Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jairtraman

Impact of High-speed rail on air travel demand between Dallas and Houston
applying Monte Carlo simulation
Seock-Jin Hong a, *, Hossein Najmi b
a
Department of Logistics, & Operations Management, G. Brint Ryan College of Business, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311396, Denton, TX, 76203-
5017, USA
b
Dept. of Information Systems and Operations Management, College of Business, University of Central Oklahoma, 100 N. University Dr., Edmond, OK, 73034, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: High-speed rails (HSR) are common in Europe and Asia, but the U.S. still does not have an operational HSR
High-speed rail network. Subsequently, literature on HSR in the U.S. socio-spatial context is very limited. To address this gap in
Discrete choice analysis the literature, we focus on the Dallas-Houston HSR project, planned to provide service in 2026, to investigate the
Stated preference
critical attributes travelers consider when choosing between air and HSR. This study also explores the potential
Random utility theory
Monte Carlo simulation
impacts HSR would have on airlines sharing this route. To examine these attributes and the potential effects of
Southwest airlines this HSR, we performed a stated preference survey, discrete choice analysis, and applied Monte Carlo simulation.
United States Our results show that service frequency is an essential factor for travelers choosing a mode of transportation
Texas between Dallas and Houston. A potential competition and cooperation opportunity exist between airlines and
HSR on this corridor.

1. Introduction including Texas. Such a lack of understanding is critical considering that

High-speed rails (HSR) have received increasing global recognition
in recent years in Europe and Asia. High-speed intercity movement has
been dramatically enhanced by reducing travel time and improving
onboard convenience (Chen and Haynes, 2017). However, HSR devel­
opment is not very advanced in the United States; a completed HSR
network still does not exist in this country, although California and
Texas are working on developing HSR networks. An HSR project that
connects Dallas and Houston (240 mi) is the focus of this research. This
line is expected to offer service between these two cities in less than 90
min and at speeds up to 200 mph, with one stop in the Brazos Valley.
Texas Central, an investor-owned company behind the Texas HSR, has
planned to start HSR operation by 2026.
Substantial HSR-related research is largely based on European and
Asian contexts; research in the United States context is rare. The extant
literature indicates that route-specific characteristics considerably in­
fluence findings (Doomernik, 2016; Givoni and Dobruszkes, 2013).
Given this, and the spatial development of rural and urban economic
activities and infrastructure are different in the United States compared
to Asia and Europe, we can observe a lack of understanding of how
travelers choose between HSR and airlines in the United States,
Dallas is home to one of the first low-cost carriers (LCC), Southwest
Airlines (SWA), who connects point-to-point networks instead of using a
hub-and-spoke network (Doomernik, 2016).
The current study addresses this problem by empirically investi­
gating the attributes that would influence travelers’ choice of transport
mode from Dallas to Houston. It aims to measure the impact of HSR on
airlines by considering the degree of interchangeability between the two
transport modes. Specifically, we ask what attributes (e.g., traveling
time, frequency, price) would influence travelers’ choice between HSR
or air. Further questions investigated include: How would demographic
characteristics influence the travelers’ choice? What are other factors
that would play a role in the travelers’ choice? How would the intro­
duction of HSR influence the aviation market on this route? To answer
these questions, we carried out a stated preference (SP) survey and used
a discrete choice model to investigate the choice travelers would make
between air and HSR, as well as the potential effects of HSR entry on
airlines.
Our results show that frequency is the major attribute that influences
travelers’ choices. Moreover, we found that males and older people have
a higher tendency to choose HSR. The survey including variables such as
safety, comfort, on-time arrival and departure, parking, security control,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: seock.hong@unt.edu (S.-J. Hong), hnajmi@uco.edu (H. Najmi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2022.102222
Received 9 November 2021; Received in revised form 10 March 2022; Accepted 21 April 2022
Available online 28 April 2022
0969-6997/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.-J. Hong and H. Najmi
and connection, and this allowed us to observe that safety and on-time
service influence the choice of transportation mode on this route.
This study offers three main contributions to existing literature. First,
to the best of our knowledge, this study is among the first to provide an
understanding of the important attributes (i.e., traveling time, price,
frequency) travelers consider when choosing between HSR or air in the
United States. Second, we develop an understanding of how de­
mographic factors and the importance of safety and on-time service
influence travelers’ choice of HSR or air between Houston and Dallas.
Third, our findings provide an insight into the dynamics (i.e., competi­
tion and possible cooperation) between HSR and an LCC (Southwest
Airlines) in the U.S. context.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we
review the relevant literature. Next, we present the methodology and
data analysis in Section 3. Section 4 presents the results and imple­
mentation. Finally, we review the limitations of current research, sug­
gest potential directions for future studies, and provide concluding
remarks in Section 5.
2. Literature review
We first review the literature streams related to the impact of HSR
introduction on air travel. We then focus on the literature related to HSR
in the United States. We review this literature for four reasons: (a) to
describe the main attributes studied to analyze choice between HSR and
air transport; (b) to demonstrate the mode substitution effects between
HSR and air transport on the aviation market in Europe and Asia; (c) to
establish that the findings of empirical literature heavily depend on
routes’ social-spatial characteristics and that the current literature fo­
cuses on Asia and Europe, markets that have very different socio-spatial
characteristics from the U.S, which therefore limits our understanding of
the impact of HSR in the U.S.; and (d) to demonstrate our contribution to
the extant literature.
2.1. The impact on air travel of introducing HSR
The current literature shows that route-specific characteristics in­
fluence how travelers choose their mode of transportation, specifically
location of stations within a city, the availability of affordable land,
population density, existence of major attractors such as large scale
leisure facilities and universities, city size, regional-city economy and
role in the global economy, good rail and road accessibility, (Beckerich
et al., 2019; Bellet et al., 2012; Hall, 2013; Kim et al., 2018; Mohino
et al., 2014 & 2018; Yin et al., 2015). For each route and region, a
particular attribute (e.g., travel time, ticket price, or frequency) or a
mixture of attributes are influential, or determining factors, in travelers’
choice of transportation. For example, variations in travel time (i.e.,
in-vehicle time and access time) (Dobruszkes et al., 2017; Yang et al.,
2018) matter more to travelers in China, whereas in Europe, travel time
(Dobruszkes et al., 2017), frequency (Dobruszkes, 2011), or both
(Behrens and Pels, 2012) matter. Ticket prices (Yang et al., 2018; Zhang
et al., 2017) also influence travelers’ choices in different regions
(Table 1). In other words, a traveler in China is likely to choose a mode
of transportation based on which mode will take the shortest time,
whereas in Europe a traveler may choose a travel mode based on not
only shortest travel time but also how frequently the transport is
available. Thus, the extent to which HSR can compete with air travel
depends on different determining factors in different markets. The
relevant attributes will typically include travel time as well as price and
frequency. However, the influence of HSR travel time on air services
shrinks quickly for journeys between 120 and 150 min (Dobruszkes
et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2002). Pagliara et al. (2012) found that price and
service frequency are the key factors in HSR and airline competition;
however, if the market in the corridor is not large enough to support
certain service frequencies, HSR is unlikely to dominate.
Román et al. (2007) studied airlines and HSR competition along the
2
Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222
Table 1
Literature review on attributes that influences determining in traveler’s choice
of transportation.
Variables Authors Target
market
Travel Behrens and Pels (2012), Dobruszkes (2011), Europe
time Dobruszkes et al. (2017), Valeri (2013)
Román et al. (2007) a Europe
Yang et al. (2018) China
Jung & Yoo (2014), Kim et al. (2002) Korea
Frequency Behrens and Pels (2012), Dobruszkes et al. (2017), Europe
Pagliara et al. (2012), Valeri (2013)
Pan and Truong (2020) China
Ticket Pagliara et al. (2012), Valeri (2013) Europe
price Pan and Truong (2020), Yang et al. (2018), Zhang et al. China
(2017)
Jung & Yoo (2014) Korea
a
Focus more on delay time.
Madrid-Barcelona corridor (625 km, or 389 mi) and showed that busi­
ness travelers prefer HSR because they value shorter and less frequent
delay time. Still, even in the worst scenario for the airline, they esti­
mated that the HSR market share would not exceed 35%. Jimenez and
Betancor (2012) used econometric models and multiple route-level data
to similarly analyze the mode substitution between HSR and air trans­
port in Spain. These scholars found that HSR has decreased airline op­
erations by 17% while total travel demand has increased.
A small number of studies examined the passenger choice between
LCCs and HSR (Pan and Truong, 2020). Valeri (2013) found total travel
time, cost, and service elements influenced the passenger preference in
the Rome-Milan corridor. In contrast, a similar study in Korea found
passengers were affected by fare, access time, and journey time (Jung &
Yoo, 2014). In China, the frequency and ticket price of air travel were
critical (Pan and Truong, 2020). In Taiwan, the frequency and reliable
departure of HSR were advantages over air travel (Jeng and Su, 2013).
LCC service can also be more cost-efficient and operationally flexible
(Hong and Domergue, 2018) than HSR on routes with minimal travel
demand because HSR construction cost is high (Wang et al., 2017). In
short, research findings on the impact of HSR on LCCs point to different
conclusions in each region depending on the level of development of
each transport mode, the geographical size of destinations, and the
regulation of countries (Jiang and Li, 2016; Shao et al., 2018).
In China, airline industry deregulation has created flexible airfares
and more air carrier licenses for private companies, including LCCs
(Wang et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017). Hence, the Chinese airline in­
dustry has recently experienced a high growth period (Yang et al.,
2018). However, the negative impact on air traffic in China began to
increase three years after HSR service began (Yang et al., 2018). The
substitution effect of HSR has been shown to reduce air travel demand
(Wang et al., 2018) by around 27% (Yang et al., 2018) to 28.2% (Chen,
2017). Unlike Europe, Japan, and, Korea, the inception of HSR in China
had a minor impact on air passenger numbers (Albalate et al., 2015)
because the Chinese airline industry experienced a high growth period
(Yang et al., 2018).
Other studies have highlighted the role of alternative variables in
determining traveler choice—such as the size of the HSR network, HSR
station location, network connectivity, smooth connection with other
public transportation, connection to a populated area, the spatial
arrangement of cities, city and airport characteristics, total travel time,
and cost savings (Behrens and Pels, 2012; Castillo-Manzano et al., 2015;
Fu et al., 2012; Martín et al., 2014; Repolho et al., 2016). Dobruszkes
(2011) focused on the supply of air transport services after the intro­
duction of HSR in five city pairs in Europe. This research showed that,
while travel time is a dominant factor, frequencies, fares, airline hubs,
and geographical structures of urban regions all influence the compe­
tition; and, in each city pair, a different outcome emerges. For example,
the introduction of HSR resulted in the discontinuation of the air service
S.-J. Hong and H. Najmi
supply in Paris-Metz, whereas in Paris-Marseilles a significant reduction
occurred in the number of seats rather than the number of flights. In the
Cologne-Munich route, by contrast, HSR has not prevented an increase
in air services.
Some scholars include other modes of transport in their study. For
the Madrid-Barcelona corridor, HSR and air transport users value saving
travel time more than bus travelers do; moreover, saving waiting time is
regarded as more valuable than saving access time (Román et al., 2010).
In a similar study, Román et al. (2014) extended the modes of transport
to include private vehicles in two corridors. In the Madrid-Barcelona
corridor, the value for reductions in delay time is high. In the
short-distance Madrid-Zaragoza corridor, the demand is more sensitive
to travel time than to price or access/egress time. Regarding
cross-elasticities of HSR demand to changing cost and travel time of
using private vehicles, travel cost is more critical than time wasted due
to highway congestion.
Research shows that 90% of passenger forecasts for railroad projects
are overestimated by an average of 106% (Flyvbjerg et al., 2005).
Because of this, ex-ante research might not be a reliable predictor of
actual travel volume. Thus, it is imperative to review ex-post research to
study the actual effect of intermodal competition. Dobruszkes (2011)
and Fu et al. (2012) used aggregated data in Europe and China to study
this effect. Both studies found that the decline in the number of flights
depends on the length of the HSR journey as well as the strategies
adopted by airlines. In a review of ex-post evidence, Givoni and
Dobruszkes (2013) determined that the demand for HSR is about
10–20% new demand, with the rest attributed to mode substitution.
Substitution from aircraft, car, and coach travel is generally modest.
Scholars have recently applied econometric methods to data from
Europe and China and found that, overall, HSR competes moderately
with airlines (Albalate et al., 2015; Chen, 2017; Fu et al., 2015).
Cooperation possibilities between HSR and air travel is an emerging
stream of research. Jiang and Zhang (2014) analyzed the effects of
cooperation between a hub-and-spoke airline and HSR. Their research
showed that such cooperation improves welfare as long as the modal
substitutability in the overlapping markets is low. Examples include
Thalys (a French-Belgian train operator) trains that complement the Air
France network for the flight between Brussels and Paris, and some of
Germany’s ICE (Intercity Express) trains that carry a fixed number of
seats reserved for Lufthansa passengers (Román and Martín, 2014).
Scholars have shown that air-HSR integration and schedule coor­
dination—to reduce connecting time through possible cluster areas—is
key to promoting intermodality (Brida et al., 2017; Dobruszkes, 2001;
Marie-Henneberg and Alvarez-Palau, 2017; Román and Martín, 2014).
For instance, studying access and egress times to HSR and air terminals
in the Madrid-Barcelona corridor shows that access by private car favors
air transport whereas access by public transport decreases the compet­
itive advantage of air transport (Martín et al., 2014).
Upon reviewing the extant literature, one can see diverging conclu­
sions and a strong influence of the route’s social-spatial characteristics
on attributes based on which travelers choose HSR or air. While studies
covering Europe and Asia have revealed some determining attributes in
those markets, we lack such an understanding of the U.S. In addition, the
literature review points to wildly divergent evidence on how the pres­
ence of LCCs, among other variables, influences the impact that intro­
ducing HSR has on airlines. To the best of our knowledge, very few
studies have analyzed HSR and air competition or cooperation in the
unique context of U.S. cities’ social-spatial patterns. We fill this gap by
exploring the important attributes travelers consider when choosing air
or HSR and by finding the cooperation possibilities between HSR and
airlines in this market.
2.2. HSR in the United States
HSR history in the U.S. begins with the High-Speed Ground Trans­
portation (HSGT) Act of 1965. This act marks the start of the federal
3
Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222
government’s attempt (initializing a 90-million-dollar budget) to
develop advanced HSR technologies in the Northeast Corridor between
Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New York, and Boston (Federal Railway
Administration [FRA], 2020). The FRA designated 11 HSR corridors
from 1992 to 1999. In 2000, the Department of Transportation approved
the extension of four corridors, including the South-Central corridor
linking Dallas/Fort Worth with (a) San Antonio, (b) Tulsa, and (c) Little
Rock. Before 2009, HSR-related federal policy focused on HSR regionals
that connect major and moderate population centers 100 to 500 miles
apart, and on trains traveling at a speed of 110–150 mph. In 2009 the
policy expanded to include HSR Express, which connects major popu­
lation centers 200 to 600 miles apart and includes trains with a top speed
of at least 150 mph (FRA, 2009).
Historically, rail passengers have represented less than 3% of total
travel passengers in the U.S. (FRA, 2009). Further, the country does not
yet have a completed HSR network. Instead, federal intercity trans­
portation investments have focused on highway and airline networks
because of the greater distance between many U.S. cities (Environ­
mental and Energy Study Institute [EESI], 2018; FRA, 2009). Addi­
tionally, the country’s car culture makes it challenging to shift to public
transit. This is because in most areas, the city/county infrastructure has
already been built for automobile accessibility rather than train stations
(EESI, 2018). Furthermore, the low population density of U.S. cities
compared to those in Europe and Asia makes it challenging to provide an
HSR network that serves large enough numbers of travelers to make it
economically feasible (Allum et al., 2021; EESI, 2018). However, HSR in
the U.S. has substantial potential to face climate change by providing
advantages in travel comfort, predictability (Allum et al., 2021), and
reliable departure (Jeng and Su, 2013), along with the increasing
importance of being online during the journey (Allum et al., 2021).
According to Allum, Basu, Robertson & Jamal (2012), if HSR connects
US cities such as Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix,
Miami, Orlando, Chicago, and Columbus, approximately 400 million
travelers per year could use HSR, and 10%–30% among them would
have previously traveled by air, which would eliminate 500–1500 do­
mestic flights per day.
The first U.S. HSR development commenced in California in 2008
and allowed for travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than 3 h
(California High-Speed Rail Authority [CHSRA], 2008). The project,
which was estimated in 2008 to cost a total of $45 billion, started with
$11.5 billion in 2009 (CHSRA, 2020). As of 2020, 350 miles of electri­
fied HSR are under construction. The share of HSR from interregional
trips in 2030, a year after the expected completion year, is predicted to
be 7% (CHSRA, 2008). This estimated share will consist of new and
induced demand from car and air travel (Table 2).
The second large-scale HSR project currently underway in the U.S. is
in Texas’s major metropolitan areas of Dallas-Fort Worth (population:
7.6 million), Greater Houston (population: 7.1 million), Greater San
Antonio (population: 2.6 million), and Austin (population: 1 million).
These cities are situated on a triangle with 250-mile-long legs and had a
combined population of 18 million in 2019. In 1989, the Texas High-
Speed Rail Authority (THSRC) was established to grant exclusive
Table 2
Transport mode share in California for interregional trips.
Year Air Conventional HSR Car Total
rail
2000 Passenger 20 4 million - 550 574
million million million
Share 4% 1% - 96% 100%
2030 Passenger 21 16 million 67 808 912
million million million million
Share 2% 2% 7% 89% 100%
CAGR 0.16% 4.73% - 1.29% 1.56%
Note: CAGR [Compound Annual Growth Rate] (Author’s elaborate).
Source: CHSRA, 2008.
S.-J. Hong and H. Najmi
franchises for particular routes, and they prohibited state subsidies for
either construction or operation of a privately-owned system (Luehrman
and Regan, 2003). In 1991, the Authority’s franchise was awarded to
Texas Central, a consortium composed of a former lieutenant governor
and private investors such as French HSR operator TGV (Train à Grande
Vitesse) (Luehrman and Regan, 2003). However, the project did not
progress until the mid-2010s. In 2015, after determining the environ­
mental impact, the FRA proposed a single preferred alternative corridor
(FRA, 2015), like those in Italy and the U.S. Northeast corridor, to serve
the triangle containing Texas’s major metropolitan areas (Dobruszkes
et al., 2017).
Texas Central has purchased roughly one-third of the land parcels it
needs for the line; the Consortium can also claim the right of eminent
domain as it seeks to buy the remaining lots (High-Speed Rail Alliance,
2020-b). A train with Japanese technology and a maximum speed of 205
mph is expected to run 18 times per day (every half-hour during peak
periods) between Dallas and Houston in 2026 and to attract about six
million riders annually by 2029 (High-Speed Rail Alliance, 2020-a). The
90-min ride passes through one station at Brazos Valley and would be 2
h faster than driving and about 1 h faster than flying (including airport
terminal time). The Dallas station would be located downtown near
Dallas Convention Center, next to a Dallas Area Rapid Train (DART)
station. Passengers can get to the station by taking DART or driving
through I35E and I30 highways. The Houston station would be only
eight miles away from George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)
(Texas Central, 2021).
3. Methodology
To determine the choice behaviors of travelers deciding between air
and HSR travel, and to investigate the effects of the HSR entry on this
market, we undertook a SP survey. To be eligible for the survey, re­
spondents must have been adult travelers (above 18) who have traveled
at least once between Dallas and Houston during the 12 months prior to
the survey date. The survey was initially planned to include interviews
conducted at Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW), Dallas Love Field (DAL), Hous­
ton George Bush Intercontinental (IAH), and Houston Hobby (HOU)
airports. Regrettably, acquiring authorization to survey at the airports
proved very difficult, and none of the airports accepted surveys. Hence,
the survey was conducted from March to August 2019 through Qual­
trics, an internet survey tool.
The questionnaire’s first section incorporated questions regarding
the frequency of travel, flying frequency between the two cities, travel
purpose, and the most used airline. Demographic data regarding the
participants’ gender, age, and income were also collected. Each
respondent answered the first section questions based on their latest
travel between Dallas and Houston. The second section asked about the
importance of different factors when deciding between HSR and air. It
included six variables: safety, travel comfort, on-time arrival/departure,
ease of parking at HSR station or airport, security, and easy connection
to travel to other destinations.
The third section of the questionnaire was the SP survey. In this
section, each respondent reviewed five scenarios and reported the
importance of different attributes when choosing between HSR and air
as each scenario’s preferred mode of transport. The five scenarios were
designed based on the actual flight information for three air carriers
providing service between Dallas and Houston: American Airlines
(AAL), Southwest Airlines (SWA), and United Airlines (UAL). When
constructing SP questions with the previously set variables and levels,
22 × 3 = 12 scenarios are generated using a full factorial design (FFD).
The FFD was judged to be the number of scenarios that did not interfere
with the respondent’s ability to respond rationally and prudently.
However, the methods are not significant because of the effect of fatigue
on the respondent when responding to many scenarios (Bradley and
Daly, 1994). So, the questionnaire was prepared with a fractional
factorial design that covered 76.4% of possible scenarios. The scenarios
4
Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222
included information about travel time—including access time—(t1),
service frequency per day (f1), and air ticket fares (p1). For the air ticket
prices, we used "faredetective.com (retrieved fare data on January 22,
2019, (Faredetective, 2019))" for the same timeframe of data collection
and used the 25%–75% range of prices (the middle two quartiles) for
minimum and maximum price range. To determine the frequency of
flights between Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston, we searched the air­
lines’ homepages and official airline guides from March 11 to 17 2019.,
Related to time, we measured the access time from the central counties
of the two cities to the airports in the morning, afternoon, and evening.
HSR-related variables, the t2, f2, and p2, were set hypothetically based on
the information obtained from Texas Central (Table 3). This is because
the HSR is not yet providing service.
This research assesses how respondents’ choices vary in different
hypothetical situations. Respondents were presented with choices be­
tween hypothetical but realistic alternatives; with each alternative, re­
spondents were given three attributes and their characteristics to choose
appropriate transport modes (Table 4). We determined the importance
of each attribute for travelers based on the choices they made.
3.1. Data collection
Our sample consisted of 359 responses from two groups in the Dallas
and Houston metropolitan areas. Each respondent answered five sce­
narios; so, we received data on 1795 scenarios in total. 44% of re­
spondents were female, with the remaining 56% identifying as male;
73.8% were 25 or younger, 25.1% were 26–59 (inclusive), and only
1.1% were 60 or above. Around 83.8% reported earning less than
$49,999 annually, 10% reported earning $50,000 to $99,999, 4.2%
$100,000 to $149,999, and 2% $150,000 or higher.
The Mann-Whitney U test reveals statistically significant differences
(p < 0.01) for both gender (Table 5) and age (Table 6). However, the
Kruskal-Wallis H test does not show a statistically significant difference
in choice based on income level (Table 7). Our survey shows that male
and older-aged respondents are more likely to choose HSR, whereas
female and younger respondents choose air travel more frequently. Lu
and Shon (2012) found that a travelers’ age is an essential factor in
determining willingness to pay for air travel.
Among 359 respondents, 92.8% (333) traveled fewer than six times
per year between the two cities; 5% (18) traveled seven to 12 times per
year, and only slightly more than 2% traveled over 13 times. As for
flying experience during last 12 months, 97.5% had flown one to three
times, and 2.5% had flown four or more times. The respondents’ re­
ported travel purposes were business (12.3%), leisure/vacation
(42.9%), and visiting friends or relatives (44.8%). Of the air carrier
companies, participants used SWA the most (47.6%), followed by AAL
(30.9%), UAL (4.7%) and others (16%) (Table 8).
We used a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1, “not important,” to
5, “very important”) to measure the importance of the factors influ­
encing respondents’ choice of transport mode. Respondents considered
the six variables as important in choosing travel modes in the following
order: safety was ranked as the most important (4.43), followed by on-
time arrival/departure (4.23), comfort (3.97), security (3.81), easy
connection (3.81), and finally easy parking at an HSR station or airport
(3.40) (Table 9).
Table 3
Design of survey scenario.
Transport mode choice (Cn) Attributes Utility
Time Frequency Ticket price
1 Air (C1) t1 f1 p1 U1
2 HST (C2) t2 f2 p2 U2
Note: t1 = {160, 190}, t2 = {140, 160, 170, 190}; f1 = {6, 21, 38}, f2 = {38, 57}
[6 (every 3 h), 21 (every 50 min), 35 (every 30 min), 38 (every 30 min)], and 57
(every 20 min}; and p1 = {80, 160}, p2 = {50, 80, 175}.
S.-J. Hong and H. Najmi Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222

Table 4 3.2. Normality and non-response bias tests

The five scenarios.
Scenarios Attributes Airline (C1) HST (C2) The Shapiro-Wilk test shows normality (p < 0.05). We divided the
respondents into two groups. In the first wave, 175 responses were
Scenario 1 Ticket Price (p) $160 $175
Travel time including access time (t) 190 min 170 min collected from March to June 2019; in the second wave, 184 responses
Service frequency per day (f) Every 3 h Every 30 min were received from July to August 2019. The t-test bootstrap (Armstrong
Choice and Overton, 1977) results showed that a significant non-response bias
Scenario 2 Ticket Price (p) $80 $50 does not exist in our data (p < 0.05).
Travel time including access time (t) 160 min 140 min
Service frequency per day (f) Every 50 min Every 20 min
Choice 3.3. Monte Carlo simulation
Scenario 3 Ticket Price (p) $160 $50
Travel time including access time (t) 190 min 140 min
Service frequency per day (f) Every 3 h Every 20 min We applied a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to reduce possible bias
Choice
Scenario 4 Ticket Price (p) $80 $175 Table 8
Travel time including access time (t) 160 min 190 min
Survey respondents’ travel behavior between Dallas and Houston.
Service frequency per day (f) Every 50 min Every 30 min
Choice Questions Responses Number %
Scenario 5 Ticket Price (p) $80 $80
How often do you travel between the two 1-6 times per year 333 92.8
Travel time including access time (t) 160 min 160 min
cities, Houston and Dallas? 7-12 times per 18 5.0
Service frequency per day (f) Every 30 min Every 30 min
year
Choice
More than 13 8 2.2
times per year
Total 359 100
How often do you fly between the two 1 to 3 times per 350 97.4
Table 5
cities, Houston and Dallas? year
Gender difference in choosing a transport mode.
4 to 6 times per 5 1.4
Transport Mode Choice Female Male Total year
7 to 9 times per 2 0.6
Air 267 282 549
year
33.8% 28.1% 30.6%
9 to 12 times per 1 0.3
High Speed Rail (HSR) 523 723 1246
year
66.2% 71.9% 69.4%
More than 13 1 0.3
Total ( ): Female and male ratio for two 790 1005 1795
times per year
alternatives 100% 100% 100%
Total 359 100
(44.1%) (55.9%)
What is the most likely reason that you do Business 44 12.3
Nonparametric Test Mean rank 926.83 875.34 -
(or would) travel between the two Leisure/Vacation 154 42.9
results Sum of rank 732,197.5 879,712.5
cities? Visiting friends/ 161 44.8
Mann-Whitney − 2.618 (0.009**)
relatives
U test
Total 359 100
** Significant at α = 0.01. If/when you fly between the two cities, American Airlines 111 30.9
which airline do you most often use? Southwest 171 47.6
Airlines
United Airlines 16 4.7
Table 6 Other 61 16.0
Age difference in choosing a transport mode. Total 359 100
Transport Mode Choice Under 25 26–59 60 or Total
older

Air 433 112 4 549 Table 9

32.7% 24.9% 20.0% 30.6% Decision factor to choose a transport mode.
High Speed Rail (HSR) 892 338 16 1246
67.3% 75.1% 80.0% 69.4% Factors Avg. St. CV Priority
Total ( ): ratio of age category for 1325 450 20 1795 Dev.
two alternatives 100% 100% 100% 100% Safety 4.43 0.97 0.22 1
(73.8%) (25.1%) (1.1%) Comfort 3.97 0.97 0.25 3
Nonparametric Mean rank 916.80 846.88 803.00 - On-time arrival/departure 4.23 0.92 0.22 2
Test results Kruskal- 10.664 (0.005**) Ease of parking at HSR station and airport 3.40 1.22 0.36 6
Wallis H Security controls to get boarded 3.81 1.07 0.28 4
test Easier connections to travel to other 3.81 1.22 0.29 5
destinations
** Significant at α = 0.01.

Table 7
Income difference in choosing a transport mode.
Transport Mode Choice Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 More than $150,000 Total

Air 478 46 18 7 549

31.8% 25.6% 24.0% 20.0% 30.6%
High Speed Rail (HSR) 1027 134 57 28 1246
68.2% 74.4% 76.0% 80.0% 69.4%
Total ( ): ration of income category for two alternatives 1505 180 75 35 1795
100% (83.8%) 100% (10.0%) 100% (4.2%) 100% (2.0%) 100%
Nonparametric Test results Mean rank 908.55 852.86 838.90 803.00 -
Kruskal-Wallis H test 6.500 (0.090)

** Significant at α = 0.01.

5
S.-J. Hong and H. Najmi
with the sample method only including online data collection, age
focusing more on younger travelers under age 25, and the low number of
samples (see Tables 6 and 7). The simulation estimates respondents’
choices between HSR and air (θ) with an estimator (̂ θ) computed from
observed data.
θ = random number x (Max − Min) + Min,
with Max is the maximum value of each variable,
and Min is the minimum value.
The estimators must meet important and intuitive criteria, unbi­
asedness, efficiency, and consistency (Mooney, 1997). MC simulations
are applied by researchers to ascertain the robustness of statistical es­
timators (Chin et al., 2003; Hong et al., 2022) because of randomness
and no noise of the data generating process (Simar and Wilson, 2007).
The MC simulation is very similar to resampling. It refers to resampling
methods (Carsey, 2011) that generate a large number of simulated
samples drawn from an existing sample data.
Our observed data included biased data to describe and make in­
ferences from due to limitations that restricted our ability to reach the
respondents at airports. The hundreds of thousands of simulated data
based on observed data could solve the problem of biased sampling
(Gustavson et al., 2019). Based on the MC procedure (Mooney, 1997;
Jeges, 2013, 2021), we sampled t times from the pseud-population (̂ θ) to
better estimate using the statistical estimates derived from the real data
θ and store it in a vector ̂
̂ θ. The MC method provides an estimate of the
expected value of a random variable and also predicts the estimation
error with ε = √3σ̅̅N̅, where σ is the standard deviation of the random and
N is the number of iterations. The sample size t includes 22,000 sets of
data retrieved with estimation an error (≈0.9%), kurtosis varies from
− 1.192 to − 1.207 (z values), and skewness varies from − 0.017 to 0.009
(z values), which are acceptable within ±1.97. The normal distribution
has a kurtosis of 0 and a skewness of 0. The estimation error, the level of
skewness, and kurtosis are acceptable that the distribution is somewhat
flatter than a normal distribution.
3.4. Probabilistic choice model
We applied the probabilistic choice model (McFadden, 1981) based
on the random utility theory. The utility concept is a measure of one’s
relative satisfaction or pleasure resulting from a particular action
(Ben-Akiva et al., 2018), such as choosing a transport mode. The random
utility model is Uin = Vin + εin (1), where n individuals choose the
transport mode i with unobserved attributes (ε). Based on formula (1),
we take three attributes: Vin = βi1 timei1 + βi2 freqi2 + βi3 pricei3 (2). The
decision rule is to maximize the utility, which means n individuals select
the alternative i with the highest utility Uin among those in the choice Cn.
V HOU airports, which are located near the downtown areas in Dallas and
The choice probability is Pn (Cn ) = Prob(Uin ≥ Ujn , ∀j ∈ Cn ) = ∑eJ in Vjn (3),
j=1
e Houston (respectively). If HSR matches the fare, travel time, and fre­
where Pn (Cn ) is a probability to choose alternative i among j alternatives
with n individuals. The choice set of this research is binary Cn = {1, 2},
∀n. We explore these types of decision-making behaviors based on
formulae (1) and (2). The log-likelihood test for model validity is done
{ lines have done (Lee and Chang, 2006), or to decrease the plane size.
L(a)
using ρ2 = 1 − L(0)} }, where L(a) is the last log-likelihood, and L(0) is
the first log-likelihood of the conditional logit choice model. The
acceptable threshold value of ρ2 is between 0.2 and 0.4, and the model
validity increases as ρ2 increases toward 1. The log-likelihood test (ρ2) of
the model is between 0.2 and 0.4.
4. Results and implications
We used the discrete choice model to find attributes (e.g., traveling
time including in-vehicle and access time, frequency, and price) that
influence travelers’ choice of transport mode (HSR or air) and the
impact of introducing HSR on the aviation market between Houston and
6
Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222
Dallas. One might point out that because most of our sample is below age
25, our result reflects their lower value of time and higher price sensi­
tivity. While we acknowledge the potential impact, it should be noted
that the median age of Dallas and Houston residents is 33.3 and 33.7,
respectively. Also, 74,000 university students live in Dallas, and
214,000 university students reside in Houston (DataUSA, 2020a,b). The
station in Brazos Valley is to serve Texas A&M University students. This
shows that a big target group for this HSR project—college and uni­
versity students—is among our sample; thus, their considerations are
likely to be shared by future travelers. Moss and Qing (2012) identified
Texas-Houston as the top growing emerging super-commuting corridors
among six nationwide. They report that the majority of super commuters
(i.e., a person who works in the central county of a given metropolitan
area, but lives beyond the boundaries of that metropolitan area,
commuting long distances by air, rail, car, bus, or a combination of
modes) have two key features: they tend to be under 29, and they are
more likely to be middle class than the average worker. The majority of
our respondents (73.8%) are under 25, and 83.8% have an income of less
than $49,999, which matches what Moss and Qing (2012) showed. For
example, super commuters in Houston and Dallas are 7.5% and 11% less
likely to earn more than $40,000/year. They are also 17% (in Houston)
and 15% (in Dallas) more likely to be 29 years or younger. Additionally,
we applied an MC simulation with an estimation error (0.9%) to mini­
mize possible common method bias with a sample collection method
and demographic bias for age and income level. The discrete choice
model with MC simulated data is shown in Table 10.
As the literature reviewed in Section 2 established, three attributes
(travel time, ticket price, and frequency) or a mixture of attributes are
predominant for travelers’ choice of transportation (Behrens and Pels,
2012; Dobruszkes et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018). Our analysis shows
that frequency is the key attribute (p < 0.05) on this Texas route. The
result shows that coefficients of travel time and ticket price are very
small and not statistically significant. This means that these two vari­
ables are less likely to influence travel between Dallas and Houston,
indicating that travelers are less probable to choose a transportation
mode if the frequency decreases. That is to say, a traveler in Texas is
more likely to choose a mode of transportation based on immediacy
because of their car-oriented culture and the low population density of
U.S. cities compared to those in Europe and Asia. The result is different
than China where travel time (Dobruszkes et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2018)
or ticket prices matter more (Yang et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2017),
whereas in Europe, travel time (Dobruszkes et al., 2017), frequency
(Dobruszkes, 2011), or both (Behrens and Pels, 2012) matter.
In addition to the ticket price, other variables also play a role in the
potential impact of HSR on airlines’ market share on this route if we
divide the travelers by their purpose of travel, such as business, leisure,
visit friend, and relatives. SWA offers inexpensive flights from DAL to
quency strategies of SWA there could be a dramatic reduction in air
traffic, similar to the effect HSR has had in Europe (Doomernik, 2016;
Dobruszkes et al., 2017). SWA’s reaction to the resulting low demand
could be to reduce the frequency of flights, as European and Asian air­
These measures may be necessary to implement even if HSR operators
Table 10
Results of conditional logit choice model with Monte Cargo simulated data.
Variables Coeff. p-value
Attributes Travel time a − 0.0007 0.466
Ticket price 0.0002 0.678
Frequency − 0.0021 0.030*
Log likelihood test (ρ2 ) 0.2121
* Significant at α = 0.05.
a
In-Vehicle and access time.
S.-J. Hong and H. Najmi
are not aggressive toward airline companies by applying tactics like
predatory pricing policies. Realizing the economic threat, the new HSR
could pose, SWA filed lawsuits against THSRC in state court, challenging
the franchise award (Luehrman and Regan, 2003).
While this research suggests that the introduction of a new HSR
network can negatively affect air carriers’ market share, this effect may
be less pronounced than expected. For instance, after the repeal of the
Wright amendment in 2014 that enabled SWA to have direct flight to all
major cities, SWA’s business in DAL increased because SWA was able to
expand their domestic and international routes. Scholars showed that
the expansion of LCCs in Europe has led to a remarkable increase in total
air travel demand (Clewlow et al., 2014; Fröidh and Nelldal, 2008).
Therefore, HSR’s impact on SWA might be limited.
The ability of SWA to alter service and pricing patterns not only at
the airports it serves but also at airports in surrounding areas (Vowles,
2001) can provide a base of cooperation with the new HSR. The possi­
bility of a complementary relationship has been acknowledged as viable
options for HSR in Texas; this is because HSR could deliver passengers to
and from the hub airports (DFW and IAH) (Luehrman and Regan, 2003).
This complementary relationship between HSR and air carriers can
additionally benefit interconnected traffic that uses full-service carriers
(like AAL, UAL, and Delta Airlines, among others). The cooperation
between airlines and HSR, through feeding passengers from HSR spokes
to hub airports, could minimize the negative impact of HSR on air
transportation (Yang et al., 2018). Therefore, adapting or modifying
their operational strategies can be beneficial for affected airlines and
release the competitive pressure.
A key factor in shaping such cooperation is the location of the HSR
stations and existing alternatives for traveling to neighboring airports
from HSR stations. The lack of connectivity between HSR and airports
could limit the stations’ intramodality for medium- and long-distance
travel (Dobruszkes, 2001; Marie-Henneberg and Alvarez-Palau, 2017).
In Europe, 46% of HSR stations directly connect to the nearest airports
via HSR, conventional rail, or other transport modes (Marie-Henneberg
and Alvarez-Palau, 2017). The direct connection could attract more
users to either HSR or airlines. This would increase the attractiveness of
an airport with HSR access when compared to competing airports with
no HSR (Dobruszkes, 2001), and ultimately provide combination ser­
vices of air-rail or rail-air. This provides an additional influx of pas­
sengers with a single HSR plus air product (Pavaux, 1991; Dobruszkes,
2001; Ma et al., 2020).
5. Conclusion
This research is an ex-ante analysis of how HSR would impact air
traffic between Dallas and Houston in Texas. We explored three attrib­
utes—namely, frequency, travel time, and ticket price—and found that
frequency would be an essential factor in selecting a transport mode
between Dallas and Houston when HSR becomes available in 2026.
Interestingly, these findings, which reveal that the determining attribute
in the Dallas-Houston route would be frequency, are different from both
Europe (where the determining attribute is travel time) (Dobruszkes
et al., 2017; González-Savignat, 2004), and China (where it is frequency)
(Yang et al., 2018).
Existing literature shows that the entry of new HSR services gener­
ally leads to a significant reduction in air travel demand in point-to-
AppendixRobustness test
As the frequency of HSR increases from one to 60 per day, the percentage of people choosing HSR varies from 65.4% (when HSR frequency is one
time per day) to 74.9% (60 times per day) [see Table A]; 1.6%p vary per 10 frequency change per day. The travel time for HSR increases from 100 to
200 min, and the percentage of people choosing HSR decreases from 81.8% (when HSR travel time is 100 min) to 61.3% (200 min) [see Table B],
which varies from 1.7%p to 2.4%p changes per 10 min. For the ticket price of HSR, the selection rate decreased from 89.9% (when the HSR ticket price
is $50) to 31.4% ($200) [see Table C].
7
Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222
point city-pair markets (Kim et al., 2002; Yang et al., 2018). This is
especially the case for routes of 400 km (250 mi) to 750 km (465 mi) in
length (Dobruszkes et al., 2017; González-Savignat, 2004; Jeng and Su,
2013; Lee and Chang, 2006). In line with the literature (Allum et al.,
2021; Ivaldi and Vibes, 2005), we estimated that LCC services in Texas
would be impacted by HSR more than full-service carriers (e.g., AAL,
UAL). To minimize the negative impact on the airline industry through
intermodal cooperation, the location of HSR stations could be critical.
The connection to and from a major hub or local airports, especially in
Dallas and Houston and a cooperative arrangement between airlines and
HSR operators to provide passengers with convenient and economically
attractive combinations of air-rail or rail-air travel would be essential to
get the relationship substitutes instead of complimentary.
Although this study offers meaningful insight into the competition
between HSR and air carriers on the Dallas-Houston route, some limi­
tations need to be addressed. The majority of our sample is below 25
years old. The younger demographic values time differently compared
to businesspeople and wealthier individuals. Future studies should also
be extended to include more diverse respondents with different income
and age levels.
Second, private vehicles are the primary mode of transport in Texas.
HSR travelers will be composed of new and induced demand from car
travel (more than 85%, CHSRA, 2008) based on California’s estimates.
Naturally, understanding the dynamics of competition between HSR and
automobiles enables decision-makers to understand how the HSR im­
pacts other transport modes. Future research should include private
vehicles, including electric vehicles, among the transport mode choices.
Electric vehicles will possibly change the choice of transport modes
because they make up 8% of all automobiles purchased, and this number
should rise to two-thirds by 2030 and 100% by 2050 (The Economist,
2021). Third, because HSR construction planning is in its early stages, it
is difficult to measure the catchment area. This is because of the unde­
termined location of the new HSR station as well as the far-reaching area
of the two major metropolitan regions (Dallas and Houston). Therefore,
our study could not include an accurate door-to-door estimation of
travel time and did not specifically survey the HSR station locations to
investigate how to design a corridor in a “suburban country.” Future
studies can address this limitation. Finally, because HSR in Texas is in its
early stages, it will be valuable to do ex-post research to investigate the
observed impacts on travel.
Despite these limitations, this research provides a strong foundation
for beginning to predict the impact the new HSR network will have on
air carriers along this route. Airlines should consider the interactive
effects of ticket price, frequency, comfort, and HSR station location in
order to form a cooperative, rather than competitive, relationship with
the new Texas Central HSR.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the
editor for their constructive comments and suggestions.
S.-J. Hong and H. Najmi Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222

Appendix. Robustness test

Table A
The robustness test chooses a transport mode when the mode frequency increases from 1 to 60 per day

Alternatives Frequency per day Probability to choose Differences p-Value 95% confidential interval

Low High

HSR 1 65.4% - 0.000** 60.0% 70.9%

10 67.0% +1.6%p 0.000** 63.2% 70.8%
20 68.7% +1.7%p 0.000** 66.2% 71.2%
30 70.3% +1.6%p 0.000** 68.0% 72.6%
40 71.9% +1.6%p 0.000** 68.6% 75.2%
50 73.4% +1.5%p 0.000** 68.7% 78.1%
60 74.9% +1.5%p 0.000** 68.8% 80.9%
Air 1 23.8% - 0.000** 16.9% 30.7%
10 25.0% +1.2%p 0.000** 19.2% 30.9%
20 26.4% +1.4%p 0.000** 21.8% 31.0%
30 27.9% +1.5%p 0.000** 24.5% 31.3%
40 29.4% +1.5%p 0.000** 27.0% 31.7%
50 30.9% +1.5%p 0.000** 28.7% 33.1%
60 32.5% +1.6%p 0.000** 29.2% 35.8%
** Significant at α = 0.01.

Table B
The robustness test chooses a transport mode when the mode travel time increases from 100 to 200 min

Alternatives Travel time Probability to choose Differences p-Value 95% confidential interval

Low High

HSR 100 81.8% - 0.000** 67.1% 96.5%

110 80.1% − 1.7%p 0.000** 67.0% 93.3%
120 78.4% − 1.7%p 0.000** 67.1% 89.7%
130 76.6% − 1.8%p 0.000** 67.4% 85.8%
140 74.7% − 1.9%p 0.000** 67.7% 81.6%
150 72.6% − 2.1%p 0.000** 68.0% 77.2%
160 70.5% − 2.1%p 0.000** 67.9% 73.2%
170 68.4% − 2.1%p 0.000** 65.1% 71.6%
180 66.1% − 2.3%p 0.000** 60.1% 72.1%
190 63.7% − 2.4%p 0.000** 54.3% 73.1%
200 61.3% − 2.4%p 0.000** 48.3% 74.3%
Air 100 46.3% - 0.015* 23.9% 68.7%
110 44.0% − 2.3%p 0.003** 24.9% 63.0%
120 41.6% − 2.4%p 0.000** 25.8% 57.4%
130 39.3% − 2.3%p 0.000** 26.8% 51.9%
140 37.1% − 2.2%p 0.000** 27.6% 46.6%
150 34.9% − 2.2%p 0.000** 28.3% 41.5%
160 32.8% − 2.1%p 0.000** 28.8% 36.8%
170 30.8% − 2.0%p 0.000** 28.5% 33.1%
180 28.8% − 2.0%p 0.000** 25.9% 31.8%
190 26.9% − 1.9%p 0.000** 22.1% 31.7%
200 25.1% − 1.8%p 0.000** 18.3% 31.9%
** Significant at α = 0.01.

Table C
The robustness test chooses a transport mode when the mode ticket price increases from $50 to $200

Alternatives Ticket price Probability to choose Differences p-Value 95% confidential interval

Low High

HSR 50 89.9% - 0.000** 84.8% 95.0%

75 83.6% − 6.3%p 0.000** 78.7% 88.5%
100 75.0% − 8.6%p 0.000** 71.5% 78.6%
125 64.6% − 10.4%p 0.000** 61.4% 67.8%
150 53.2% − 11.4%p 0.000** 47.5% 58.9%
175 41.9% − 11.3%p 0.000** 33.5% 50.3%
200 31.4% − 10.5%p 0.000** 21.0% 41.8%
Air 50 51.8% - 0.000** 46.3% 57.2%
75 42.9% − 8.9%p 0.000** 39.3% 46.5%
100 34.6% − 8.3%p 0.000** 32.2% 37.0%
125 26.6% − 8.0%p 0.000** 24.3% 29.0%
150 19.3% − 7.3%p 0.000** 15.7% 22.8%
175 13.0% − 6.3%p 0.000** 8.5% 17.5%
200 8.2% − 4.8%p 0.000** 3.7% 12.7%
** Significant at α = 0.01.

8
S.-J. Hong and H. Najmi Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222

References Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M.K., Buhl, S.L., 2005. How (in)accurate are demand
forecasts in public works projects?: the case of transportation. J. Am. Plann. Assoc.
71 (2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976688.
Albalate, D., Bel, G., Fageda, X., 2015. Competition and cooperation between high-speed
Fröidh, O., Nelldal, B.L., 2008. Regional high-speed trains on the Svealand line:
rail and air transportation services in Europe. J. Transport Geogr. 42, 166–174.
evaluation of effects. In: Railway Development. Physica-Verlag HD, pp. 295–314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.07.003.
Fu, X., Zhang, A., Lei, Z., 2012. Will China’s airline industry survive the entry of high-
Allum, A., Basu, B., Robertson, S., Jamal, A., 2021. The US could become a leading
speed rail? Res. Transport. Econ. 35 (1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
market in high-speed rail. L.E.K. Consulting. Retrieved March 6,2022 from. https
retrec.2011.11.006.
://www.lek.com/insights/ar/us-could-become-leading-market-high-speed-rail.
Fu, X., Lei, Z., Wang, K., Yan, J., 2015. Low cost carrier competition and route entry in an
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
emerging but regulated aviation market – the case of China. Transport. Res. Pol.
J. Market. Res. 14 (3), 396–402. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150783.
Pract. 79, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.03.020.
Beckerich, C., Benoit, S., Delaplace, M., 2019. Are the reasons for companies to locate
Givoni, M., Dobruszkes, F., 2013. A review of ex-post evidence for mode substitution and
around central versus peripheral high-speed rail stations different? The cases of
induced demand following the introduction of high-speed rail. Transport Rev. 33 (6),
Reims Central Station and Champagne-Ardenne Station. Eur. Plann. Stud. https://
720–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.853707.
doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1567111. Special issue.
González-Savignat, M., 2004. Competition in air transport: the case of the high-speed
Behrens, C., Pels, E., 2012. Intermodal competition in the London–Paris passenger
train. J. Transport Econ. Pol. 38 (1), 77–107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
market: high-speed rail and air transport. J. Urban Econ. 71 (3), 278–288. https://
20173046.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2011.12.005.
Gustavson, K., Røysamb, E., Borren, I., 2019. Preventing bias from selective non-response
Bellet, C., Alonso, P., Gutierrez, A., 2012. The high-speed rail in Spanish cities: urban
in population-based survey studies: findings from a Monte Carlo simulation study.
integration and local strategies for socio-economic development. In: de Urena, J.M.
BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 19 (1), 120.
(Ed.), Territorial Implications of High Speed Rail: A Spanish Perspective. Ashgate,
Hall, P., 2013. High-speed two-the great divide. Built. Environ. 39, 339–354. https://doi.
Farnham, UK, pp. 197–216.
org/10.2148/benv.39.3.339.
Ben-Akiva, M., Bierlaire, M., McFadden, D., Walker, J., 2018. Discrete Choice Analysis.
Hong, S.-J., Domergue, F., 2018. Estimations viability of LCCs business model in Korea.
The MIT Press.
J. Int. Logist. Trade 16 (1), 11–20.
Bradley, M., Daly, A., 1994. Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and
Hong, S.-J., Savoie, M., Joiner, S., Kincaid, T., 2022. Analysis of airline employees’
fatigue effects in stated preference data. Transportation 21, 167–184. https://doi.
perception of corporate preparedness for COVID-19 disruption on airline operations.
org/10.1007/BF01098791.
Transport Pol. 119, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.02.008.
Brida, J.G., Martín, J.C., Román, C., Scuderi, R., 2017. Air and HST multimodal products.
High Speed Rail Alliance [HSRA], 2020-b. Court decision moves Texas bullet train one
A segmentation analysis for policy makers. Network. Spatial Econ. 17 (3), 911–934.
step closer to reality. Retrieved October 27, 2020 from. https://www.hsrail.org/.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-017-9352-3.
High Speed Rail Alliance [HSRA], 2020a. Texas Central almost ready to go. Retrieved
California High-Speed Rail Authority [CHSRA], 2008. California High-Speed Train
October 27, 2020 from. https://www.hsrail.org/.
Business Plan.
Ivaldi, M., Vibes, C., 2005. Intermodal and intramodal competition in passenger rail
California High-Speed Rail Authority [CHSRA], 2020. Draft 2020 Business Plan -
transport. In: CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5004. https://doi.org/10.2139/
Delivering the Vision.
ssrn.637242.
Carsey, T., 2011. In: Monte Carlo Simulation and Resampling. Retrieved Aug 8, 2021
Jeges, R., 2013. The Monte Carlo method. Retrieved Aug 8, 2021 from. https://jeges.
from. http://saravanan-thirumuruganathan.github.io/cse5334Spring2015/slides/
com.au/the-monte-carlo-method/.
21_Sampling/.
Jeges, R., 2021. Monte Carlo simulation in MS Excel. Retrieved Aug 1, 2021 from. htt
Castillo-Manzano, J.I., Pozo-Barajas, R., Trapero, J.R., 2015. Measuring the substitution
ps://www.projectsmart.co.uk/.
effects between high speed rail and air transport in Spain. J. Transport Geogr. 43,
Jeng, C.-R., Su, C.-H., 2013. The predicament of domestic airline service after the
59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.01.008.
introduction of Taiwan high-speed rail. Transport. J. 52 (1), 134–143. https://doi.
Chen, Z., 2017. Impacts of high-speed rail on domestic air transportation in China.
org/10.5325/transportationj.52.1.0134.
J. Transport Geogr. 62, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.04.002.
Jiang, C., Li, X., 2016. Low cost carrier and high-speed rail: a macroeconomic
Chen, Z., Haynes, K., 2017. Impact of high-speed rail on regional economic disparity in
comparison between Japan and Western Europe. Res. Transport. Bus. Manag. 21,
China. J. Transport Geogr. 65, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.05.006.
jtrangeo.2017.08.003.
Jiang, C., Zhang, A., 2014. Effects of high-speed rail and airline cooperation under hub
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R., 2003. A partial least squares latent variable
airport capacity constraint. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 60, 33–49. https://doi.
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo
org/10.1016/j.trb.2013.12.002.
simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 14
Jimenez, J.L., Betancor, O., 2012. When trains go faster than planes: the strategic
(2), 189–217.
reaction of airlines in Spain. Transport Pol. 23, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Clewlow, R.R., Sussman, J.M., Balakrishnan, H., 2014. The impact of high-speed rail and
tranpol.2012.06.003.
low-cost carriers on European air passenger traffic. Transport Pol. 33, 136–143.
Jung, S. -Y., Yoo, K. -E, 2014. Passenger airline choice behavior for domestic short-haul
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.01.015.
travel in South Korea. Journal of Air Transport Management 38, 43–47. https://doi.
DataUSA, 2020a. Dallas TX. Retrieved April 18,2021 from. https://datausa.
org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2013.12.017.
io/profile/geo/dallas-tx/#:~:text=The 5 largest ethnic groups,%2DHispanic)
Kim, Y.M., Park, Y., Kim, J.C., Hong, S.-J., 2002. A Study on the Enhancement of Air
(3.37%25).
Service with the Opening of Highspeed Railroad. The Korea Transport Institute.
DataUSA, 2020b. Harris county TX. Retrieved April 18,2021 from. https://datausa.io/
Kim, H., Sultana, S., Weber, J., 2018. A geographic assessment of the economic
profile/geo/harris-county-tx.
development impact of Korean high-speed rail stations. Transport Pol. https://doi.
Dobruszkes, F., 2001. Multimodalité TGV-avion : considérations sur le cas de Bruxelles
org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.02.008 (in press).
[Multimodality TGV-airplane: considerations on the case of Brussels]. Rev. Belg.
Lee, J.-H., Chang, J.S., 2006. Effects of high-speed rail service on shares of intercity
Geograph. 4, 335–350. https://doi.org/10.4000/belgeo.15666.
passenger ridership in South Korea. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board
Dobruszkes, F., 2011. High-speed rail and air transport competition in Western Europe: a
1943 (1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106194300105.
supply-oriented perspective. Transport Pol. 18, 870–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Lu, J.-L., Shon, Z.Y., 2012. Exploring airline passengers’ willingness to pay for carbon
tranpol.2011.06.002.
offsets. Transport. Res. Transport Environ. 17 (2), 124–128. https://doi.org/
Dobruszkes, F., Givoni, M., Dehon, C., 2017. Assessing the competition between high-
10.1016/j.trd.2011.10.002.
speed rail and airlines: a critical perspective. In: Albalate, D., Bel, G. (Eds.),
Luehrman, T.A., Regan, A.D., 2003. Texas high-speed rail corporation. HBS No. 9-293-
Evaluating High-Speed Rail: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Routledge, pp. 69–81.
072. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=7266.
Doomernik, J.E., 2016. Competitive position of high-speed rail in Western Europe. In:
Ma, W., Wang, Q., Yang, H., Zhang, Y., 2020. Evaluating the price effects of two airline
Paper Presented at the 2016 WCTRS Conference. Shanghai.
mergers in China. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 141, 102030. https://doi.
Economist [The], 2021. A lack of chargers could stall the electric-vehicle revolution:
org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102030.
forget Tesla’s production hell. The hardest bit of EVs is the powering up. Retrieved
Marie-Henneberg, J., Alvarez-Palau, E.J., 2017. HSR and the city: accessibility to stations
March 6, 2020 from. https://www.economist.com/business/a-lack-of-chargers-
and intermodality. In: Albalate, D., Bel, G. (Eds.), Evaluating High-Speed Rail:
could-stall-the-electric-vehicle-revolution/.
Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Routledge, pp. 82–99.
Environmental and Energy Study Institute [EESI], 2018. Fact sheet: high speed rail
Martín, J.C., Román, C., García-Palomares, J.C., Gutiérrez, J., 2014. Spatial analysis of
development worldwide. Retrieved November 22, 2020 from. https://www.eesi.
the competitiveness of the high-speed train and air transport: the role of access to
org/papers/view/fact-sheet-high-speed-rail-development-worldwide.
terminals in the Madrid–Barcelona corridor. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 69, 392–408.
Faredetective, 2019. Airfare history charts. Retrieved November 22, 2019 from. htt
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.09.010.
ps://www.faredetective.com/farehistory.
McFadden, D., 1981. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Manski, C.F.,
Federal Railway Administration [FRA], 2009. In: Vision for High-Speed Rail in America.
McFadden, D. (Eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric
United States Department of Transportation. FRA from. https://railroads.dot.gov/eli
Applications. The MIT Press, pp. 198–272.
brary/vision-high-speed-rail-america.
Mohino, I., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Ureña, J.M., 2014. Impacts of high-speed rail on
Federal Railway Administration [FRA], 2015. In: Texas Central High-Speed Rail Project
metropolitan integration: an examination of London, Madrid and Paris. Int. Plann.
Corridor Alternatives Analysis Technical Report. United States Department of
Stud. 19, 306–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2014.950638.
Transportation. FRA from. https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/vision-high-speed-rai
Mohino, I., Delaplace, M., Ureña, J.M., 2018. The influence of metropolitan integration
l-america.
and type of HSR connections on developments around stations. The case of cities
Federal Railway Administration [FRA], 2020. In: High-speed Rail Timeline. United States
within one hour from Madrid and Paris. Int. Plann. Stud. 10.1080/13563475.2018.1
Department of Transportation, FRA. Retrieved October 17, 2020 from. https://rail
524289.
roads.dot.gov/passenger-rail/high-speed-rail/high-speed-rail-timeline.

9
S.-J. Hong and H. Najmi
Mooney, C.Z., 1997. Monte Carlo Simulation. Sage University Paper.
Moss, M.L., Qing, C., 2012. In: The Emergence of the" Super-commuter. Rudin Center for
Transporportation, New York University Wagner School of Public Service. https:
//wagner.nyu.edu/files/rudincenter/supercommuter_report.pdf.
Pagliara, F., Vassallo, J., Román, C., 2012. High-speed rail versus air transportation: case
study of Madrid-Barcelona, Spain. Transportation research record. J. Transport. Res.
Board 2289, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.3141/2289-02.
Pan, J.Y., Truong, D., 2020. Low-cost carriers versus high-speed rail: understanding key
drivers of passengers’ choice in China. Transport. J. 59 (1), 1–27. https://doi.org/
10.5325/transportationj.59.1.0001.
Pavaux, J., 1991. Les complémentarités train/avion en Europe [Train-plane
complementarities in Europe]. ITA.
Repolho, H.M., Church, R.L., Antunes, A.P., 2016. Optimizing station location and fleet
composition for a high-speed rail line. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 93,
437–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.06.006.
Román, C., Martín, J.C., 2014. Integration of HSR and air transport: understanding
passengers’ preferences. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 71, 129–141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.09.001.
Román, C., Espino, R., Martín, J.C., 2007. Competition of high-speed train with air
transport: the case of Madrid–Barcelona. J. Air Transport. Manag. 13 (5), 277–284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2007.04.009.
Román, C., Espino, R., Martín, J.C., 2010. Analyzing competition between the high speed
train and alternative modes. The case of the Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona corridor.
J. Choice Model. 3 (1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70030-7.
Román, C., Martín, J.C., Espino, R., Cherchi, E., de Dios Ortuzar, J., Rizzi, L.I.,
Amador, F.J., 2014. Valuation of travel time savings for intercity travel: the Madrid-
Barcelona corridor. Transport Pol. 36, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tranpol.2014.07.007.
Shao, Z.-Z., Ma, Z.-J., Sheu, J.-B., Gao, H.O., 2018. Evaluation of large-scale
transnational high-speed railway construction priority in the belt and road region.
10
Journal of Air Transport Management 102 (2022) 102222
Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 117, 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tre.2017.07.007.
Simar, L., Wilson, P.W., 2007. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric
models of production processes. J. Econom. 136 (1), 31–64.
Texas Central, 2021. Alignment maps. Retrieved April 18,2021 from. https://www.texas
central.com/alignment-maps/.
Valeri, E., 2013. Air and rail transport in the Rome-Milan corridor: competition policy
implications based on a discrete choice analysis. Università degli studi di Trieste.
Vowles, T.M., 2001. The “Southwest Effect” in multi-airport regions. J. Air Transport.
Manag. 7, 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6997(01)00013-8.
Wang, J., Bonilla, D., Banister, D., 2016. Air deregulation in China and its impact on
airline competition 1994–2012. J. Transport Geogr. 50, 12–23. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.03.007.
Wang, K., Xia, W., Zhang, A., 2017. Should China further expand its high-speed rail
network? Consider the low-cost carrier factor. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 100,
105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.010.
Wang, K., Xia, W., Zhang, A., Zhang, Q., 2018. Effects of high-speed rail speed on airline
demand and price: theoretical analysis and empirical evidence from a natural
experiment. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 114, 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trb.2018.05.017.
Yang, H., Burghouwt, G., Wang, J., Boonekamp, T., Dijst, M., 2018. The implications of
high-speed railways on air passenger flows in China. Appl. Geogr. 97, 1–9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.05.006.
Yin, M., Bertolini, L., Duan, J., 2015. The effects of the high speed railway on urban
development: international experience and potential implications for China. Prog.
Plann. 98, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.11.001.
Zhang, Q., Yang, H., Wang, Q., 2017. Impact of high-speed rail on China’s Big Three
airlines. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 98, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tra.2017.02.005.