Yes Big Al...I agree !
As governments and companies are pressurised by cost to stop the "small is beautiful" for "the big is beautiful" - and more efficient - ethos this means that many more people are forced to travel that did not before.
Even when we see lots of people now doing work from home on computers that in the olden days used to have to travel to use a company computer these new-age workers are only a tiny tip of a massive iceberg of commuters.
Because most people are now forced to commute we see the TOCs ( Train operating companies ), taking advantage of this captive audience and making them pay very high travel-rates that they cannot avoid.
My ex-husband (deceased) once had a contract of employment that required him to live within 12 miles of his place of employment.
I myself have, in the past, travelled 40 miles to work - by car - as there were no buses or trains from my home town to where I worked. And I know a number of people who commute over 100 miles to London.
Given the current road congestion, poor train services, and pollution problems, I think there may something to be said for requiring a person to live close to his/her place of employment on appointment to a new job. Local government, and some private sector employers, pay relocation costs - though the amount does not cover the cost of moving from a place where property is high low cost to one where it is much more expensive.