IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v105y2024i3p894-905.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

All aboard? An analysis of public opinion regarding high‐speed rail

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Johnson
  • Euel Elliott

Abstract

Objective High‐speed rail is not well utilized in the United States. This study examines public interest in high‐speed rail and the role the apparent urban–rural political divide may play in its establishment. Methods Data from a sample of 1648 U.S. residents and 515 Texas residents surveyed in Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 were analyzed to determine their likelihood of choosing high‐speed rail if it was available. Results Results found that 35 percent of national respondents and 52 percent of Texas respondents indicated they are likely to choose high‐speed rail. Characteristics such as age, education, gender, and political party affiliation had a statistically significant relationship with a respondent's likelihood of choosing high‐speed rail. Conclusion This analysis indicates an interest in high‐speed rail in both samples. Many of the characteristics of those likely to choose high‐speed rail are consistent with typical early adopters of innovation. Democrats seem more likely to consider high‐speed rail, however identifying as either a Republican or a Democrat resulted in a positive, statistically significant relationship with an interest in high‐speed rail in the Texas sample. While this discussion does appear to have a partisan divide, other characteristics seem to be a strong predictor of interest in high‐speed rail.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Johnson & Euel Elliott, 2024. "All aboard? An analysis of public opinion regarding high‐speed rail," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(3), pages 894-905, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:3:p:894-905
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13363
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13363?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregg Culver, 2016. "Moving Forward or Taking a Stand? Discourses Surrounding the Politics of Wisconsin High-speed Rail," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(5), pages 703-722, October.
    2. Yasasvi Popuri & Kimon Proussaloglou & Cemal Ayvalik & Frank Koppelman & Aimee Lee, 2011. "Importance of traveler attitudes in the choice of public transportation to work: findings from the Regional Transportation Authority Attitudinal Survey," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 643-661, July.
    3. Michael Minn, 2013. "The Political Economy of High Speed Rail in the United States," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 185-200, May.
    4. Chikaraishi, Makoto & Khan, Diana & Yasuda, Banri & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2020. "Risk perception and social acceptability of autonomous vehicles: A case study in Hiroshima, Japan," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 105-115.
    5. Jenks, Leland H., 1944. "Railroads as an Economic Force in American Development1," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-20, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dubey, Subodh & Sharma, Ishant & Mishra, Sabyasachee & Cats, Oded & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A General Framework to Forecast the Adoption of Novel Products: A Case of Autonomous Vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 63-95.
    2. Schürenberg-Frosch, Hannah, 2012. "Determinants of transport costs: Are they uniform across countries?," Economics Discussion Papers 2012-54, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Chorus, Caspar G. & Kroesen, Maarten, 2014. "On the (im-)possibility of deriving transport policy implications from hybrid choice models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 217-222.
    4. Leo-Paul Dana, 1995. "Entrepreneurship in a Remote Sub-Arctic Community," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 20(1), pages 57-72, October.
    5. Nikitas, Alexandros & Parkinson, Simon & Vallati, Mauro, 2022. "The deceitful Connected and Autonomous Vehicle: Defining the concept, contextualising its dimensions and proposing mitigation policies," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 1-10.
    6. Yan, Yingying & Zhong, Shiquan & Tian, Junfang & Li, Tong, 2022. "Continuance intention of autonomous buses: An empirical analysis based on passenger experience," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 85-95.
    7. Schürenberg-Frosch, Hannah, 2011. "One model fits all? Determinants of transport costs across sectors and country groups," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 122, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    8. repec:cdl:itsdav:qt6zw5v1jz is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Morlotti, Chiara & Birolini, Sebastian & Malighetti, Paolo & Redondi, Renato, 2023. "A latent class approach to estimate air travelers’ propensity toward connecting itineraries," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Omid Sabbaghi, 2024. "The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and global finance: Recent evidence," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 4020-4033, September.
    11. Subodh Dubey & Ishant Sharma & Sabyasachee Mishra & Oded Cats & Prateek Bansal, 2021. "A General Framework to Forecast the Adoption of Novel Products: A Case of Autonomous Vehicles," Papers 2109.06169, arXiv.org.
    12. Chee, Pei Nen Esther & Susilo, Yusak O. & Wong, Yiik Diew, 2020. "Determinants of intention-to-use first-/last-mile automated bus service," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 350-375.
    13. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jinmeng, 2025. "Influence of information strategies on behavioral intention to adopt driverless vehicles: Based on a survey experiment," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 318(C).
    14. Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Xiao Wang & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong & Qiudi Wu, 2021. "Examining the Role of Trust in Regulators in Food Safety Risk Assessment: A Cross-regional Analysis of Three Chinese Societies Using an Integrative Framework," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    15. Li, Jianling, 2018. "Residential and transit decisions: Insights from focus groups of neighborhoods around transit stations," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-9.
    16. Jesper Bláfoss Ingvardson & Mikkel Thorhauge & Sigal Kaplan & Otto Anker Nielsen & Sebastián Raveau, 2022. "Incorporating psychological needs in commute mode choice modelling: a hybrid choice framework," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(6), pages 1861-1889, December.
    17. Diego García-Mejuto, 2022. "Theorizing nation-building through high-speed rail development: Hegemony and space in the Basque Country, Spain," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 54(3), pages 554-571, May.
    18. Hussain, Qinaat & Alhajyaseen, Wael K.M. & Adnan, Muhammad & Almallah, Mustafa & Almukdad, Abdulkarim & Alqaradawi, Mohammed, 2021. "Autonomous vehicles between anticipation and apprehension: Investigations through safety and security perceptions," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 440-451.
    19. Culver, Gregg, 2016. "End of the line: The spatial framing of high-speed rail in Wisconsin," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 70-76.
    20. repec:ehl:wpaper:45562 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Aaditya, Bh. & Rahul, T.M., 2021. "Psychological impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the mode choice behaviour: A hybrid choice modelling approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 47-58.
    22. Salas, Patricio & De la Fuente, Rodrigo & Astroza, Sebastian & Carrasco, Juan Antonio, 2025. "Analysis of attribute importance in multinomial logit models using Shapley values-based methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:3:p:894-905. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.