharing solutions
Activate and promote round tables and shared decision
processes with relevant stakeholders, to build solutions
enabling modal interchange and seamless mobility
Adopt participatory processes, involving citizens and
transport users, to co-create solutions enabling modal
interchange and seamless mobility
4. The Decision Support System for Assessing the Interchange
The identification and role of the nine identified domains and related KFs and the
different types of interchange occurring in the urban contexts have been assumed as the
basis for setting a decision support system for supporting decision-makers and designers
to maximise the performance of the interchange through the assessment of different policy
and design scenarios. These scenarios can represent existing situations currently in place,
such as interchange configurations or urban and transport policies in force in a certain
context, or projects and policy proposals, that can potentially increase the effectiveness of
the interchange. The method takes the form of an easy-to-use Decision Support System
(DSS) useful for supporting designers and decision-makers in making informed decisions
towards more incisive solutions boosting multimodal and interconnected mobility, by
comparing the results of different solutions and deciding which ones are more effective
against the nine different domains. Starting from the selected domains and related KFs, the
decision support system has been built upon the following main stages:
1. Determining weights for the KFs within each domain, to consider the different roles they
have for influencing the performance of the interchange;
2.
In case of project level domains, determining the relevance of the KFs according to the node
ranking, to highlight the different level of services, facilities, and complexity against
each interchange category;
3.
Definition of the KFs quality scoring system to rate the performance of the case studies
and the identification of relevant thresholds to assess the overall performance;
4. Finetuning and normalisation of the scores.
The automation of the assessment procedure has been managed by two Excel sheets:
The former is related to the policy level, and the latter attains the node features (design
level). Both sheets are designed for providing the results of the assessment and both host a
matrix where each record represents a KF weighted according to its role in the functioning
of the interchange.
4.1. Determining Weights for the KFs
In our methodology, not all the KFs have the same importance for ensuring an effective
interchange. To weight the KFs, MATCH-UP project partners and their stakeholders have
been involved by providing a rating of the KFs comprised in the same domain. This task
has been led for all the nine domains. Notably, this participatory process foresaw that
around 20 people among project partners and their stakeholders provided their own rating
of each KF belonging to the same domain by considering its relative impact for ensuring
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 16 of 24
an efficient interchange in comparison with the other KFs belonging to the same domain.
The experts used the following scores to rate the KFs’ impact:
•
3 = high impact: The impact of the KF is high for ensuring the success and the
performance of the interchange in that specific domain, in terms of services and
functionalities provided;
•
2 = medium impact: The impact of the KF is medium, therefore its absence is signifi-
cant, but does not impede the overall functionality and efficiency of the interchange in
that specific domain;
•
1 = low impact: The impact of the KF is low, therefore its absence does not significantly
alter the overall performance of the interchange in that specific domain.
In Table 11, the results of the weighing of the KFs included in the Service Coordination
domain is shown as an example. The same procedure has been led for all the KFs related
to the nine domains.
Table 11. Example of scores adopted for weighing the KFs of the Service Coordination domain.
Service Coordination
Key Factors Sub-Categories
KF Impact
3 = high
2 = medium
1 = low
Timetable coordination Coordinated timetables (coordinated departures and arrivals) of different means of
transport to reduce transfer time and improve customers’ convenience 3
Delay management
Presence of procedures connecting services wait for each other in the event of minor
delays, especially when frequencies are low 2
Presence of adoptable procedures in case of significant delays and service disruptions
1
Ticket coordination Presence of a comprehensive multimodal ticketing system 3
Standardisation Presence of uniform technical, service, and design specifications (particularly
information, ticketing, interchange design) 2
MaaS Use of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) approach and infrastructures for organising the
service coordination 1
At the end of this stage, we obtained the final rating of the KFs’ impact by calculating
the average of the scores provided by the experts for each KF, in case of different opinions.
4.2. Determining the Relevance of the KFs according to the Node Ranking
The determination of the KFs weights described before has been led for all the domains,
thus considering the policy and project levels. If this score attribution is considered to
be enough for the policy level, additional considerations are needed at the project level,
according to the different types of interchange hubs. Therefore, additional analysis has
been foreseen for the KFs included within those domains that are relevant at the project
level, to consider their relevance and necessity with reference to the type of interchange
hubs. To achieve this aim, a set of three numeric values has been identified to recognise
different situations:
•0.5 = the KF is considered as not relevant and unnecessary to the specific node type;
•
1 = the KF is recommended for the good functioning of the interchange, but is not
necessary to the specific node type;
•
2 = the KF is very relevant and necessary for the good functioning of the node
type considered.
These three values do not represent an additional weighing of the KFs, but rather a
numeric value that registers three different situations. The experts have also been involved
in this task, by providing their rating about the level of relevance each KF presents against
the node category. According to this second analysis, we highlighted the differences in
terms of necessity in the presence of certain KFs instead of the others. As an example, if we
analyse the values associated with the KFs of the Quality of the Interchange Environment
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 17 of 24
domain (see Table 12), in relation with the interchange types, we can see big differences in
the definition of certain KFs relevance, according to with the node importance.
Table 12.
Example of KFs relevance identification adopted for the Quality of the Interchange Environment domain,
represented by the scores in the columns associated with the four different node types selected.
Quality of the Interchange Environment
KEY FACTOR RELEVANCE
Key Factors Sub-Categories Key Factor
Impact
A
Primary
Station
B
Secondary
Station
C
Metropolitan
Stop
D
Outskirt Park
And Ride
Interch
Urban realm
Presence of basic facilities: Toilets,
seats and covered waiting areas 3 2 2 1 1
Presence of facilities that add
value to the user’s experience,
especially during the waiting time
(catering and collection lockers,
WIFI, waiting areas, etc.)
3 2 2 1 0.5
Presence of additional services
both for travellers and city users
(retail) inside and/or nearby
the node
2 2 2 1 1
Permeability
High interchange node
permeability from all directions to
pedestrians (node as an urban
connection not a barrier)
2 2 2 2 1
Perception
Clear relationship with the urban
realm (e.g., using the same
architectural style to
reinforce legibility)
2 2 2 1 0.5
Cleanliness
High standards of cleanliness and
maintenance of the node’s spaces
(covered spaces, waiting rooms,
presence of bins, etc.)
3 2 2 2 2
After this value attribution, each interchange category owns a different set of weights
associated with the KFs included within the design-related domains. These final weights
result from the multiplication of the KF impact scores and the KF relevance scores.
4.3. Definition of the Key Factor Quality Scoring
After having weighed the KFs within each domain and according to ranking of the
different nodes, the back-end part of the DSS is almost completed. The DSS has been
complemented with a front-end section dedicated to collect the user’s appraisal concerning
each KF’s quality shown within existing policies and interchanges configuration or even in
new policies and projects. This quality appraisal refers to the extent to which each KF can
boost multimodality and an effective modal interchange.
The scores included in this section are the only data managed and provided by the
user (who can be a policymaker or a designer, depending on the specific element to assess)
through a dedicated user interface. More specifically, the possible values the user can
select are:
•1 = absent: The KF analysed is not present in the policy or in the project assessed;
•
2 = low quality: The KF is available, but does not fully satisfy minimum quality
requirements as perceived by the user;
•
3 = fair quality: The KF is present and perceived by the user with a sufficient level
of quality;
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 18 of 24
•
4 = good quality: The KF is present and appreciated by the users. Its quality is good,
allowing optimal functioning of the interchange;
•
5 = high quality: The KF is present with high-quality standards, offering an outstand-
ing example.
This final scoring assesses the performance of each KF in relation to its quality level
and allows to appreciate the performance of a policy or an interchange per single domain
and as a whole. Indeed, the tool provides the total score by multiplying the quality scores
with the KF impact and KF relevance, this last one if the assessment refers to the node
design (see Table 13).
Table 13.
Example of the KF quality scoring adopted in the Quality of the Interchange Environment domain for assessing a
primary node.
Quality of the Interchange Environment
KF Relevance
Key Factors Sub-Categories KF
Impact
A
Primary
Station
KF Quality Total Performance Score
Urban realm
Presence of basic facilities: Toilets,
seats and covered waiting areas 3 2 4 24
Presence of facilities that add value
to the user’s experience, especially
during the waiting time
3 2 5 30
Presence of additional services both
for travellers and city users (retail)
inside and/or nearby the node
2 2 5 20
Permeability
High interchange node
permeability from all directions
to pedestrians
2 2 3 12
Perception Clear relationship with the
urban realm 2 2 2 8
Cleanliness High standards of cleanliness and
maintenance of the node’s spaces 3 2 1 6
Total score of the domain: 64
4.4. Finetuning and Normalisation of the Scores
The back-end part of the rating system has been finetuned by adopting specific
controls in the node design assessment based on the KF relevance. In particular, if the KF
considered is only suggested or unnecessary (KF relevance equal to 1 or 0,5), its influence
on the final rating should be negligible in case of low-quality performance or absence of the
KF. Therefore, in this case, when the KF presents a low-quality performance or is absent,
the total score reached for the same KF is automatically set as equal to 0, otherwise the final
product would be positive and increase the final score. At the same time, the calculation of
the domain’s thresholds has been set by not considering in the sum those KFs that present
a performance score equal to 0. In this way, the low performance or absence of the KF does
not influence the total score of the domain, since its presence is not required. Conversely, if
the same KF with relevance 1 or 0,5 presents a quality from 3 to 5, the multiplication of the
relevance, impact, and quality factors is allowed, increasing the final score of the domain.
The last step for finalising the DSS has been the normalisation of the results to make
the data associated with each domain more comparable. The total scores reached in each
domain, given by the sum of all the KF performance scores, have been normalised against
the highest quality threshold, obtaining a value ranging from 0 to 10, where 6 and 10
represent, respectively, the sufficient and maximum thresholds. The Decision Support
System functioning is shown in Figure 2.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 19 of 24
FRONT-END I Values
to be set by the user
Denion of the KFs
quality score
absent,
high
quality
BACK-END I Preseng and automac calculaon
Weighng of the KFs
high impact low impact).
Only for the node design level:
Adjustment of the KFs' weight according to their
relevance for the interchange considered
not relevant, recommended, relevant
Finetuning and normalizaon of the total scores
Figure 2. The Decision Support System operation.
5. Results
The proposed tool allows to rate and visualise the performance of a policy or a
node (existing or future) against their attitude to boost an effective modal interchange, by
considering the performance they reach in each relevant domain. The scores reached in
each domain are the result of the evaluation of all the identified KFs within that domain.
To gain a clear and overall picture of the situation, the tool provides a visualisation
of the results through a radar graph. This output easily identifies which domains present
criticalities and which ones are most performing in a specific case study, being a policy or
an interchange hub (Figure 3). The radar graph also visualises two important thresholds,
representing the fair and high-quality levels obtained for each domain, allowing to easily
interpret the results of the evaluation. The two thresholds are identified by assigning,
respectively, the fair quality and the high-quality scores, respectively, 3 and 5, to all the
KFs in each domain. Therefore, if the score reached by a certain policy or project under
evaluation in specific domains are below the fair level, the radar graph in those domains’
axes will be smaller than the ones of the fair level.
The extent and the regularity of the area visualised in the graph represent the overall
performance of the policy or project analysed. The wider and more regular the area, the
more the policy or project guarantees satisfactory and balanced outcomes as a whole and
in terms of promoting effective interchange. At the same time, it is possible to identify
which domains are more critical in terms of ensuring an effective interchange, allowing
the decision-maker or the designer to better investigate which are the specific problems
behind this low performance. In fact, the high or scarce performance registered in one
domain depends on the quality performance, the impact and eventually the relevance
scores assigned to each KF within that domain, which are punctual factors that together
concur to define the overall situation. Therefore, while the results of the assessment are
aggregated per single domain, to modify the behaviour of a specific domain the user has to
focus on those factors that are more critical for the definition of the final result. In particular,
the user can check the total performance score of each KF and then the quality score
assigned to first identify what the total contribution of the KF to the domain’s performance
is and secondly if the current quality of the KF must be improved. This allows the user
to understand if the low performance score is due to the overall importance of the KF
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 20 of 24
(given by the product of KF impact and relevance) or to the quality score assigned or both,
helping the user to better define possible improvements. As an example, it could be better
to improve a small part of a KF quality that is of high importance instead of improving a
large part a KF quality that present a low importance.
Figure 3.
Example of the radar graph obtained after the assessment of an interchange. The Quality of
the Interchange Environment score is below the fair threshold, while the Accessibility score is near
the high-quality value.
Another key aspect that characterises the DSS is the equal weighting of the nine
domains composing the overall evaluation. Indeed, the methodology and the DSS work
mainly at the level of the single KF through a very inclusive approach by defining to what
extent they concur to increase the performance of the interchange within their domain and
inviting decision-makers and designers to focus on their quality level and to take them into
account when setting new interchange policies and project or changing the existing ones.
Therefore, the nine domains have been considered independently in the sense that we
did not compare and weight KFs owning to different domains. In fact, the normalisation
process attributes the same maximum values to each domain, giving the same importance
to them. Grouping the KFs into domains allows the decision-makers to easily identify
specific fields (domains) where to work for improving the performance of the interchange.
The tool has been tested by the MATCH-UP project partners on several policies and
projects where the interchange promotion was addressed differently. The testing phase
was led by considering current situations and possible new scenarios defined by a change
in the current state of the art of a policy or project. This phase was useful also to appreciate
the role of the KFs and the domains within the two planning levels, giving important
feedbacks that help to reorganise the KFs within the domains and the domains themselves.
The results achieved were satisfactory, proving good reliability of the tool.
6. Conclusions
The need to boost policies and solutions to enable a shift towards more sustainable
means of transport, such as walking and cycling and public transport, passes through pro-
moting an effective modal interchange. This means to foster the use of different sustainable
means of transport that can be optimally combined, ensuring a seamless journey [7,8].
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 21 of 24
The conditions that determine the good establishment of multimodal travel have been
widely studied by scholars and public institutions, achieving the definition of recurrent
factors able to realise a seamless interchange, which should be comfortable, reliable, and
safe. At the same time, these studies underlined a complexity in deepening all the multi-
faceted aspects affecting the performance of the interchange, and only a few of them have
considered the factors influencing the modal interchange as a whole.
The methodology and the related decision support system developed in this study
aimed to fill this gap. It did this by providing a comprehensive and overall assessment
of the conditions that affect the effective promotion of the modal interchange among
sustainable means of transport and multimodal mobility policies in the urban environment.
The developed tool is available for free [
66
], and it provide a quick and qualitative
assessment method which is aimed at supporting planning and design decisions oriented
to promote an effective modal interchange. Indeed, the methodology considers the in-
terchange under two main planning levels, policy and design, being able to evaluate the
performance of both the interchange nodes, which are the key places where people change
from a means to another, and the transport and mobility-related policies, that can establish
good governance, planning, and behavioural conditions for an effective modal interchange.
The methodology took the form of a decision support system, a computer-based
system that supports the decision-making activities [
67
] by providing qualitative results
that can be analysed both at the domain and KF levels. Indeed, the tool developed
has a twofold intent. On one hand, it supports the analysis of current policies or node
configuration, assessing the performance they actually have, identifying possible gaps and
shortcomings that can lead to the definition of improvements to undertake. On the other
side, it can forecast the performance of new interchange projects and/or policy changes,
comparing different future scenarios.
The Decision Support System (DSS) provides a user-friendly interface where the user
is asked to insert a judgment upon the quality of all the relevant KFs, and clear visualisation
of the results of the assessment in a radar graph. This judgment is a very delicate stage
and implies that the user has a minimum level of competences to associate a quality score
to each KF. To this regard, it is important to consider that the methodology and the tool
are targeted to local administration’s technicians and designers that can clearly identify
the nature of the KFs and easily appreciate their quality and role within a certain policy
or project.
The DSS is not only able to rate and visualise the performance of a node per each
domain, but also to identify which specific factors are more critical for achieving good
performance. In fact, the score reached in each domain is the sum of the scores reached by
each KF—therefore, if some KFs obtain low quality scores, they determine a general lower-
ing of the domain’s score. It is, therefore, easy to identify which domain is more critical
and consequently which KFs are responsible of low performance levels and concentrate on
them for improving their quality, for the benefit of the entire domain. This allows the DSS
to support an iterative decision-making process, since the decision-maker or the designer
can go back to the decisions taken and revise them with progressive adjustments on the
specific KFs, to obtain the solutions that guarantee greater effectiveness, also according to
possible economic constraints.
The methodology can be improved by further adjusting the KFs and related weights
through the direct involvement of the travellers that usually use the transport services and
move in the interchange hubs to understand how they perceive all the aspects analysed
and their importance in the overall travel experience.
In conclusion, we consider this methodology and the associated tool a good compro-
mise for easily assessing the performance of the interchange and the policies promoting
multimodal mobility. Decision-makers, technicians, and designers can benefit from this
tool to lead a preliminary assessment of current situations and future planning and design
scenarios in terms of their promotion of an effective modal interchange.
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 22 of 24
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, P.I.S.R. and E.C.; methodology, P.I.S.R., G.G. and E.C.;
supervision, S.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Interreg Europe (MATCH-UP project).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
Data available in a publicly accessible repository. The data presented
in this study are openly available in AMS Acta at doi:10.6092/unibo/amsacta/6580, reference
number [66].
Acknowledgments:
We would thank the MATCH-UP project partners and their relevant stakeholders
who took part to this study by contributing to the Key Factors weighing and to test the methodology.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Zampano, G. New Solutions to Shape the Future of Urban Mobility. Infrastructure Channel. August 2017. Available online:
https://www.infrastructure-channel.com/article/-/content/new-solutions-to-shape-the-future-of-urban- mobility (accessed on
24 April 2020).
2.
European Commission. Reducing CO
2
Emissions from Passenger Cars—Before 2020 [Climate Action]. 2020. Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en (accessed on 12 May 2020).
3.
World Health Organization. Ambient (Outdoor) Air Pollution. 2 May 2018. Available online: https://www.who.int/en/news-
room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and- health (accessed on 12 May 2020).
4.
European Environment Agency. Air Quality in Europe—2019 Report; EEA Report No. 10/2019; European Environment Agency:
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019. [CrossRef]
5.
Panayotis, C.; Ibáñez Rivas, J.N. Measuring Road Congestion; Report EUR 25550 EN; Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Scientific and Technical Research Series; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2012. [CrossRef]
6.
United Nations. New Urban Agenda. In Proceedings of the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Ur-
ban Development—UNHabitat—Habitat III [Report A/RES/71/256], Quito, Ecuador, 17–20 October 2017. Available online:
https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda (accessed on 12 May 2020).
7.
European Commission. Multimodal Personal Mobility, version 2.0; Smart Cities and Communities—Smart Cities Stakeholder
Platform; Klug, S., Ed.; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. Available online: https://eu- smartcities.eu/sites/
default/files/2017-10/Multimodal%20personal%20mobility%20january.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2020).
8.
Allard, R.F.; Moura, F. The Incorporation of Passenger Connectivity and Intermodal Considerations in Intercity Transport
Planning. Transp. Rev. 2016,36, 251–277. [CrossRef]
9. Blow, C. Transport. Terminals and modal interchanges. In Planning and Design; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005.
10.
ADB. Improving Interchanges: Introducing Best Practices on Multimodal Interchange Hub Development in the People’s Republic of China;
Asian Development Bank (ADB), Ed.; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2015. Available online: https://
www.adb.org/publications/improving-interchanges-multimodal-interchange-hub-development- prc (accessed on
12 May 2020
).
11.
European Commission. Urban Agenda for the EU—Pact of Amsterdam; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
Available
online
:https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/decisions/2016/pact-of-amsterdam-
establishing-the-urban-agenda- for-the-eu (accessed on 24 April 2020).
12.
Schoemaker, J.; Scholtz, A.; Enei, R. Towards Low Carbon Transport in Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
[CrossRef]
13.
European Commission. Action Plan on Urban Mobility; Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU document: COM (2009) 490;
European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_
mobility/action_plan_en (accessed on 12 May 2020).
14.
European Commission. White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area—Towards a Competitive and Resource-Efficient
Transport System; Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU document: COM (2011) 144 final; European Commission:
Brussels, Belgium, 2011. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:en:
PDF (accessed on 2 November 2020).
15.
Wefering, F.; Rupprecht, S.; Bührmann, S.; Böhler-Baedeker, S. Guidelines. Developing and Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plan; European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. Available online:
https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-developing-and-implementing-a- sump_final_web_jan2014b.pdf (accessed
on 12 April 2020).
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 23 of 24
16.
European Commission. Europe 2020—A European Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth; Communication from
the Commission—Reference: COM (2010) 2020 final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. Available online:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC2020 (accessed on 24 May 2020).
17.
The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee & the Committee of the Regions. Sustainable and Smart Mobility
Strategy–Putting European Transport on Track for the Future; Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament—
Reference: SWD(2020) 789 final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2020:789:FIN (accessed on 2 November 2020).
18.
European Commission. A European Green Deal. Striving to Be the First Climate-Neutral Continent; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on
12 May 2020).
19.
European Commission. Evaluation of the 2011 White Paper on Transport. “Roadmap to a Single European Transport. Area—Towards a
Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System” [Commission Staff Working Document Evaluation of the White Paper—Reference:
SWD (2020) 411 Final]; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2080- Evaluation-of-the- 2011-White-Paper-on-Transport (accessed on 12 April 2020).
20.
Tsirimpa, A.; Polydoropoulou, A.; Pagoni, I.; Tsouros, I. A reward-based instrument for promoting multimodality. Transp. Res.
Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019,65, 121–140. [CrossRef]
21.
Giannopoulos, G.A.; Tsami, M.T. Defining common goals for future intermodal mobility. In Proceedings of the Mobility
Convention 2014 Transportation of Tomorrow, Enabling Smarter Intermodality, Cologne, Germany, 6–7 November 2014.
22.
Harris, I.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H. ICT in multimodal transport and technological trends: Unleashing potential for the future. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 2015,159, 88–103. [CrossRef]
23.
De Sá, M.; Duarte, C.; Carriço, L.; Reis, T. Designing Mobile Multimodal Applications. In Multimodality in Mobile Computing and
Mobile Devices: Methods for Adaptable Usability; Igi Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2010. [CrossRef]
24.
Ding, L. Multimodal transport information sharing platform with mixed time window constraints based on big data. J. Cloud
Comput. 2020,9, 11. [CrossRef]
25.
Grotenhuis, J.; Wiegmansa, B.W.; Rietveld, P. The desired quality of integrated multimodal travel information in public transport:
Customer needs for time and effort savings. Transp. Policy 2007,14, 27–38. [CrossRef]
26.
Liu, R.; Pendyala, R.M.; Polzin, S. Assessment of Intermodal Transfer Penalties Using Stated Preference Data. Transp. Res. Rec.
1997,1607, 74–80. [CrossRef]
27.
Monzón, A.; Hernández, S.; Di Ciommo, F. Efficient urban interchanges: The City-HUB model. 6th Transport Research Arena
(TRA) April 18–21, 2016. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016,14, 1124–1133. [CrossRef]
28.
Schakenbos, R.; La Paix, L.; Nijenstein, S.; Geurs, K.T. Valuation of a transfer in a multimodal public transport trip. Transp. Policy
2016,46, 72–81. [CrossRef]
29.
Riley, P.; Bührmann, S.; Hoenninger, P.; Christiaens, J. Intermodal Passenger Transport in Europe—Passenger Inter-
modality from A to Z. LINK, the European Forum on Intermodal Passenger Travel, Funded by the European Com-
mission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport DG MOVE. Research for Sustainable Mobility. Available on-
line: http://docplayer.net/24689235-Intermodal-passenger-transport- in-europe-passenger-intermodality-from-a-to-z-the-
european-forum-on-intermodal-passenger-travel.html (accessed on 2 November 2020).
30. Bertolini, L. Nodes and places: Complexities of railway station redevelopment. Eur. Plan. Stud. 1996,4, 331–345. [CrossRef]
31. Conticelli, E. La Stazione Ferroviaria Nella Cittàche Cambia; Bruno Mondadori: Milan, Italy, 2012.
32. Edwards, B. Sustainability and the Design of Transport Interchanges; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2011.
33. Luk, J.; Olszewski, P. Integrated public transport in Singapore and Hong Kong. Road Transp. Res. 2003,12, 41–51.
34.
Demographia. Demographia World Urban Areas, 16th ed.; Demographia: Belleville, IL, USA, 2020. Available online:
http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2020).
35. Facchinetti-Mannone, V. La nodalitédes gares TGV péripheriques. Cahiers Sci. Transp. 2005,48, 45–58.
36.
Rete Ferroviaria Italiana, RFI. Classificazione Degli Impianti Ferroviari Aperti al Pubblico; Comunicazione operativa n. 242/RFI del 27
luglio 2007; RFI: Rome, Italy, 2007.
37. Bell, D. Intermodal Mobility Hubs and User Needs. Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 65. [CrossRef]
38. Hernandez, S.; Monzón, A. Key factors for defining an efficient urban transport interchange: Users’ perceptions. Cities 2016,50,
158–167. [CrossRef]
39.
Chen, C.; Hickman, R.; Saxena, S. Improving Interchanges: Toward Better Multimodal Railway Hubs in the People’s Republic of
China; Asian Development Bank (ADB), Ed.; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2014. Available online:
https://www.adb.org/publications/improving-interchanges-prc (accessed on 24 April 2020).
40.
Transport for London. Interchange Best Practice Guidelines 2009—Quick Reference Guide; Transport for London: London, UK, 2009.
[CrossRef]
41.
LINK Expert Working Groups. 2010. Available online: http://www.rupprecht-consult.eu/uploads/tx_rupprecht/LINK_
recommendations_brochure_fullversion_final.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2020).
42.
ERTRAC Working Group: Joint ERTRAC-ERRAC-ALICE Working Group on Urban Mobility. Integrated Urban Mobility
Roadmap. 2017. Available online: https://www.ertrac.org/index.php?page=ertrac-publications (accessed on 27 October 2020).
Sustainability 2021,13, 1001 24 of 24
43.
Lamíquiz Daudén, F.J.; Carpio-Pinedo, J.; García-Pastor, G. Transport interchange and local urban environment integration. XI
Congreso de Ingenieria del Transporte (CIT 2014). Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014,160, 215–223. [CrossRef]
44.
Lucietti, L.; Hoogendoorn, C.; Cré, I. New tools and strategies for design and operation of urban transport interchanges.
6th Transport Research Arena (TRA) April 18–21, 2016. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016,14, 1240–1249. [CrossRef]
45.
Bryniarska, Z.; Zakowscka, L. Multi-criteria evaluation of public transport interchanges. 3rd Conference on Sustainable Urban
Mobility, 3rd CSUM 2016, 26–27 May 2016, Volos, Greece. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017,24, 25–32. [CrossRef]
46.
Steinfeld, E. Universal Design of Mass Transportation. In Universal Design Handbook; Preiser, W.F.E., Smith, K.H., Eds.; McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2001; Chapter 19; pp. 19.1–19.10.
47.
Van Soest, D.; Tight, M.R.; Rogers, C.D.F. Exploring the distances people walk to access public transport. Transp. Rev.
2019
,40,
1–23. [CrossRef]
48.
Liu, C.; Tapani, A.; Kristoffersson, I.; Rydergren, C.; Jonsson, D. Development of a large-scale transport model with focus on
cycling. Transp. Res. Part A 2020,134, 164–183. [CrossRef]
49.
Fistola, R.; Gallo, M.; La Rocca, A.R.; Russo, F. The Effectiveness of Urban Cycle Lanes: From Dyscrasias to Potential Solutions.
Sustainability 2020,12, 2321. [CrossRef]
50.
Rüetschi, U.J.; Timpf, S. Modelling wayfinding in public transport: Network space. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Spatial Cognition IV. Reasoning, Action, Interaction. International Conference Spatial Cognition 2004, Frauenchiemsee, Germany, 11–13
October 2004; Freksa, C., Knauff, M., Krieg-Brückner, B., Nebel, B., Barkowsky, T., Eds.; Revised Selected Papers; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; Volume 3343. [CrossRef]
51.
Meng, M.; Rau, A.; Mahardhika, H. Public transport travel time perception: Effects of socioeconomic characteristics, trip
characteristics and facility usage. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018,114, 24–37. [CrossRef]
52.
Conticelli, E.; Tondelli, S. Railway Station Role in Composing Urban Conflicts. Trimest. Lab. Territ. Mobil. Ambient. (TeMA Lab.)
2011,4, 47–48. [CrossRef]
53.
Desiderio, N. Requirements of Users and Operators on the Design and Operation of Intermodal Interchanges. Technishe
Universitat Darmstadt. Fachgebiet Verkehrsplanung und Verkehrstechnik. 2004. Available online: http://www.verkehr.
tudarmstadt.de/media/verkehr/fgvv/for/publik/S007.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2020).
54.
Conticelli, E. Assessing the potential of railway station redevelopment in urban regeneration policies: An Italian case study.
Procedia Engineering 2011 International Conference on Green Buildings and Sustainable Cities. Procedia Eng.
2011
,21, 1096–1103.
[CrossRef]
55.
Beirão, G.; Sarsfield Cabral, J.A. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transp.
Policy 2007,14, 478–489. [CrossRef]
56.
Currie, G.; Bromley, L. Developing measures of public transport schedule coordination quality. In Proceedings of the 28th
Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), Sydney, Australia, 28–30 August 2005; Volume 28.
57.
Ceder, A.; Golany, B.; Tal, O. Creating bus timetables with maximal synchronization. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract.
2001
,35,
913–928. [CrossRef]
58.
Cevallos, F.; Zhao, F. Minimizing transfer times in public transit network with genetic algorithm. Transp. Res. Rec.
2006
,1971,
74–79. [CrossRef]
59.
Shafahi, Y.; Khani, A. A practical model for transfer optimization in a transit network: Model formulations and solutions. Transp.
Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2010,44, 377–389. [CrossRef]
60.
Liu, T.; Ceder, A. Synchronization of public transport timetabling with multiple vehicle types. Transp. Res. Rec.
2016
,2539, 84–93.
[CrossRef]
61.
European Commission. Sustainable Urban Mobility: European Policy, Practice and Solutions; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2017. [CrossRef]
62.
Schwanen, T.; Banister, D.; Anable, J. Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: The case of low-carbon mobility. J.
Transp. Geogr. 2012,24, 522–532. [CrossRef]
63.
Yen, B.T.H.; Mulley, C.; Burke, M. Gamification in Transport Interventions: Another Way to Improve Travel Behavioural Change; Working
Paper ITLS-WP-18-06; Established under the Australian Research Council’s Key Centre Program; Institute of Transport and
Logistics Studies: Sydney, Australia, 2018.
64.
Kazhamiakin, R.; Marconi, A.; Perillo, M.; Pistore, M.; Valetto, G.; Piras, L.; Avesani, F.; Perri, N. Using gamification to incentivize
sustainable urban mobility. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 1st International Smart Cities Conference, ISC2 2015, Guadalajara,
Mexico, 25–28 October 2015. [CrossRef]
65.
Sopjani, L.; Stier, J.; Ritzén, S.; Hesselgren, M.; Georén, P. Involving users and user roles in the transition to sustainable mobility
systems: The case of light electric vehicle sharing in Sweden. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019,71, 207–221. [CrossRef]
66.
Conticelli, E.; Saavedra Rosas, P.I.; Tondelli, S.; Gobbi, G. Decision Support System for Evaluating the Performance of Modal Interchange;
AMS Acta: Bologna, Italy, 2021. [CrossRef]
67.
Chan, N.W.; Samat, N. Decision support system for urban planning. In Sustainable Urban Development Textbook; Chan, N.W.,
Imura, H., Nakamura, A., Ao, M., Eds.; Water Watch Penang & Yokohama City University: Yokohama, Japan, 2016; Chapter 31;
pp. 199–203.
Content uploaded by Elisa Conticelli
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elisa Conticelli on Mar 25, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
