That's basically saying trains are an urban necessity, and I'm not disagreeing with that part. I just don't see trains as a good fit for suburbia, and usually when an article implies that we need more trains, they're also subtly hinting that low density development is a problem by extension.
I have never heard of an urban, but not suburban train. I know your only experience is the Disney monorail, but dude, this is a larger scale than a theme park. Trains go from the city, through the suburbs, and beyond. It's like the whole fucking point. Commuter trains connect the jobs in the city to the vast, rich expanse of exurbs beyond the reach of light rail.
You say it's not a problem, then you complain about the traffic. Then you complain about construction. Then the apartment buildings. It will happen because the growth will happen, like it or not. When you say low density development, what you actually mean is you want low density no development. Everyone wants the economy of the bigass city down the road, but the neighbor situation of Alaska. Then they act shocked and butthurt when more neighbors show up like nobody else is thinking the same thing.
Think how your vascular system is laid out. There's the big tubes, connected to littler tubes, to littler tubes, etc. If you don't want growth, move somewhere with little to no economic activity. You can be as spread out thinly as you want there, I can respect that. Otherwise your little town will turn into a big town some day, and you can do that with your head in the sand in a really stupid way, or you can do it in a smart way.