In order to explore the factors affecting users’ behaviors in a free-floating bike sharing (FFBS) system in China, a survey was conducted in Jiangsu province, China in 2017, and the travel characteristics of FFBS users were analyzed. A binary logistic model was applied to quantify the impact of various variables regarding residents’ usage preference based on 30401 valid questionnaires. The findings show that (1) FFBS was mainly used for short-distance travel in cities, especially for commuting and schooling, and the time period of travel in FFBS coincided with the rush-hour in urban areas; (2) a higher level of education, a higher daily transportation cost, the convenience of picking up and parking, and the contribution to users’ health could promote the usage of FFBS, while malfunctioning bicycles and limited regulations were major obstacles restricting the development of FFBS; (3) interestingly, people with high-incomes rather than those with low-incomes showed an inclination for FFBS owing to the charge mode. This research provides empirical evidence to facilitate the formulation of urban transportation policies and to improve the management of FFBS for the operators.

As it is central to sustainable urban development, urban mobility has primarily been scrutinised for its scaling and hierarchical properties. However, traditional analyses frequently overlook spatial directionality, a critical factor in city centre congestion and suburban development. Here, we apply vector computation to unravel the spatial directionality of urban mobility, introducing a two-dimensional anisotropy-centripetality metric. Utilising travel data from 90 million mobile users across 60 Chinese cities, we effectively quantify mobility patterns through this metric, distinguishing between strong monocentric, weak monocentric, and polycentric patterns. Our findings highlight a notable difference: residents in monocentric cities face increasing commuting distances as cities expand, in contrast to the consistent commuting patterns observed in polycentric cities. Notably, mobility anisotropy intensifies in the outskirts of monocentric cities, whereas it remains uniform in polycentric settings. Additionally, centripetality wanes as one moves from the urban core, with a steeper decline observed in polycentric cities. Finally, we reveal that employment attraction strength and commuting distance scaling are key to explaining these divergent urban mobility patterns. These insights are important for shaping effective policies aimed at alleviating congestion and guiding suburban housing development.

Public acceptability is a major concern for road pricing schemes in Western countries but has not yet been sufficiently studied in the context of Chinese cities, a number of which are considering the introduction of such travel constraint measures. This study explores factors influencing public acceptability of a proposed congestion charge in the City of Beijing. In so doing, the study focuses on understanding the appropriateness of Western frameworks for assessing public acceptability in the Chinese context. Through literature review and focus groups a survey to test different public acceptability constructs was developed (N = 1104). A Structural Equation Model was used to analyze relationships that exist among the different aspects of public acceptability. The results demonstrate that public acceptability is dominantly influenced by the level of trust toward the Government and experts. Various determinants in the Western context, such as access to information and perceived effectiveness were not found to have a significant impact on public acceptability. The results imply that public acceptability of congestion charging in the Chinese context has a stronger resonance with wider social issues such as equity than more specific transport problems such as congestion. As such, attempting to present evidence on the anticipated effectiveness of the policy in alleviating congestion and smog may not make the policy more acceptable to the public. The overall inference of the study is that contextual factors are more important than has been previously considered within public acceptability studies.