In Brussels, 76% of young people walk regularly. The metro (44%), buses (43%) and trams (32%) are also popular choices. Respondents appreciate the accessibility and convenience of public transportation, but some complain about outdated vehicles. Dissatisfaction with buses, in particular, stems from overcrowding, infrequent service and limited routes. Cycling is common (42%), but safety concerns and inadequate infrastructure trouble 19% of those who never cycle. Scooters are more or less unpopular (50% never use them), yet 22% use them regularly. Although 25% of young people abstain from cars, a majority (62%) still drive, suggesting potential for eco-friendly alternatives.

Delivery use is common, with 25% of respondents making weekly and 23% making monthly orders, driven by time-saving (26%) and convenience (20%). 66% of respondents preferred a longer delivery time if it were cheaper, and 32% if it were more sustainable. 

In Budapest, 82% walk regularly despite mentioning issues with pathways; over 50% of young people frequently use buses, metros and trams, which are seen as efficient and environmentally positive, but others point out concerns about comfort, cleanliness and safety. Cycling has mixed responses, with 37% of regular users and 32% never cycling. Infrastructure challenges are pointed out. Car usage is mixed, 30% never use it and 37% use it regularly, reflecting a positive shift away from private vehicles; scooters are used by 15% regularly, but 69% never use them, indicating limited adoption.

Online delivery frequency varies, with 37% ordering a few times a year and 21% ordering monthly; 9% ordering daily and 13% ordering weekly. 29% opt for online shopping to save time, while 47% prioritise price, 26% value doorstep delivery and 18% value sustainability. About 55% are open to extended delivery times for lower costs, and 39% for increased sustainability.

In Thessaloniki, walking is the preferred mobility choice for young people (77% regular), with buses used regularly by 32%, though efforts are needed to address the 20% who never use buses. Dissatisfaction with the bus network’s reach and unreliability is notable. Many respondents outlined their dissatisfaction with the slowness of building the metro. Car usage is relatively high (53% regular, 24% never), indicating both car reliance and openness to alternatives. Cycling shows a split (20% regular, nearly 45% never), with satisfaction (56%) and dissatisfaction (44%), based on a lack of bike lanes and safety concerns. Scooter use is limited (20% regular, 63.27% never), reflecting mixed adoption. 

Delivery use seems to be quite common, with 34% using it weekly, 10% daily and 24% two to three times a week. Most (49%) choose online delivery to save time. 79% would accept longer delivery times if it were cheaper, and only 10% would accept it if it were more sustainable. For 72% the price of the order is most important, while only 8% care whether it is sustainable or not. 

Lisbon’s young people favour walking (78% regular) and the metro (49% regular). Buses see 35% regular use but 17% never use them, suggesting room for improvement. Feedback on public transport is mixed, praising options and environmental aspects but noting reliability, infrastructure, traffic congestion and coverage issues. Cycling and scooter use are limited, with 51% never cycling and 61% never using scooters, signifying scope for improved biking and micro-mobility infrastructure. However, there is a significant portion of 22% that cycles regularly. Regular car use is at 57%, despite 11% never using cars, signalling a need to address car reliance.

Online delivery is used by 23% weekly, 19% a few times a month and 17% two to three times a week, driven by time-saving (32%), convenience (25%). A significant proportion (59%) would opt for longer delivery times for cost-effectiveness, while 30% would do so for sustainability. This inclination towards the price factor is echoed in the most crucial factor for delivery, which is the order’s price (44%), followed by doorstep delivery (23%).

Krakow’s preferred transportation mode is walking (78% regular), followed by trams (58% regular) and buses (45% regular). Satisfaction with tram and bus availability contrasts with frustration over their unreliability and lack of frequency. Urban rail is used less (12% regular, 57% never), while cycling is balanced (48% regular, 33% never). Car usage is divided, with 46% regular and 25% never users. Scooter usage is limited (61% never, 21% regular). This mix reflects a varied mobility landscape, with potential for promoting sustainable options while addressing issues of reliability.

In Krakow, online delivery is common with weekly orders (17%) or 2-3 times a week (18%). Occasional orders include a few times a month (14%) or monthly (22%), while daily (10%) and yearly (12%) orders exist to a lesser extent. The most common reasons for ordering are time-saving (29%) and cost (17%). 80% would accept extended delivery for cost savings, while only 18% would for sustainability.

In Cluj, respondents predominantly rely on walking (81%) and driving (52%) as their primary modes of transport. Public transport is used extensively by 30% of buses. While satisfaction exists with walking and bus facilities, dissatisfaction arises from the lack of trains and the absence of a metro. Car dependency and traffic-related issues, including noise and pollution, are highlighted. Bicycle usage is limited, with 18% using it regularly and 46% never using it, possibly due to safety concerns related to inadequate infrastructure and hazardous road conditions.

Young people frequently opt for delivery services, with 72% utilising them from monthly to 2-3 times weekly. Time efficiency is the key driver, as is the price. Cheaper, longer delivery is acceptable to 63%, while 35% seek greater sustainability.

In Groningen, there is a strong affinity for cycling, as 57% cycle extensively and 35% cycle occasionally, contributing to a cityscape that prioritises bicycles (with 90% being satisfied with the cycling in the city). Walking is also common, engaging 57% of respondents regularly. Urban rail garners popularity, with 21% using it extensively. Conversely, bus usage is less frequent, as 37% never use it and only 10% do so regularly. Car usage remains modest (64% never drive, while only 7% drive regularly), showcasing the city’s success in promoting eco-friendly alternatives. Scooter use is infrequent (81% never use it). Favourable comments highlight seamless cycling, well-developed bike lanes and pedestrian-centric infrastructure. Negative feedback highlights issues like unclear pedestrian setups, limited nighttime public transport and parking-related challenges.

Online delivery services are used by 42% a few times a month, while 31% use them only a few times a year. Diverse options (22%) and convenience (20%) drive usage, with 46% valuing price and 28% sustainability. In contrast to the other cities, in Groningen, longer delivery times would be accepted if they were sustainable for 50% of respondents, followed by cheaper goods (44%).

In Lund, 71% prefer walking, while cycling is notably popular (47% regular), indicating that it is a transport habit among young people in Lund. Some (19%) never cycle. The cycling infrastructure is praised, but cobblestone roads pose challenges. Bus use is balanced: occasional (33%), regular (28%) and extremely regular (14%), with only 9% never using it. Buses are perceived as reliable, though complaints arise about nighttime services and limited routes. Trams are unpopular (81% never use them), with critics underscoring the need for longer tram hours and better reliability, possibly contributing to their infrequent use. Car use varies: 42% never use it, 23% use it occasionally and 19% use it regularly, indicating a balanced reliance on cars. Scooter usage is limited (61% never, 33% occasional, 4% regular).

9% never do online shopping, while most use it occasionally (33% a few times a year and 28% monthly). Weekly and daily use is limited, indicating varied reliance on online shopping. The top reasons are variety (27%) and time-saving (22%). Price matters most to 53%, followed by sustainability (18%) and proximity (18%). If cheaper, 70% accept delayed delivery and 17% prioritise sustainability, which underscores the significance of cost considerations.

Walking and cycling stand out as preferred modes, with 75% walking regularly and 50% cycling, highlighting the city’s pedestrian-friendly environment and cycling habits. However, 20% never cycle. The metro is the most used public transport mode, with 50% regular and 20% occasional users. Other modes vary: buses have 30% occasional, 30% infrequent and 20% regular use. Tram usage is similar. Urban rail sees 42% never and 21% regular usage. Views on public transport differ, with convenience and comfort contrasted by concerns over delays, unreliable schedules, and crowding. Car usage is moderate, 40% regular and 35% never. Negative feedback addresses traffic, environmental impacts and advocates for greener urban planning. Walking and cycling draw praise, but there are issues like dangerous roads and poor paths in suburban areas. Scooter use is limited (73% never and a mere 5% regular use).

Online delivery is prevalent among young people, with 20% using it weekly and 26% monthly. However, 20% use it only a few times a year, which suggests that for some it is not a regular practice but rather used for specific occasions. Time-saving (21%) and variety (18%) are the top reasons. Price matters to 32%, sustainability to 30%. If cheaper, 57% would accept delayed delivery; 34% prioritise sustainability.

In Dublin, walking is the preferred mode, with 68% walking regularly. Buses are popular, being used regularly by 47%, yet 11% abstain. 23% are regular tram users, but 46% never use it, which might be due to limited tram lines, unreliability and issues with safety (as based on criticism). Positive remarks in regards to public transport note improved accessibility and reliable intercity rail services, but negativity concerns reliability, interconnectivity and inadequate night services. Car reliance is evident, as 52% drive regularly, praised for convenience, while 27% never drive, indicating the need for alternative options. Cycling is less popular, with 53% never cycling, but 25% are regular cyclists. Concerns are raised about unsafe infrastructure and a lack of dedicated lanes. Scooter use is minimal, with 75% never using them.

Online ordering frequency varies. While 24% order weekly, 25% do so a few times a year and 20% monthly. Leading reasons include time-saving (24%), convenience (23%) and variety (23%). If cheaper, 64% accept extended delivery times, aligning with 56% prioritising price. 25% would accept longer delivery if it were more eco-friendly.