From the article: "Over longer routes, the relative hassle of getting to and from an airport instead of an HSR rail terminal is eroded by the higher speed of a

From the article: "Over longer routes, the relative hassle of getting to and from an airport instead of an HSR rail terminal is eroded by the higher speed of aircraft, even in places where the rail terminal is in a densely populated city center and the airport is way outside." I think in the case of the US, the distance makes the difference. The trouble of checking in at an airport is factored out by the length of the journey. California to Los Angeles has a target time of 2 hours and 40 minutes. The train which I take in the UK most regularly runs for 2 hours, and that feels like a relatively long journey. I think the issue is that in the US, most intercity journeys are much longer than this, which normalises air travel, meaning that rail ends up not getting a chance on the shorter routes on which it might be suitable.