> If a large number of people all have to go in the same direction at a similar time, isn't that what public transit is for?

Yes, and in a sane nation, this would mean that people could live in small cities, take transit to work, then take transit back. But there are many, many places where this is not the case.

I lived on the outskirts of Dallas; it took ages for the rail system to approach usefulness, and individual cities along the route could opt out of having stations (and therefore, opt out of paying for them.)

They're all going to the same place, but all coming from different areas. Arranging for them to get to a common point to even board the public transportation you're offering would require them to take a car, since density makes and sheer time makes it prohibitively expensive. If buses did stop in convenient locations for the widely dispersed people in small towns, it'd take hours before they'd even approach their destination after having spent half the day just picking up people from all over.

The only way to fix the problem is to encourage people to move out of the suburbs and small towns and live in denser regions.

I don't even understand the need of physically being at the same place, for information workers at least (until remote surgery and hairdressing catch up). Working remotely is good for the environment!

I like cars, but I'd never want to use one for commuting. Random places at indiscriminate times — this is what cars are for indeed.

I recently wrote a lengthy counterpoint to that:

https://likewise.am/2017/05/19/in-response-to-the-cult-of-re...

I am a consultant in a small team of professionals, right. However, for me, "learning on the job" comes mostly from solving problems, not talking to people. Which is why I steered to consultant / R&D positions. And I had no problems in acquiring said knowledge (in trading systems) on my own.

If you are an independent and highly skilled professional who knows the business, you can definitely work remotely. Good for you!

But that's a far cry from, "Why do information workers need company offices at all, ever?"

For me, the need for commuting is such a great nuisance that I worked the hardest I can to get rid of it.

I agree that it might be a transitional phase, or something necessary to acquire the skills needed, but it needs to be rid of at the first sight of an opportunity.

While the normality of office work is responsible for a lot of oppressive commutes, it doesn't follow that commutes must necessarily be long or that this in itself negates the benefit of working in the office.

For what it's worth, I have zero tolerance for long commutes, and always lived close to my jobs. It took considerable expense, and relied on life situation flexibility I no longer have, but my patience for driving is maybe ten minutes.

>> If a large number of people all have to go in the same direction at a similar time, isn't that what public transit is for?

Public transit only works when people live in high density areas. It makes no sense to have a transit stop where very few people live in walking distance of it. People with cars don't really want to drive to the bus stop and then catch a ride downtown, though some do. But most companies are spread out just as much as peoples homes, so business isn't even high enough density to warrant public transit in most cases.

Build public transit, then build high density residences, then profit. This simple formula is applied extremely well in Japan.

Japanese zoning restrictions also contribute heavily here. It's not just that higher-density residences are available, it's that you can put them nearly anywhere. According to http://urbankchoze.blogspot.ca/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html, not only are there vastly fewer zones (12, nationally), Japanese zoning laws specify only the "maximum use", instead of exclusive uses. So anything zoned for commercial use, for example, could also have neighborhood stores and residential.