"a person with a one-hour car commute must earn 40 percent more money to have a sense of well-being equal to someone who walks (or rides their bike) to work."

"People spend a lot of time commuting and often find it a burden. According to economics, the burden of commuting is chosen when compensated either on the labor or on the housing market so that individuals’ utility is equalized. However, in a direct test of this strong notion of equilibrium, we find that people with longer commuting time report systematically lower subjective well-being. Additional empirical analyses do not find institutional explanations of the empirical results that commuters systematically incur losses. We discuss several possibilities of an extended model of human behavior able to explain this ‘commuting paradox’.

While I don't argue the concept, the above techo-babble by an "expert" who can articulate the proper jargon to tell us what we already know is priceless. Yes, bicycle commuting can reduce stress and improve well-being.
Concluding that a 40% pay increase will "equalize utilty" using economic models is the talk of a bar-room genius.