From a public transit perspective, the first and last mile (FLM) problem emerges from a lack of adequate connectivity between stations and trip origins and destinations. The empirical literature on FLM travel has shown that passengers travel longer distances to access stations with good transit services. However, previous studies are yet to explore how individual household members interact to find ways to satisfy household travel needs (i.e., intra-household interactions) and how this is shaped by variations in household preference. To this end, capturing the intra-household interactions, this study aims to account for the heterogeneity in group decision making in FLM travel mode and station choice by considering two distinct decision rules when making a travel choice: (1) selecting the best overall outcome; and (2) avoiding frustration or regret. Latent class choice models are estimated by using a household travel survey for Brisbane, Australia. Results identified two household modality style groups: (1) Multimodal travellers accessing their nearest stations and walking averse for accessing non-nearest stations: Such households are likely to select the best overall outcome when making choices, given that they have fewer cars and participate in more joint travel; (2) car-oriented: Individuals within this household modality style are more likely to avoid regret or frustration when making travel mode and station choices as they tend to own more cars and participate less joint travel. The utility of this study lies in its capacity to guide policymakers to better target specific population groups and search for the appropriate transport integration policies.

从公共交通的角度来看，第一英里和最后一英里 (FLM) 问题是由于车站与出行起点和目的地之间缺乏足够的连通性而出现的。关于 FLM 旅行的实证文献表明，乘客需要走更长的距离才能到达拥有良好公交服务的车站。然而，之前的研究尚未探索个体家庭成员如何互动以寻找满足家庭旅行需求的方法（即家庭内部互动），以及家庭偏好的变化如何影响这种需求。为此，通过捕捉家庭内部的互动，本研究旨在通过在做出旅行选择时考虑两个不同的决策规则来解释 FLM 旅行模式和车站选择中群体决策的异质性：（1）选择最佳总体结果; (2) 避免沮丧或后悔。潜在类别选择模型是通过使用澳大利亚布里斯班的家庭旅行调查来估计的。结果确定了两个家庭交通方式类型组：(1) 多式联运旅行者访问他们最近的车站并且厌恶步行访问非最近的车站：这些家庭在做出选择时可能会选择最佳的总体结果，因为他们的汽车较少并且参与更多联合旅行；(2) 以汽车为导向：这种家庭出行方式的个体在选择出行方式和车站时更容易避免后悔或沮丧，因为他们倾向于拥有更多的汽车，参与的联合出行更少。这项研究的效用在于它能够指导决策者更好地针对特定人群并寻找合适的交通一体化政策。