How do activity-end trip characteristics affect the choice for shared micromobility? A latent class choice modelling approach for train station egress trips in the Netherlands

TL;DR

This study uses a latent class choice model to analyze Dutch travelers' preferences for shared micromobility, walking, and public transport at train stations, revealing three distinct user groups with different mode choices.

Contribution

It identifies three user groups with distinct activity-end mode choice behaviors and provides insights for tailored transit-oriented development policies.

Findings

Multimodal sharing enthusiasts (58%) are open to using SMM based on trade-offs.

Sharing hesitant cyclists (16%) prefer cycling but find SMM difficult and dangerous.

Sharing-averse PT users (27%) prefer public transport and avoid SMM.

Abstract

Access/egress travel to train stations continues to pose a significant barrier to increasing the number of train travellers. Shared micromobility (SMM), including bicycles, e-bikes, steps and mopeds, is often cited as a prominent solution, especially for the activity-end of the trip chain. Using a stated preference survey, we analyse activity-end mode-choice preferences for SMM, walking and public transport (PT) among the Dutch population. By means of a latent class choice model, we uncover three user groups with respect to activity-end mode choice behaviour. The largest (58%) are Multimodal sharing enthusiast, 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. Sharing 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. Sharing-averse PT users (27%) are most likely to use PT and avoid SMM as they find it too difficult and dangerous to use. The high preference to walk for short egress distances reaffirms the need for transit-oriented development policies. For longer egress distances, PT should be the primary focus at stations in high-density areas with high demand, where high frequencies and dense networks are justified, while stations in lower demand areas are better served by SMM. Providing multiple SMM options would result mainly in competition for the same travellers.