Promoting public transport accessibility, which refers to the mobility potential arising from the ease of reaching opportunities, is often employed by public authorities as a planning tool to encourage a modal shift toward alternative modes of transport (Banister, 2008; Curtis and Scheurer, 2010). The 15-minute city illustrates a recent policy initiative to enhance accessibility to basic services and amenities locally via walking, biking, or public transport (Moreno et al., 2021). However, accessibility studies frequently overlook individual factors, even though disaggregated personal characteristics significantly affect overall local accessibility outcomes (Shen, 1998; Handy, 2005; Grengs, 2010). Furthermore, although some accessibility studies sometimes consider individual mobility preferences (Neutens et al., 2011), most accessibility studies often have limited emphasis on the individual's ability to move and to effectively use various transportation options. This work aims to incorporate motility, i.e., the individual ability to move (Kaufmann et al., 2004), as a complementary mobility potential mitigating the effect of daily amenities access on mobility behavior. Integrating motility alongside accessibility metrics may offer a more comprehensive understanding of mobility potentials, accounting for personal experiences. Empirical evidence has shown that individuals with low motility towards alternative transportation modes often do not perceive their benefits, even if they are environmentally conscious (Gumy et al., 2025). Given that motility is unevenly distributed across the population (Kaufmann et al., 2004), failing to consider motility could hinder an ecological transition focused on sustainable transportation practices and hinder equity in access to mobility and services. Based on the Greater Geneva region located in Switzerland and France, this work is developed as a 3-step study: (i) developing an accessibility indicator to daily amenities, (ii) spatializing an individual’s motility index, and (iii) combining the accessibility indicator according to the localized motility index. First, the accessibility indicator has been created according to activity-based measures (Hansen, 1959) by using the frequency of amenity visits as a weight factor and the human need it satisfies as an attractiveness factor. To do so, we selected 73'061 amenities accessible from residential areas within 15 minutes on public transport (PT), and we classified them according to the amenity typology developed by Frankhauser and Bonin (2025). This typology is constructed following the theory of needs developed by Max-Need (1991), which identifies people's needs from an anthropological perspective and clarifies the links between amenities and services and people's basic needs in a social justice framework. The amenity accessibility indicator, which is discretized on a 1km-by-1km grid, reflects a potential for mobility towards a diversity of needs reachable in 15 minutes by PT, showing high scores in Swiss rural centers — in addition to large agglomerations— where only French agglomerations achieve high scores. Secondly, this study develops a motility index based on data from the 2023 Panel Lémanique Mobility Survey, which includes 10,349 individuals that are representative of the total French and Swiss population — nearly 2 million inhabitants — residing in the Greater Geneva region. Based on the individual’s scores obtained by combining a selection of variables representing motility components (i.e., individual access to transport, skills, and appropriation), a synthetic motility index is computed and aggregated on the same 1km-by-1km grid. It reveals spatial structures between urban and rural areas as well as contrasts between French and Swiss secondary centers. The motility in Swiss secondary centers and, therefore, their mobility potential to engage with amenities, is higher than in France. Third, we adjust the accessibility indicator score according to the localized motility index, following the methodology proposed by Frankhauser and Bonin (2025), to create an indicator combining the two measures. This approach leads us to identify areas where low-motility respondents benefit from a high PT offer (Accessibility+/Motility-) and, conversely, where high-motility respondents benefit from a poor PT offer (Accessibility-/Motility+). To make essential needs more accessible by using alternatives to the car, combining Accessibility and Motility can be used by public authorities to (i) implement transport education and support measures for Accessibility+/Motility- zones or to (ii) develop the public transport offer for Accessibility-/Motility+ zones.