以往台灣西部城際旅客運輸係以國道客運、鐵路運輸、國內航空及私人運具等方式為主；至2007年高鐵營運後，改變以往的運具選擇行為。奠定於個體選擇模式之裡論架構下，本研究透過蒐集台南—台北城際旅客的顯示與敘述偏好資料，分別構建城際運具選擇模式以及至城際運輸場站的起點接駁運具選擇模式，並以程序性校估方式建立城際暨接駁聯合運具選擇模式，實證城際與接駁運輸選擇的有關影響屬性，分析高鐵營運後對城際旅運行為之衝擊，及接駁運輸對城際旅運行為之影響。此部分研究結果顯示車內時間、車外等候時間、旅行成本與接駁服務的便利性、為影響城際運輸之重要影響服務屬性；接駁時間、接駁成本則是接駁運具選擇的重要考量；旅次及社經特性如旅次目的、同行人數、所得、職業身份、汽車持有則共同影響城際與接駁運具的選擇行為。
　　其次為了增進模式的解釋能力，研究探討了選擇模式中的相關性與異質性之處理；城際暨接駁聯合運具選擇模式之改善結果，係以考慮城際方案相關性之改善效果最佳，而以高鐵與航空的整體相似度最具代表性；考量個體異質性之混合Logit（Mixed Logit）則對城際場站接駁模式有較佳的改善效果。此實證結果除了反映顯示與敘述資料尺度因子的改善外，亦顯示接駁時間係數的變異程度相對接駁成本高。另外，研究也以市場區隔模式反映各區隔族群在城際車內、外時間價值上之差異，結果以高所得(平均每月四萬以上)且為公商務目的旅次區隔族群最高，低所得（平均每月四萬以下）且為非公商務目的旅次族群最低。
　　研究最後也以總計預測方法分析營運後城際旅運市場可能的政策變化，由彈性與情境分析之結果均指出旅行成本對市占率的影響幅度相對時間大，而高鐵公司在價格或時間策略的改變對其它運具皆有相當大影響，再者根據區隔模式所繪出的市場競爭結構圖則反映高鐵運具對低所得且為公商務旅次目的族群者之吸引力高。上述分析成果可提供城際業者作為經營策略的制訂依據，以及執政當局提升接駁與城際運輸服務品質的參考。

Modes as freeway bus, traditional rail, and domestic air are available in Taiwan intercity passenger transport before High Speed Rail (HSR) system launched. Since its inauguration from year 2007, past intercity travel behaviors are changed, and transformed market shares of existing modes. Based on disaggregated choice model theory, we collected revealed preference (RP) and stated preference (SP) data form intercity passengers in Tainan to Taipei route. We also discussed this issue with behavior models of intercity mode choice and each intercity terminal access mode choice, respectively. Furthermore, we constituted an integrated model to combine intercity mode choice with terminal access mode choice by sequential calibration procedure.The model results showed concerned attributes on intercity and terminal mode choice behaviors. Also, we determined impacts on intercity travel behaviors after High Speed Rail (HSR) mode is considered, and appraised the effects of access transport on intercity mode choice. The results of intercity mode choice show that service performance factors such as in-vehicle time, out-vehicle waiting time, traveling cost, accessibility of access transport are significant affected. Variables of access time and access cost are empirical verified in access choice model. Other relevant trip and soc-economical characters as trip purpose, fellow travelers, income, occupation, possession of car, bear effects on both intercity and access mode choice behaviors, too.
Secondly, we improve the credibility of models, and discuss the advanced issue concerning correlation and heterogeneity. The great improvement on intercity and access integrated model contributed to the consideration of intercity alternative correlation. The representative performance is the correlation between HSR and domestic air service. Mixed Logit models, which take individual heterogeneity into account, are highly improving in explaining access mode choice. It corrected the scale of revealed and stated preference data, and indicated the coefficient variation of access time is lager than coefficient of access cost. Besides, we also built models in terms of segmentation to demonstrate the value of in/out vehicle time difference among pre-defined segments. The result shows that segment with relative high-income (mean income of fourteen thousands level above per mouth), involving in work trip purpose bears highest value of time; segment with low-income (mean income of fourteen thousands level below per mouth) involving in non-work trip purpose bears lowest value of time.
Finally, the study analyzes the possible change for future intercity transport market through aggregated forecast approach. The analysis of aggregated elasticity and scenario points out that travel cost is the determinant effect on market share relative to travel time. The operation adjustment of price and time from HSR administer deeply influenced on other intercity passenger transports. Moreover, the market competitive structure drew from best segmented model demonstrated the share with low-income (mean income of fourteen thousands level below per mouth) involving in work trip purpose favored HSR relative to other segments. Relevant conclusions of the study could develop specific suggestions for private and public sectors in response to transformed market after the operation of High speed rail.

中文文獻
王盈惠，民國96年，「台灣高速鐵路營運後對城際間運送能量影響之研究」，逢甲大學交通工程與管理學系碩士班碩士論文，台中。
交通部運輸研究所，民國93年7月23日，「第三期台灣地區整體運輸規劃」，http://www.iot.gov.tw/lp.asp?CtNode=1071&CtUnit=46&BaseDSD=7（瀏覽日期，民國96年10月5日）。
呂孟宗，民國95年，「台灣高速鐵路離站接駁運具選擇之研究」，逢甲大學交通工程與管理學系碩士班碩士論文，台中。
林楨家、馮正民、黃麟淇，(2005) ，「臺灣高速鐵路系統對地方發展之影響預測」，運輸計畫季刊，三十四卷，第三期，頁391-412。
汪佳政，民國83年，「高速鐵路聯外運輸系統規劃方法論之研究」，國立台灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文，台北。
江伯尹，民國87年，「高速鐵路服務品質對旅運者選擇行為影響之研究」，國立成功大學交通管理學系碩士論文，台南。
何宇強，毛保華，陳團生，楊靜，民國95年，「高速客運專線客流分擔率模型及其應用研究」，鐵道學報，第二十八卷，第三期，頁18-21。
周宏彥、許玄岡，民國96年，「接駁服務對城際運具選擇之影響分析」，運輸學刊，第十九卷，第三期，頁271-300。
周榮昌、陳筱葳、劉祐興，民國93年，「城際旅運者運具選擇行為之研究」，中國土木水利工程學刊，第十六卷，第二期，頁269-280。
段良雄、王郁珍，民國88年，「整合顯示偏好與敘述偏好數據的運具選擇模式」，運輸計劃季刊，第二十八卷，第一期，頁25-60。
段良雄、劉慧燕，民國85年，「敘述偏好模式之實驗設計與校估方法」，運輸計劃季刊，第二十五卷，第一期，頁1-44。
段良雄、黃秀敏、楊志文，民國90年，「城際客運運具選擇市場區隔模式之比較研究」，運輸學刊，第十三卷，第五期，頁19-50。
洪怡君、劉祐興、周榮昌，民國94年，「高速鐵路接駁運具選擇行為之研究-以台中烏日站為例」，中華民國運輸學會第二十屆學術論文研討會，台北。
段良雄、楊志文，民國90年，「更新方法、效用函數指定與數據型態對運具選擇模式更新之影響」，運輸計劃季刊，第三十卷，第四期，頁763-793。
黃心怡，民國82年，「鐵路車站可及性與旅客數關係之研究」，國立台北大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文，台北。
黃歆嵐，民國89年，「以旅運者觀點探討高速鐵路車廂選擇行為之研究」，國立交通大學運輸工程與管理學系碩士論文，新竹。
許巧鶯，周晏正，民國85年，「都會區內場站與快速道路配置型態對高鐵與航空市場範圍之影響」，運輸學刊，第九卷，第一期，頁41-64。
陳宥欽、段良雄，民國94年，「巢式羅機模式與效用最大理論的關係」，運輸學刊，第十七卷，第三期，頁305-334。
張仲杰，民國88年，「以成對羅吉特模式探討城際間運具選擇行為之研究」，國立交通大學交通運輸研究所碩士論文，台北。
張顥鐘，民國91年，「以敘述性偏好法探討迄點屬性對城際旅運者運具選擇行為之影響」，國立成功大學都市計畫研究所碩士論文，台南。
楊志文、段良雄，民國93年，「考慮選擇集合與異質性之個體城際客運選擇模式」，運輸計劃季刊，第三十三卷，第二期，頁391-420。
楊志文，民國96年，「應用整合型選擇模式探討新運具的選擇行為」，運輸計劃季刊，第三十六卷，第二期，頁183-208。
楊志文、曾維琦、宋彥青，民國96年，「應用成對比較與選擇圖像法探討國道客運服務品質之定位效果」，運輸計畫季刊，第三十六卷，第一期，頁83-114。
謝文淵，民國91年，「高鐵高北城際旅客旅次規劃行為之研究」，國立成功大學交通管理科學研究所碩士論文，台南。
英文文獻
Amemiya T., 1978,“On two-step estimation of multivariate logit models”, Journal of Econnometrics Vol. 8, pp.13-21.
Ben-Akiva M. & Lerman S., 1985, Discrete Choice Analysis : Theory and Application to Travel Demand , Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Ben-Akiva M. & Morikawa T., 1990,“Estimation of switching models of from revealed preference and stated intentions ”, Transportation Research A, Vol. 24 ,pp.485-495.
Bhat C. R., 1995,“A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice”, Transportation Research B, Vol. 29, No.6 ,pp.471-483.
Bhat C. R., 1998,“Accommodating Variations in Responsiveness of Level of Service Measures in Travel Mode Choice Modeling”, Transportation Research A, Vol. 32, No.7 ,pp.495-507.
Bonnafous A., 1987, “The regional impact of the TGV”, Transportation,Vol. 14, pp.127-137.
Bovy P.H.L., & Lanser S.H., 2005,“Modelling route choice behaviour in multi-modal transport networks ”, Transportation, Vol. 32 ,pp.341-368.
Brownstone D., & Small K., 1989,“Efficient estimation of nested logit model”, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, Vol. 7 ,pp.67-74.
Cooper L.G., 1988, “Competitive Maps: The Structure Underlying Asymmetric Cross Elasticities”, Management Science, Vol.34, No.6, pp. 707-723.
Coto-Millán P., Inglada V., & Rey B., 2007, “Effects of network economies in high-speed rail:the Spanish case”, The Annals of Regional Sciences, Vol. 31, pp.57-76.
Daly, A., & Zachary, S., 1978, “Improved Multiple Choice Models”, In: Hensher, D. and Dalvi, Q. (eds.), Identifying and Measuring the Determinants of Mode Choice, London: Teakfield, pp. 335-357.
Daly, A., 1987, “Estimating ‘TREE’ Logit Models”, Transportation Research B, Vol. 21, pp. 251-267.
De Jong G., Daly A., Pieters M., & Van Der Hoorn T., 2007, “The logsum as an evaluation measure: Review of the literature and new results”, Transportation Research A, Vol. 41, pp.874-889.
Gunn H. F., M. Bradley & Hensher D., 1992, “High Speed Rail market projection: Survey design and analysis”, Transportation, Vol. 19, pp.117-139.
Gelhausen M. C.& Wilken D., 2006, “Airport and Access Mode Choice A Generalized Nested Logit Model Approach”, ATRS, World Conference, Nagoya, Japan.
Haynes, K. E., 1997, “Labor markets and regional transportation improvements: the case of high-speed trains : An introduction and review”, The Annals of Regional Sciences, Vol. 31, pp.57-76.
Hensher D. A., 1997, “A Practical Approach to identifying the market potential for high speed rail: a case study in Sydney-Canberra Corridor”, Transportation Research A, Vol.31, No.6, pp.431-446.
Hensher D. A., & Bradley M., 1993, “Using Stated Response Choice Data to Enrich Revealed Preference Discrete choice model”, Marketing Letters, Vol.4, No.2, pp.139-151.
Hensher D. A., & Green W. H., 2003, “The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice”, Transportation, Vol.30, pp.133-176.
Hensher D. A, & Rose J. M., 2007, “Development of commuter and non-commuter mode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructure projects: A case study”, Transportation Research Part A , Vol. 41 pp.428-443.
Hess S. & Polak J. W., 2005, “Mixed logit modelling of airport choice in multi-airport regions”, Journal of Air Transport Management ,Vol. 11 pp.59-68.
Hess S. & Polak J. W., 2006, “Airport, airline and access mode choice in the San Francisco Bay area”, Papers in Regional Science, Vol 85. NO.4 pp.543-567.
Hsu C. I. & Chung W. M, 1997, “A model for market share distribution between high-speed and conventional rail services in a transportation corridor”, The Annals of Regional Science , Vol 31., pp.121-153.
Koppelman F. S. & Wen C., 1998, “Alternative Nested Logit Models: Structure, Properties and Estimation,” Transportation Research, Vol.32B, No.5, pp.289-298.
Louriere J. J., Hensher D. & Swait J., 2000, Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application, Cambridge University Press.
Lu C.L., 1997, “Study on Patronage Transfer Inclination Model of New Travel Modes”, Proceedings of the National Science Council (Part C: Humanities and Social Sciences), Vol.8, No.2, pp. 242-259.
Lee J.H , Chon K.S. & Park C.H, 2004, “Accommodating Heterogeneity and Heteroscedasticity in Intercity Travel Mode Choice Model: Formulation and Application to HoNam, South Korea, High-Speed Rail Demand Analysis” Transportation Research Record, No. 1898, pp.69–78.
Mandel B., Gaudry M. & Rothengatter W. , 1997 , “A disaggregate Box-Cox Logit mode choice model of intercity passenger travel in Germany and its implications for high-speed rail demand forecasts”, The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 31, pp.99–120.
Martín J. C., & Nombela G., 2007, “Microeconomic impacts of investments in high speed trains in Spain”, The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 41, pp.715–733.
McFadden D., 1973, “Conditional Logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior” , in:P. Zarembka, (Ed.) Frontiers in econometrics ( Academic Press, New York).
McFadden, D., Train K. & Tye W., 1978, “An application of diagnostic tests for the independence from irrelevant alternatives property of the multinomial logit model”, Transportation Research Record , NO. 637, pp.39-46.
McFadden, D., 1981, “Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice,” In: Manski,C. and McFadden, D. (eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data,Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 198-271.
McFadden, D., & Train K., 2000, “Mixed MNL models for discrete response”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol.15, No.5, pp.447-470.
Nijkamp P., Reggiani A., & Tritapepe T., 1997 ,“Spatial choice behaviour: logit models and neural network analysis”, The Annals of Regional Science , Vol. 31, pp.411-429.
Nuzzolo, A., Crisalli,U. , Gangemi, F., 2000, “ A behavioural choice model for the evaluation of railway supply and pricing policies”, Transportation Research Part A,Vol.34, pp.395-404.
Oliver F. S., & Hung M. F., 2007, “Modeling Airline Coalition Strategies in Competing with Taiwan High Speed Rail”, WCTR, U.C.Berkeley.
Pels. E, Nijkamp P., & Rietveld P., 2003, “Access to and competition between airports:a case study for the San Francisco Bay area” Transportation Research : Part A, Vol.37, pp. 71–83.
Psaraki V. & Abacoumkin C., 2002, “Access mode choice for relocated airports: the new Athens International Airport ”, Journal of Air Transport Management ,Vol. 8, pp.89-98.
Savignat G. M., 2004, “Will the High-speed Train Compete against the Private Vehicle” , Transportation Reviews, Vol.24, No.3, pp.293-316.
Schwieterman J. P. & Scheidt J., 2007, “Survey of Current High –Speed Rail Planning Efforts in the United States” Transportation Research Record, No. 1995, pp.27–34.
Train K., 2003, “Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation”, U.K., Cambridge: University Press.
Tsamboulas D., Golias J.& Vlahoyannis M., 1992, “Model development for metro station access mode choice” Transportation ,Vol.19, pp.231-244.
Willigers J., Floor H, Van Wee B., 2007, “Accessibility indicators for location choices of offices:an application to the intraregional distributive effectsof high-speed rail in the Netherlands” , Environment and Planning A, Vol.39, pp.2086-2098.
Wardman M. , 2001, “Public Transport Values of Time”, London: University of Leeds.
Yao E. & Morikawa T., 2005, “A study of an integrated intercity travel demand model”, Transportation Research A ,Vol 39, pp.367-381.