Approach Commuter Rail Cautiously

Dear Editor,
   Many wishful thinkers are hoping that Capital Metro's commuter-rail plan can generate its own ridership with transit-oriented development, since it's got some major obstacles to overcome in delivering existing ridership (requiring riders to transfer to shuttle buses to get to UT, the Capitol, and downtown, being the most obvious among them).
   However, please be advised when evaluating this plan that, unlike light rail, commuter rail (at least in this country) has never generated any momentum for transit-oriented development, despite major efforts to the contrary. For instance, South Florida's Tri-Rail line has tried (and failed) for a decade now to generate TOD near their stations. Seattle, also, has seen no success in TOD with commuter rail.
   TOD doesn't work without reductions in parking requirements, and reductions in parking only work if your tenants know they can take a train any time of day to many useful destinations. A train which runs every half-hour through parts of the city to which people don't really want to go, and which runs mainly during daylight hours (with freight running at night), doesn't meet these requirements. On the other hand, light rail in other cities has generated TOD precisely because it runs frequently and all day and most of the night (and because you can walk to your destination instead of transferring).
   In the future, I hope Chronicle readers and especially writers will view this plan with a more critical eye. Commuter rail is very different from light rail, and you should vigorously challenge any assertions to the contrary.