“We wanted to understand how mobility hubs could become real game-changers for sustainable and inclusive urban transport,” explains project coordinator Karst. “What we found is that many implementations focus heavily on physical aspects while missing crucial opportunities for digital and social integration.”
Beyond Physical Infrastructure
The project developed a novel framework examining mobility hubs through three crucial lenses: physical integration (how different transport modes connect), digital integration (how services are accessed), and democratic integration (how communities participate in planning hubs).
Their comprehensive analysis revealed a startling gap: while most hubs perform well at physical integration – providing spaces for bikes, scooters, and public transport – they often fall short on digital accessibility and community involvement. This oversight matters because shared mobility services typically require sophisticated digital skills that many citizens lack.
“In a large-scale survey of 1,500 people across four living labs, we found that only one third of the population has the level of digital skills needed to use shared mobility effectively,” Karst notes. “These services often require users to navigate multiple apps for planning, booking, and payment – skills that exclude many potential users.” With almost half of Europe’s adult population struggling even with basic website navigation, the challenge becomes even more significant for complex mobility services.
The Digital Divide in Practice
Through interviews with 50 vulnerable users and organisations and our survey across four living labs, researchers identified significant barriers to shared mobility use. The typical user profile—young, male, and highly educated—reflects the current system’s limitations rather than true public need. A common need among vulnerable user groups is human assistance to support them when using transport services at mobility hubs, e.g. to provide necessary information or help to book a service or buy a ticket.
In Vienna, one promising example emerged. The local transport operator, Wiener Linien, offers training sessions to help older residents navigate their mobility app. In Brussels, ‘mobility coaches’ – volunteers who help people with lower digital skills understand their transport options – demonstrate another approach to bridging the digital divide.
The project tested innovative solutions like digital kiosks in Brussels and Rotterdam. These physical interfaces aimed to make shared mobility more accessible to those who struggle with smartphone apps. While user feedback was positive, many wanted additional functionality like ticket printing, highlighting the need for comprehensive solutions beyond phone-based digital interfaces.
Learning from Living Labs
The project’s living lab experiments revealed unexpected challenges in hub implementation. In Munich, researchers tested different hub layouts and service combinations. While removing parking spaces for hubs can meet resistance, successful implementations created new community spaces – though sometimes with unintended consequences like noise from social gatherings.
The project’s researchers in Brussels’s Anderlecht district used a mobile bus for co-creation sessions, allowing residents to explore different hub designs and functionalities. These sessions revealed diverse preferences – from weather shelters to staffed information points – that might otherwise have been overlooked.
Beyond City Centres: The Participation Challenge
Perhaps most surprisingly, the research revealed a widespread lack of community involvement in hub planning. “In most cases, there is no form of participatory planning whatsoever,” Karst explains. “When you think about public transport, user participation is much more organised. But with shared mobility, we often don’t even try to understand user needs.”
This lack of engagement becomes particularly problematic in low-income and peripheral areas. While mobility hubs thrive in city centres, private providers naturally target dense, affluent neighbourhoods, leaving other communities underserved. The business model for shared mobility services often fails in less dense, lower-income areas, creating a cycle of exclusion. The project’s findings suggest that Policy regulations, such as those used to improve public transport accessibility, can be extended to mobility hub policies. For example, public tenders for shared mobility services can include requirements for serving less profitable areas, coupled with universal design guidelines and meaningful community engagement. Providers will continue to focus on affluent, central neighbourhoods without such regulation, exacerbating transport inequality.
Tools for Change
The project developed several practical resources for cities, including an open data platform visualising hub characteristics across Europe. Their integration ladder framework helps cities assess hub ‘smartness’ across physical, digital, and democratic dimensions, providing a practical tool for evaluation and improvement.
Testing in different contexts showed that successful hubs often need more than transport services. Some locations benefit from additional facilities like parcel lockers or meeting spaces, while others require basic amenities like a small supermarket and seating. The key lies in understanding local needs through genuine community engagement.
From Private to Public Service: Policy Implications
One of the project’s most significant findings concerns the tension between private service provision and public needs. While shared mobility services often operate as private businesses, their role in urban transport suggests they should be treated more like public services.
This shift in perspective has important implications for regulation. Cities might need to establish new requirements for mobility providers, starting with obligations to serve less profitable areas rather than just focusing on lucrative city centres. Regulations could also mandate alternative booking methods beyond smartphones, ensuring services remain accessible to those without advanced digital skills. Such requirements would need to be coupled with meaningful community consultation processes and support systems, including training for new users. Perhaps most importantly, new services would need to integrate seamlessly with existing public transport networks, creating a truly comprehensive mobility system rather than a patchwork of competing services.
Creating Truly Smart Hubs
While technological solutions are essential, true accessibility requires considering the needs of all potential users. Success requires a balanced approach combining physical infrastructure, digital accessibility, and genuine community involvement. Most importantly, it requires recognising that mobility hubs serve a public function, even when operated by private companies.
“If we want these to be inclusive,” Karst concludes, “we need better regulation and more attention to users who might not be early adopters. Otherwise, we risk creating systems that serve only a privileged few.”