The spread of the COVID-19 virus has resulted in unprecedented measures restricting travel and activity participation in many countries. Social distancing, i.e., reducing interactions between individuals in order to slow down the spread of the virus, has become the new norm. In this viewpoint I will discuss the potential implications of social distancing on daily travel patterns. Avoiding social contact might completely change the number and types of out-of-home activities people perform, and how people reach these activities. It can be expected that the demand for travel will reduce and that people will travel less by public transport. Social distancing might negatively affect subjective well-being and health status, as it might result in social isolation and limited physical activity. As a result, walking and cycling, recreationally or utilitarian, can be important ways to maintain satisfactory levels of health and well-being. Policymakers and planners should consequently try to encourage active travel, while public transport operators should focus on creating ways to safely use public transport.

Subjectively experienced well-being has recently attracted increased attention in transport and mobility studies. However, these studies are still in their infancy and many of the multifarious links between travel behaviour and well-being are still under-examined; most studies only focus on one aspect of this link (i.e. travel satisfaction). In this paper, we give an overview of studies concerning travel and well-being, focusing on results, methods and gaps in present research. We suggest that travel behaviour affects well-being through experiences during (destination-oriented) travel, activity participation enabled by travel, activities during (destination-oriented) travel, trips where travel is the activity and through potential travel (or motility). The majority of empirical studies to date have been based on hedonic views of well-being, where pleasure and satisfaction are seen as the ultimate goal in life. They have paid little attention to eudaimonic views of well-being, which emphasise the realisation of one's true potential, although this form of well-being can also be influenced by travel behaviour. We also argue that longer-term decisions, such as residential location choices, can affect well-being through travel. Travel options differ between different kinds of neighbourhoods, which can result in different levels of (feelings of) freedom and consequently different levels of subjective well-being. Since studies at present only show a subset of the travel behaviour–well-being interactions, we conclude the paper with an agenda for future research.

This review provides a critical overview of what has been learnt about commuting’s impact on subjective wellbeing (SWB). It is structured around a conceptual model which assumes commuting can affect SWB over three time horizons: (i) during the journey; (ii) immediately after the journey; and (iii) over the longer term. Our assessment of the evidence shows that mood is lower during the commute than other daily activities and stress can be induced by congestion, crowding and unpredictability. People who walk or cycle to work are generally more satisfied with their commute than those who travel by car and especially those who use public transport. Satisfaction decreases with duration of commute, regardless of mode used, and increases when travelling with company. After the journey, evidence shows that the commute experience “spills over” into how people feel and perform at work and home. However, a consistent link between commuting and life satisfaction overall has not been established. The evidence suggests that commuters are generally successful in trading off the drawbacks of longer and more arduous commute journeys against the benefits they bring in relation to overall life satisfaction, but further research is required to understand the decision making involved. The evidence review points to six areas that warrant policy action and research: (i) enhancing the commute experience; (ii) increasing commute satisfaction; (iii) reducing the impacts of long duration commutes; (iv) meeting commuter preferences; (v) recognising flexibility and constraints in commuting routines and (vi) accounting for SWB impacts of commuting in policy making and appraisal.