This comment, maybe unintentionally(?), encapsulates the cultural angle of the article pretty well.
Suburban Americans, with exceptions, consider the "origin" of a trip on public transit not where they originate from, but where they get out of their car, because the sparse urban transit systems and job locations are oriented around extending car capabilities. It is easier and less stressful for an American to drive part of a commute and ride one train than to drive none of it and risk missing an infrequently operating transfer that strands them far from home.
Suburban Europeans, with exceptions, do not do this, because their denser urban transit systems and job locations are built around foot or transit access. It is easier and less stressful for a European to ride the train all the way because, even if a transfer is required, it is more likely to occur closer to home and with a more frequently operating service.
So, transit proposals in the United States that propose solutions based on European models without recognizing this American trait – often deeply rooted in experiences over years of bad transfer experiences in places that have transit, and operating against a cultural car-friendly bias in places that don't – are less likely to succeed.
Or, as the article puts it:
> To the extent that this relates to American commuter rail reforms, it’s about coverage within the city: multiple city stations, good (free, frequent) connections to local urban rail, high frequency all day to encourage urban travel (a train within the city that runs every half an hour might as well not run).