Agreed. However, if everyone who is capable to work remote will decide to do so, it would free up lane capacity for those who aren't able to.
This would be akin to getting a free infrastructure upgrade for those who truly need it.
Less traffic reduce stress, but you still have distance to deal.
And that assumes you can drive, and you're not too poor or have some other factor which restricts your ability to own/operate a car.
> But when one train recently stopped for a sick passenger, her commute expanded to a mind-boggling three hours and 15 minutes. She was late. To make up the lost time, she stayed longer with her patient instead of picking up her granddaughter from school. She had to enlist a neighbor to do that — for $35.
* https://archive.ph/1a6y3 / https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/nyregion/health-care-work...
Edit: It would exert downward pressure on land costs. Obviously that can still be overcome by other factors.
That does not necessarily follow: some folks may prefer to live in an urban area (only) because they work in said urban area, and so want shorter commutes, but I'm sure plenty live in urban areas because (e.g.) like the amenities.
As a sysadmin I can easily do remote work, but would still live in an urban centre.
As per Jane Jacobs: people do not live in cities, they live in neighbourhoods. I think most folks who live in urban centres do so because they like the lifestyle first, and a shorter commute may be just a nice bonus. There are also lots of folks who 'reverse commute': live in the city and work in the suburbs.