Access/egress travel to train stations poses a significant barrier to increasing the number of train travellers. The last mile is challenging for travellers, given the lack of private modes to reach the destination, strongly limiting the egress range from the station. An often-cited solution is shared micromobility (SMM): bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters and e-mopeds. Through a stated preference survey, we analyse activity-end mode-choice preferences for SMM, walking and public transport (PT) among the Dutch population. Using a latent class choice model, we uncover three user groups: Multimodal SMM enthusiast (58%), who choose based on the trade-offs between various travel characteristics, while not having strong modal preferences. They are the most open, ready and able to use SMM. SMM hesitant cyclists (16%) have a strong preference for cycling and while they are open to using SMM, they may not feel themselves ready, stating that use of SMM can be difficult and dangerous. SMM-averse PT users (27%) are most likely to use PT and avoid SMM as they find it too difficult and dangerous to use. For policymakers, the high preference to walking over short egress distances reaffirms the need for continued focus on transit-oriented development. For longer distances, policymakers should focus on improving PT service in high-density high-demand areas, as high frequencies and dense PT networks can be justified, while stations in low-demand areas are better served by SMM. Policymakers should also prioritise SMM modes that are cheaper and that travellers are familiar and comfortable with, such as bicycles.

Shared micromobility (SMM), including bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, etc., is often cited as a solution to the first and especially the last mile problem of public transport (PT), yet when implemented, they often do not get adopted by a broader travelling public. As behavioural adaption is largely related to peoples’ attitudes and perceptions, we develop a behavioural framework based on the UTAUT2 framework to gain better understanding why individuals may (not) be willing to use SMM. Through an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a latent class cluster analysis (LCCA), we study the adoption potential of SMM and assess drivers and barriers as perceived by different user groups. Our findings uncover six user groups; Shared mobility positives, Car-oriented sharing neutrals, Older apprehensive sharers, Young eager adopters, (Shared) Mobility avoiders and Skilled sharing sceptics. The Young eager adopters and Shared mobility positives tend to be the most open to adopting SMM and able to do so. Older apprehensive sharers would like to, but find it difficult or dangerous to use, while Skilled sharing sceptics are capable and confident, but have limited intention of using it. Car-oriented sharing neutrals and (Shared) Mobility avoiders are most negative about SMM, finding it difficult to use and dangerous. Factors relating to technological savviness, ease-of-use, physical safety and societal perception seem to be the strongest adoption predictors. Younger, high-educated males are the group most likely and open to using SMM, while older individuals with lower incomes and a lower level of education tend to be the least likely.