Largely it is, according to both classical economic theory and modern empirical studies.

Often called 'land value uplift' these days, or 'unearned increment'/'land monopoly rents' in days gone by.

Theoretically in a free market, the landlords will be able to increase rent in proportion to the 'market value' of the convenience to the tenants (short commutes, etc). Likewise, homeowners will sell for a higher price - capturing the value that would be conferred to new owners. A city with good transport demands higher rents in outer suburbs serviced by that transport.

Your workplace likely also rents their premises too. They now have a convenient train station 5 minutes' walk away - and guess what, their landlord ups the rents too. Once again, in proportion to the 'market value' of the convenience to the workplace. The nearby cafes will now increase their coffee price to cover their increased rent.

Although this is the position of most economists, politicians are often reluctant to draw attention to it. Instead, where I live, they use models like commute time saved per person' x 'number of people' x 'average hourly wage'.

You can verify all of this yourself by viewing residential and commercial rental listings in your city.

Many economists have proposed solutions to this problem, often in the form of land value taxes.