Stronger Combined is a research and innovation project co-funded by the Interreg North Sea Region Programme. The overarching goal of the Stronger Combined project is to support experimentation with multimodal and intermodal passenger travel solutions in rural, small-town, and tourist (RUSTT) regions. The project consists of nine independent experimental sites, or living labs, in seven Interreg North Sea Region countries. Living labs are administered by either regional public transit authorities or municipalities with support from research institutes, universities, or private consultancies. Each living lab conducted at least one transportation pilot that attempted, through various means, to encourage alternatives to the personal motor vehicle. In all living lab contexts, the personal motor vehicle is the single dominant mode of transportation, which presents environmental, social, and economic challenges that Europe and the world must begin to address. The purpose of this report is to summarize and assess the performance of each pilot with special attention to increases in use of public transportation and decreases in carbon dioxide (equivalent) emissions. Communities in RUSTT regions face special transportation challenges largely because they lie outside dense transportation networks that tend to make multimodal transportation more efficient in larger cities. The Stronger Combined project aims to address these special challenges by piloting alternatives to the personal motor vehicle that allow travellers to more easily transition among multiple modes of transportation on a single journey. The piloted solutions vary enormously across living labs. They include several bikeshare programs that serve unique purposes in each context, a ridesharing service, a contractual restructuring that affords populations with special needs easier access to traditional public transit, a technical pilot testing a new national ticketing-and-payment standard, and a demand-responsive bus program in a mountainous tourist region. The pilots targeted user groups in very different ways and tested solutions over different time scales, making of pilots very challenging. At the beginning of the Stronger Combined project, the authors of this report endeavoured to apply the KOMPIS framework a series of data collection tools designed to evaluate mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) to each pilot. In most living labs this framework had to be adapted and downscaled to fit the capabilities and time scale of individual pilots. As a brief example, the full KOMPIS framework involves travellers completing travel diaries every day for a full week. Such a task is well suited for a pilot in which the key goal is for travellers to adopt multimodal travel habits, but it is unnecessarily detailed for a pilot that involves endusers renting a cargo bike for one or small number of specific trips. The COVID-19 pandemic also meant that several pilots were delayed or overhauled, requiring the relatively rapid development of new data collection strategies tailored to each pilot. The report below summarizes each pilot􀂶s contribution to public transit ridership and carbon savings, yet the most important and perhaps ironic finding in this report is that the context-specific nature of piloted solutions does not lend itself well to a one-size-fits-all evaluation framework. Substantial Stronger Combined D6.2 5 increases in public transit ridership were apparent in several pilot projects, however calculating the number of individuals that shifted to public transit modes was either irrelevant or impossible in most of the pilots. Similarly, we calculate substantial CO2 savings due to shifts in travel modes across many of the pilots, but it is arguably unfair to compare shifts across living labs. Living labs collected data in a variety of ways at a variety of time scales in pilots of varying size. Some pilots achieved relatively large absolute carbon savings (due in part to a larger number of participants) while others achieved impressive per person- or per kilometre savings relative to a baseline scenario (due in large part to a focus on transitions from personal vehicles to bicycles). Improving person-transportation in RUSST regions is it is effectively a set of unique problems that resist being solved at scale. A bike sharing program that works well as a first/last mile solution for hospital employees in a semi-rural Swedish region would not offer much value to a Danish village where many households have access to personal bicycles for local trips and where transportation outside the village by bicycle is practically impossible. The different pilots presented in this report each present unique and useful findings beyond the reported target KPIs. A sample of these findings include:  Introducing e-bikes as a mode of transportation makes the biggest difference for utility trips (e.g. trips to work or school), but is associated with relatively little change in individuals leisure travel or short trips around the neighbourhood (Genk pilot).  Elderly and disabled travellers will use public buses when offered for free or when given lowcost access (Groningen Drenthe pilot). Ridesharing in small towns is already rather common but tends to occur among family, friends, and familiar neighbours. Encouraging the use of ridesharing mobile apps will require enhancing drivers sense of familiarity with potential co-riders (Skive pilot).  Experts project that ID-based ticketing will be most useful to individuals that already use public transportation uncertain. These findings reflect existing academic research on MaaS, which shows that the most likely users of combined mobility offerings those without strong loyalties to any particular mode (Hallandstrafiken pilot). A sizeable majority (87.5 percent) of registered uses of a bikeshare service appear to use their subscription at least once a month, suggesting they are integrating bikeshare as a part of their routines rather than as a one-time solution (HiTrans pilot). Subscribers to an e-cargo bike pilot tended to be individuals that use a standard bicycle for travel several times a week and have positive attitudes toward bicycles. Thus, familiarity and positive attitudes about non-cargo bicycling may influence willingness to adopt cargo bikes as an option for transporting heavier loads or children (Rinteln pilot).