- Email: [email protected]
Neoliberal mobility and its discontents: Working tricycles in China’s cities
City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
City, Culture and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ccs
Neoliberal mobility and its discontents: Working tricycles in China’s cities Glen Norcliffe ⇑ Department of Geography, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 29 November 2010 Received in revised form date 22 November 2011 Accepted 25 November 2011 Available online 24 December 2011 Keywords: Hypermobility Working tricycle Neoliberalism China’s cities Sustainability Informal sector
a b s t r a c t What kind of civilization are we trying to build? Prior to the neoliberal age Freud considered civilization to be a collective social project with discontent arising when individuals are constrained by society from pursuing their own self-interested goals. Today, with globalization and competitive laissez-faire dominant, Stiglitz sees this relationship being reversed with individual self-interest as the norm, and discontentment arising when broader societal objectives are pursued. This theme is taken up in the context of working tricycles in China’s cities which serve as the platform for millions of micro-enterprises, but are being squeezed out by automobility. In the neoliberal age there has been a substantial increase in mobility, with some people becoming hypermobile, particularly with excessive automobile use. Working tricycles were popular in the West in the late nineteenth century, but in the twentieth century they virtually disappeared. The same trend is evident with China’s carrier tricycles, but a case is made that history should not be allowed to repeat itself because they continue to fill a valuable social need. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Movement is a necessary part of daily life, but for those enamoured with the project of modernity, mobility has become a fetish. Thus in the neoliberal age a new version of Baudelaire’s flâneur has appeared, one who engages in excessive movement. The biomechanical term hypermobility is used by Adams (1999) to describe this pattern of extreme travel; he argues that while mobility is normally a creative and liberating activity, recent shifts in cultural practices have resulted in people over-exercising that freedom with negative consequences which increase the risks of contemporary global capitalism (Beck, 1992). Subsequently, Sivaramakrishnan and Vaccaro (2006, 314) have extended the metaphor to propose that ‘‘the scale and frequency of this interconnectivity” and the resulting hypermobility have become the distinguishing feature of postindustrial society. And in their exploration of the ‘‘system of automobility” Sheller and Urry (2000) see the car initiating large numbers of new trips that arise not from economic or social necessity, but to construct a personal identity. This trend might simply be attributed to technological improvements speeding up movement and lowering the ⇑ Tel.: +1 519 396 6552; fax: +1 519 396 5988. E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-9166/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2011.11.006
real cost of travel. The very success of some technologies has, however, had the reverse effect due to increased congestion, the case of China’s epic 11 day 100 km traffic jam in August 2010 being a case in point. Indeed in some cases automobility has put into question the sustainability of the city in its present form (Lemon, 1996). For certain, the built form of each city favours particular technologies and modes of movement, which both reflects and, in turn, influences diverse cultures of movement. The bicycle networks of Belgium encourage cycling, while the narrow pre-industrial streets of Rome promote honking horns in frustration. I will argue, however, that technology and the built-form of the city explain only in part this tendency towards hypermobility. A new class of ‘‘world citizens” are establishing their credentials as members of the global elite through excessive travel. In other words I see hypermobility to have both technological and cultural roots. Furness’ (2010) recent book on the politics of automobility explores in depth both the variegated nature of this cultural process and the importance of urban and environmental politics to the form it takes. The development by civil society of new modes of transport during the industrial age led the modern city to grow in particular ways. Tramways, streetcars and then electric railways allowed cities to spread in a linear way along rail
236
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
lines (Warner, 1962), while the automobile led to suburban sprawl in all directions, especially in North America where private interests had a major influence on land management (Miller, 2008). But as the cost of increasingly scarce fossil fuels rises, some planners are looking for a sustainable alternative. My focus here is on a mode of transport that for a long time fell below the radar in studies of urban mobility, although there is increasing awareness of the potential of cycling as a clean, silent, fairly swift and low cost means of movement within the city (Furness, 2010; Gilbert & Perl, 2010). The bicycle’s contribution to urban mobility first became apparent during the late Victorian age when it was one of the most visible manifestations of modern life performed prominently in public spaces such as city streets and parks (Harmond, 1971; Herlihy, 2004; Norcliffe, 2001). Since then bicycles and tricycles have played a complex role both in the advance of modernity and in various counter-modern environmental resistance movements such that their impact on urban mobility is not easily read off a list of technological improvements.1 While at certain times and in specific places, they were discursively constructed as an artefact close to the cutting edge of modern city lifestyles, in other settings they have been presented as environmentally-friendly machines associated with minimalist lifestyles. I will pursue this theme in four stages. First I will outline the argument concerning civilization, mobility and its discontents, contrasting the visions of Sigmund Freud and Joseph Stiglitz. Then I will turn to urban cycling in the neoliberal age and its commercial possibilities in the particular form of the working tricycle in China’s cities.2 The next section turns the clock back a century to examine the parallel history of the working tricycle in late Victorian Britain, tracing its decline in the twentieth century, and recent modest revival. These serve as background to the final section assessing two contrasting visions of future urban transportation in China. Argument In the view of Sigmund Freud (1929) human behaviour tends to be aggressive, competitive and self-gratifying. In his book, Civilisation and its Discontents, he argues that these traits run counter to the need of civilization for individuals to conform to certain social norms and to repress these selfish impulses by sharing, acting peacefully, and respecting the wishes of others. Civilisation punishes individuals who do not obey community laws, and rewards those who do. Thus Freud sees discontentment arising from pressure on individuals to conform to the law and to social norms by suppressing their more self-serving instincts. Freud’s notion of discontentment was re-visited by Joseph Stiglitz in his book on Globalization and its Discontents (2002) in which he turns round Freud’s argument by arguing that, in the neoliberal age, it is now proponents of civ1 Unless the word ‘tricycle’ is explicitly used, throughout this paper the term ‘bicycles’ should be taken to include ‘tricycles’. 2 The discussion is based on interviews at 26 Chinese factories making cycles and components conducted in October 2009; field observations in twelve major cities across China in 2007, 2009 and 2011; and interviews with planning officials, China specialists at various conferences, cyclists in Beijing, and students from China studying in Canada.
ilisation who have reason to be discontented, since social norms, legislation, as well as the policies of the IMF, WTO, the World Bank, and many governments and institutions implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) favour possession, competition and (as the financial services sector well illustrates) self-reward, all manifestations of the instinctive traits that, in Freud’s view, run counter to the priorities of civilisation. I wish to take up one very particular aspect of this tension between individual and communal social values as they relate to mobility in the city by contrasting the bicycle as an instrument that enhances the identity of the individual as ‘‘modern” and may contribute in a small way to hypermobility, and the bicycle as a utilitarian and social vehicle whose use conforms to broader societal goals. At various moments in the past century the bicycle has promoted modern sensibilities as an efficient conveyance for the flâneur on wheels (Mackintosh & Norcliffe, 2006), as a racing machine embedding the latest technologies, as a highly visible class marker both in the nineteenth century and more recently as a high-end status symbol, and as a technologically superior delivery vehicle. It is often overlooked that the bicycle was the first machine that significantly accelerated the mobility of the individual both for social as well as commercial purposes. Cycles permitted the rider a freedom of individual choice denied to travelers of mass transit. Paradoxically, at other times and in other places the bicycle has played a role in resisting modern tendencies as an environmentally-friendly conveyance, as a means of escaping to quiet spaces, as a tool for conviviality when riding in social groups (Illich, 1973), and as a lowcost way of delivering diverse consumer goods. For Victorians, cycles were among the most visible markers of individual status and of western technological progress, certainly for the younger generation; indeed the outlay on a bicycle, its accessories and participation in the activities of a cycling club was considerable. In consequence in an age of marked inequalities of wealth, cycle ownership became a recognized class marker (Norcliffe, 2006; Smith, 1972). Those discontented with bicycles at this stage were a small minority of anti-moderns fearful either that the new machines would threaten their livelihood, or compete in city spaces which they had previously monopolized. In particular, there were reports of road rage between cyclists, teamsters and drivers of other horsedrawn vehicles. Subsequently the bicycle lost its social cachet and morphed into a popular utilitarian vehicle for everyday use. Today, the versatility of the cycle results in contrasting cycling practices in different settings, giving rise to a series of post-structural contingencies that often reflect national and local politics. In low-income countries the bicycle is an inexpensive and energy-efficient means of travel and delivering goods in the city; in major metropolises it provides courier services with an efficient way of moving packages rapidly around congested inner cities; in France and Italy it is a machine for road racing that valorizes such lucrative media-events as Le Tour de France and the Giro; in China it is an efficient means of urban commuting, with electric bikes becoming uniquely popular after 1998 due to technical, economic and political factors (Weinert, Ma, & Cherry, 2007); in Japan and South Korea bicycles are of-
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
ten used to commute. It is not possible to unravel all these complex histories and geographies but they do demonstrate that today, the bicycle has a wide range of meanings, some of which favour individual interests, while others advance the interests of larger collectivities and help to reduce the risks of a hypermobile society. In recent years geographies of cycle production and mainstream attitudes towards the bicycle have undergone some profound shifts. With very few exceptions, the famous national cycle makers of yesteryear – Schwinn and Huffy in the US (Epperson, 2010), CCM in Canada, Raleigh in the UK (Rosen, 2002), Manufrance and Peugeot in France – have ceased making bicycles domestically. They have become brands that sub-contract production mainly to OEM manufacturers in China, some of which are Taiwaneseowned. Taiwan’s Giant Cycle Company has become the world’s largest cycle manufacturer, with its biggest factory now located at Kunshan in the Yangtze Delta, although Giant still make their high-end machines at Taichung in Taiwan (Chu, 1997). India now has several major cycle makers serving the domestic market, though few are exported. As these changes in the geographies of cycle production have taken place, the bicycle has – with some notable exceptions – shifted from being a high-cost to a low-cost vehicle. And it now has to compete in terms of its cost, symbolic status, environmental friendliness and speed, with the automobile, motor bicycle, scooter, ATV, E-bike, and even the skateboard as conveyances that permit individual mobility around cities. A minority seeking greater speed continue the pursuit of modernity by incorporating the newest cycle technologies such as carbon–fibre frames, but for a growing number of users the bicycle is welcomed as an earth friendly technology, a low-cost way of shopping and commuting, or an alternative to motorized vehicles that reduces some of the dangers of contemporary risk capitalism (Beck, 2009). But this summation does depend on the geographical circumstances. I will explore this argument using the specific example of the working tricycle which is widely used in African and Asian cities to transport goods and people. In the late nineteenth century working tricycles became a common sight on Western city streets, for deliveries, as a platform for micro-enterprises, and for transport. During the second half of the Twentieth century, however, carrier tricycles were increasingly seen as an anachronism in the West, although very recently they have made a modest comeback as a practical (even funky) means of transportation. In the global South, in contrast, the use of working tricycles increased in post-war years, and only in the most recent era of globalization have these working tricycles become, in the eyes of some critics, an obsolescent technology. Many of the broader debates over the role of cycles in civilisation are captured by the case of the working tricycle. Working tricycles in China’s cities In the post-war period the working tricycle came into widespread use in many non-Western cities transporting goods and people, and in the surrounding countryside carrying farm workers, tools and farm products between villages and the land. In China, for instance, the Changhe Bicycle Works, built in Tianjin in 1936 by two entrepre-
237
Fig. 1. Delivering beer in Shanghai, 2007.
neurial Japanese army veterans, began the mass production of bicycles for the Chinese market. Converted to munitions production during the war, after the Communist takeover in 1949 it was re-converted to make Flying Pigeon (Fei Ge) cycles which, along with a sewing machine and a watch, were designated the three ‘‘must-have” household consumer goods. By the 1960s and 1970s, with the large scale production of bicycles and tricycles by the ‘‘big four”, Fei Ge and Hong Qi (Red Flag) in Tianjin, and Yong Jiu (Forever) and Feng Huang (Phoenix) in Shanghai, plus several other smaller makers, China could legitimately be heralded as the Empire of Bicycles (Mei and Wang, 2008). Urban infrastructure was built to reflect this priority as bicycles became the dominant form of urban transport (Zacharias, 2002). On most city roads dedicated rights-of-way (usually with a low barrier) were created for the thousands of slow moving bicycles, rickshaws and animal drawn vehicles to separate them from motorised vehicles. Traffic in the bike lanes usually moves at 12–15 km/h, and unlike the motor vehicle lanes, is rarely blocked by jams.3 This bicyclefriendly arrangement with slower traffic segregated from motor vehicles became institutionalized in China’s cities. Today, however, low-density suburbs do not encourage cycling, and arterial roads such as Beijing’s six concentric ring roads exclude slow-moving vehicles, although segregated lanes for slower-moving vehicles parallel them in many sections. Average motor vehicle speeds in city centres are probably about the same as those of bicycles, though cycles keep mov-
3 Li Bingren, chief economist for the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, said the average cyclist can reach speeds of up to 14 km/h, making bicycles a far more efficient and ‘‘green” form of transport for short and medium distances. (China Daily 17/9/2010).
238
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
ing when vehicular traffic is jammed (which happens frequently during peak traffic). Carrier tricycles became widely used in China during the Maoist era, and played a role in modernizing China during that phase of its development. Today, almost every farm has one that is used to transport tools and fertiliser between villages and fields, to go shopping in the nearest centre, and to deliver produce either directly to urban markets or to collection points where larger trucks gather food products in a hierarchical system. In cities they are used to transport a huge variety of goods including: bottled water; parcels; propane tanks; fruit and vegetables; soft drinks; beer; coal and other fuels; furniture; plants; and clothing (Fig. 1). Shipping companies and China’s post office may also use them for local deliveries. They are also used as mobile shops – for repairing bicycles and shoes, selling food and goods, sharpening knives and other cutting instruments, as mobile food stands (often with a heating apparatus) and at street markets. They are also an essential component of the night life of Chinese cities when many people eat at these mobile food stands, and shop at these curb-side stalls; working tricycles provide the micro-transport essential to these numerous micro-enterprises. And every city market has a parking area outside for the dozens of carrier tricycles that each day ferry in the goods offered for sale. Nearly all municipal road and garden maintenance is done by workers using these carrier tricycles to transport their tools, collect road and garden rubbish, and to commute from the city depot to the section of the road or park where they are working. Perhaps most important of all is the amount of urban rubbish gathered with these tricycles, almost all of it recycled; the World Bank (2005) estimated that there were 2.5 million tricycle-based waste collectors in China. They form a key element of one of the most effective low-cost recycling systems in the world, with tricycles collecting waste in city neighbourhoods which they deliver to collection points for weighing and counting, and then loading onto a truck for delivery to a major re-cycling centre. And, as already noted, these tricycles also serve as various forms of pedicabs, mainly for short distance travel around city neighbourhoods. They are very effective in short haul journeys, particularly along congested and narrow streets. In Beijing, independent tricycle operators tend to be older and male, which contrasts with the finding of Yang, Wang, Shan, et al. (2010) that gender and age has no significant impact on bicycle commuting in Nanjing. Two decades ago the majority of Chinese carrier tricycles were human powered, but then owners began to equip some of them with a very small two-stroke engine which allowed them to cruise at up to 20 km/h on flat roads, although some additional pedalling was needed up hills. More recently, many have been retro-fitted to become battery-powered E-tricycles. Carrier tricycles are particularly well adapted to moving along the narrow and congested hutong, alleyways and side streets that survive in older parts of the cities. Most have the box or platform for carrying goods placed behind the rider, but tricycles manufactured in Changchun, in the north, have two front wheels and the box placed in front of the rider. Data on the number of working tricycles in China do not appear to be published. In rural areas, field observations show approximately one per every three households (some
in a state of disrepair), so with close to 175 million rural households, there could be as many as 40 million working tricycles in the countryside, although many are not used very frequently. In urban areas, tricycles are rarely used by dwellers of high-rise buildings, but large numbers are in daily use on the streets. By the crudest of estimates – if one in twenty of China’s 200 million urban households have a tricycle, then there are another 10 million in cities. Add perhaps 5 million carrier tricycles used by municipal workers and employees of formal and informal companies, and a grand total of perhaps 40–60 million working tricycles seems possible. Many of these carrier tricycles are old and dilapidated, but improved models are appearing. This ball-park estimate would seem to agree with production numbers. One of China’s largest cycle manufacturers – the Ningbo Nanyang Vehicle Company of Cixi City, close to Hangzhou – makes 3.5 million units a year, of which roughly 10% are carrier tricycles. If other makers combined produce six-times this total, and the average tricycle is operating for 20 years, this suggests approximately 42 million working tricycles are to be found in China. Thus a crude estimate of between 40 and 60 million working tricycles in China seems credible. A very brief case-study based on 40 repeated observations in October 2011 of a 300 m section of Xibalizhuang Lu, in Beijing’s Haidian District, will illustrate some of the daily rhythms of tricycle commerce. The smallest number of working tricycles observed on this section was 36 and the largest 52. In the morning around 10 fruit and vegetable stall holders and a few food sellers claim the spaces they trade in during the day, padlocking their tricycles there but not opening until between 10 and 11 a.m. One pedicab was observed, with an elderly man taking his wife to shop. On every occasion half a dozen or more tricycles were observed moving up and down the street, some delivering goods, others empty. A barber who keeps a couple of battery-packs on his tricycle to power his hair clippers works from the morning until it goes dark. Around 5 p.m. a bigger group of food sellers plus 3 or 4 clothing sellers arrive and stay open until around 10 p.m., serving city workers whose work does not end until late evening. Some of these stalls are operated by people who have another job during the day so the stall provides a supplemental income. Peck (2004) stresses that neoliberalism is constructed by state policies in many variegated ways. China’s developmental state practices a form of state-capitalism managed by the People’s Republic. Arguably, no other economy has embraced globalization so extensively, such that China is now the world’s largest exporter of manufactured goods, a major importer of raw materials, as well as the principal buyer of Western debt. The luxury cars and modern houses of China’s rapidly emerging business class are quite visible, indeed car ownership has grown so fast that on 24 December 2010 Beijing introduced a lottery system to limit new car sales in that city (The Economist: 1/1/2011, 34). The rapid rate of economic growth in post-Maoist China, the huge investment in infrastructure and urban development, and the mass migration of younger workers from the countryside to the cities (despite the hukou system controlling rural-urban migration) are indicators that many are engaged in the modernization of China. Such consequences as the razing of a number of historic hutong and other pre-modern
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
Chinese remnants to make way for wider roads and highdensity developments are becoming issues of concern. The negative consequences of the rapid growth of infrastructure, utilities, housing and manufacturing industries have been accepted, for the most part, as unfortunate but necessary, as have the negative environmental impacts of rapid urbanization. These sentiments also apply to the working tricycle. The most common response to inquiries about the future of working tricycles was that they were residuals of a passing age. Suggestions that an up-dated version might also be part of China’s future were usually met with scepticism: technological progress, I was told, was making working tricycles an obsolete form of city transport. To connect the national economy with the rest of the globe and catch up with development practices elsewhere, high levels of mobility were a necessity. There is, of course, concern about the environmental risks that result from this engagement with modernity, carnage on the roads, and the high levels of air pollution in cities, but the majority saw these risks as an acceptable, if unfortunate, price to pay to modernize the country. Rarely noted is the possibility that the humble carrier tricycle, with a past stretching back over a century, can still boast several advantages including: generating almost no pollution; moving quietly, safely and quite rapidly on congested city streets; providing essential micro-transport for millions of micro-enterprises; accessing narrow alleyways that larger vehicles cannot; providing employment for unskilled workers, particularly the older generation whose education was interrupted by the Cultural Revolution; collecting many varieties of re-cycled materials, giving China one of the most efficient low-cost recycling systems in the world; and having low capital costs. Interestingly, in a study of tricycles in Shanyang in Shaanxi Province, Xiong Yi (2006) reports that government measures to prohibit tricycles have been in vain: they keep returning, presumably because they fill a valuable and needed commercial role. Despite these evident advantages, Pan, Shen, and Zhang (2009) report that since the 1980s most urban development in China has promoted automobility and mass transit,4 although their comparison of four urban neighbourhoods in Shanghai shows that where urban form is pedestrian/cyclist friendly, automobile and transit dependence is reduced. Urban planners in China debate these contrasting forms of urban transportation, but for many consumers, motorised transport has become a high priority, hence the dramatic rise in automobile ownership from 5 million cars in 2001 to over 100 million in 2011 (China Daily: 17/9/2011). As this happened, a number of events have marginalized the working tricycle and limited what Furness (2010, 83) calls alternative mobilities. Under the headline ‘‘Cycle of Misery on Congested Roads”, the China Daily (17/9/2010) reports the difficulties encountered by cyclists in the cycle lanes: ‘‘Transport experts say bikes are being ‘squeezed off the roads’ in China’s major cities and have urged authorities to protect riders’ rights . . . Despite efforts by cities across China to get more people back onto bicycles, experienced cyclists . . . say motorists and urban planners are ignoring their interests and endangering their lives. Roughly 63 percent of commuters traveled by 4 In 2008 seven Chinese cities were building metro systems (Zacharias & Zhang, 2008).
239
bicycle in Beijing in 1986. Today, that number is already below 18 percent, while the number of cars on the capital’s roads has rocketed from 77,000 in 1978 to 4.3 million as of last May” (travel by public transit also grew rapidly during this period). Increasing safety concerns are listed as the main reason for abandoning the bicycle, as bicycle lanes are narrowed or totally eliminated to widen vehicle lanes, and as motor vehicles increasingly use the cycle lanes for parking and short-cuts round jams: ‘‘Since the 1990s, the boom in automobile sales nationwide has resulted in routes becoming clogged with cars . . . Unfortunately for cyclists, the preferred solution in many cities has been to narrow or even remove bicycle lanes from roads to make more room for the increased traffic ... In some areas of Guangzhou . . . lanes have been moved onto sidewalks and are just 1 meter wide, leaving little room to manoeuvre.” Such narrow bicycle lanes effectively squeeze the working tricycle out of city streets, as a new generation of hypermobile motorists gain more lanes that rapidly fill up and congest. Cyclists in China are now banned from using many expressway cloverleaf crossings, forcing them to take longer detours. And they are often prohibited from using bridges for safety reasons: ‘‘In Wuhan, capital of Hubei province and Central China’s largest city, cycling is permitted on just one of its seven Yangtze River crossings . . . Two of three cross-Yangtze bridges are also blocked to twowheeled traffic in Nanjing, capital of Jiangsu province” China Daily (17/9/2010). Zhan, Fengyan, and Hui (2009) use the case of Hefei, capital of Anhui province, to assess the negative effects of banning pedicabs in urban areas. But there is also recognition of the value of bicycles: on 15 June 2006, Qiu Baoxing, China’s Vice-Minister of Construction ‘‘called on local governments to preserve or restore bicycle lanes in order to halt the decline in bicycle commuting, as rapid car ownership growth threatens China’s energy security and urban quality of life” (Forbes.com: 15/6/2006) while two days earlier an announcement ordered government employees to take public transportation or ride bikes to work (World Changing: 16/6/2006). Citing the example of cycle routes being constructed in Los Angeles, New York and London, Beijing’s transportation planners are re-thinking current practices: ‘‘According to plans released by the Beijing transport authority, a network of bicycle-only lanes is to be constructed using hutong within the Second Ring Road, as well as in the Central Business District and many new residential areas” China Daily (17/9/2010). Transportation planners are clearly aware of the issues and pressing for changes. For instance Pan, Shen, and Xue (2010) describe the possibilities for intermodal bicycle-public transit transfers in Shanghai , while in Tianjin, which has long had a high level of cycling, the city has developed a successful pedestrian zone where many visitors arrive by bicycle and tricycle (Zacharias, 2007). But overall, the supremacy of motor vehicles and decline of bicycle use in Chinese cities has not yet been reversed. For operators of China’s working tricycles, some state actions have been quite discouraging. The BBC News (http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/far_east/37260.stm) for 5 December 1997 reported that 200 motorised rickshaw drivers in the city of Zigong in Sichuan Province used their vehicles to block traffic in protest against a government ban on rickshaws in the city centre. Soon after, on 21 February 1998
240
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
the same source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/58792.stm) reported that a tricycle driver in Wuhan had been sentenced to three years in prison for his role in a demonstration: ‘‘around 1,000 disgruntled drivers blocked roads in Wuhan for several hours with their tricycles as a protest against plans by the city to ban the vehicles to ease traffic congestion last October”. And on Xibalizhuang Lu (the case study described above) at 8 p.m. on 6 November 2011 a stampede of around 30 tricycles were seen fleeing inspectors from Beijing’s Municipal Bureau of City Administration and Law Enforcement who, as in many developing countries, periodically harass the informal sector. This is not, however, the first time in recent history that working tricycles have faced competition from motorised vehicles and eventually been squeezed out. During the tricycle boom in Europe in the late nineteenth century, working tricycles were widespread, disappearing only slowly during the twentieth century. Working tricycles in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries The modern tricycle era was launched by a British inventor, James Starley, who in 1877 developed and/or patented three quite different tricycles which in turn launched a little recognized tricycle boom dating from 1877 to 1886 (Norcliffe, 2007). Each of these tricycles was then adapted to carry freight or passengers such that, soon after, the carrier tricycle became a significant novelty on the streets of western cities. The importance of these carrier tricycles is that they performed the newest technology very visibly. A horse drawing a delivery van carried a greater load, and when whipped up could travel as fast as the carrier tricycle, but horses were commonplace, whereas carrier tricycles were not, and they did not need watering or feeding or a stable, nor did they mess up the streets. The tricycle represented clean modern technology (Fig. 2). From the late 1870s on, the carrier tricycle was used extensively in western cities. Not surprisingly it lost much of its novelty by the end of the nineteenth century, but it was still widely used as a practical vehicle for local movement in the first half of the twentieth century, with advantages of flexibility, low operating costs, and an ability to move fairly quickly. Only in the 1950s with the increasing use of motor vehicles did the working tricycle fade away in Britain, with the ice-cream tricycle the last to go.
Fig. 2. Coventry Rotary Parcels Express, 1884.
Since the 1960s cycling has arisen phoenix-like from its ashes and during the past two decades has been advocated as an efficient and healthy alternative to motorised and mass transport. In a few countries such as Holland and Denmark, the necessary infrastructure has long been in place such that large numbers still commute by bicycle to study, work, and shop. Less visible are the factories (such as Canada’s newsprint mills) where workers use tricycles to travel inside the factory from one work station to another. Meanwhile, in the past decade most western jurisdictions have met with modest success in their efforts to encourage cycling, partly to reduce carbon footprints, but also for reasons of health, lifestyle and because there is a public demand to increase the possibility of safe cycling. For example, in the past 5 years the city of Seville in Spain has installed 120 km of bike lanes, with the number of daily cycle trips rising from 6,000 to 60,000. Interestingly, the carrier tricycle has also made a modest come-back in western cities, although numbers remain small. At popular tourist destinations, cycle-rickshaws have become a trendy form of transport – at least seasonally. In Britain, the specialist cycle manufacturer, Pashley, offers a range of tricycles in its line-up of working bicycles: they can be seen on busy corners where food vendors are selling sandwiches, soft drinks, ice cream, and hot dogs. In places such as Florida many retirees have taken up tricycling round the neighbourhood for shopping and pleasure. That said, the recovery of the working bicycle in the West thus far remains modest. Who is discontented? Hypermobility vs the environment The sustainable ‘‘Green City” concept entered planning discourses in the 1990s as impacts on the environment and the quality of life of unconstrained city modernization and automobility became evident. Awareness of the speed of global warming and the rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere led to urgent calls for a reduction in the burning of hydrocarbons. The associated rise in the search for sustainable urban structures and lifestyles, and concerns for the quality of life and liveability of the city accelerated at the same time that Keynesian welfare politics were being rolled back and supplanted by neoliberal programmes (Peck, 2004). These competing visions of the city became the object of political debates both in municipal and national elections, in academies and research institutes, and in the media. The outcome depended upon which viewpoint had the upper hand, with the result that complex geographies of modernity and sustainability were inscribed on the map (Thacker, 2003). Many cities chose to invest in public transit, build bicycle ways, promote recycling, ration road space (e.g. Mexico City and Sao Paulo), and impose congestion charges (e.g. London, Milan and Singapore). But other cities invested heavily in expressways, underpasses, the clearance of older factories and houses, and their replacement by office and residential towers that increase the flow of vehicles, while some cities – such as Beijing (Zhao, 2010) – have built low-density suburbs that encourage automobility. On the whole, jurisdictions closest to major hydrocarbon deposits have continued to aggressively modernize (with Dubai in a class of its own), while residents of historic cities have been
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
more sensitive to issues of sustainability, more protective of their past, and cautious about the scale of development. Forms of governance evidently need to be added to this simplistic balance since some authoritarian regimes are dedicated to modernizing. In many newly industrialising countries there is a sense of entitlement to modernize their economies, as OECD countries have done before them. In China, as noted above, Green City politics are discussed and are beginning to have some traction. Modernizers are critical of those who resist ‘‘progress”, while others (such as tricycle drivers and micro-entrepreneurs who use carrier tricycles for their businesses) are concerned with the impacts of rapid modernization on their livelihood. There is a strong case for investing in alternative forms of transport, for three reasons. Firstly the sheer size of cities in India, China, Indonesia and other large states means that if their citizens added the same amount of greenhouse gases to the Earth’s atmosphere as Canadians or Americans do, the global consequences will be huge. It would be far better for OECD nations to reduce their carbon footprint than for newly industrializing countries to raise theirs. Second, the trajectory towards a modern energy-intensive urban society in China is unsustainable for reasons often rehearsed: quite simply, the Earth’s accessible hydrocarbon resources will soon be used up. These two arguments have often been spelled out and will not be elaborated on. It is the third argument that may be novel, and which connects to the previous discussion. The carrier tricycle has obvious advantages in the Green City, especially in a low-income country. Yet there is little audible discontent with the on-going project to modernize these cities; rather, there is an enthusiasm to participate in the material benefits of new housing, modern transport, better paying work, enhanced education and improved health care. These are legitimate aspirations. But in the case of mobility there is a case for a more pluralistic approach. High speed trains, aircraft and expressways may assist in long-distance movement, but the humble tricyclist has a competitive advantage at the neighbourhood scale. And there is innovative technology being developed for tricycles: in 2009 in Tianjin I rode a newly designed light short wheelbase recumbent tricycle with a geared front wheel drive designed for seniors to travel and shop locally. Other useful innovations include tricycles with battery power assistance and very small motors. Unfortunately, by widening vehicle lanes and narrowing or eliminating bicycle lanes, and by destroying the hutong and alleyways so suited to the carrier tricycle, the state is shrinking the spaces of cycling where, up until now, China has had a distinct advantage. Those dispossessed of their working spaces and daily movement spaces by this process may well be discontented. Conclusion Whereas Freud was concerned with discontented individuals who bucked the rules of civilization, Stiglitz is concerned that free-market global practices of the neoliberal era, while they give enormous benefits to some, do little to help the quality of life of others and may weaken civilization itself. One corollary of neoliberal globalization is the hypermobility of a small group of individuals. For John
241
Adams (2010) the risks of hypermobility include polarisation between rich and poor, less convivial communities, less cultural variation, increased risk to pedestrians, and reduced health and fitness. This theme was explored in the context of the carrier tricycle which was in the vanguard of technological modernity in the late Victorian era. Only with the rise of the automobile was it displaced as a social marker, to become a utility vehicle which was to prove its worth for the next 50 years in western countries, before being eclipsed by motor vehicles. Meanwhile, in the global South the carrier tricycle emerged is an efficient and adaptable vehicle for short-haul local transportation using well developed cycling infrastructure. It does not pollute very much, is silent yet fairly swift, it costs little to manufacture and maintain, is flexible in where it can go and in the loads it can carry, is a safe vehicle with minimal risks, technological innovation is improving its performance, and it provides meaningful work for people with limited skills by supporting millions of city micro-enterprises. Yet many people in developing countries, eager to engage with the modern world and its technological wonders, are disinterested in this vehicle and, indeed, in cycling in general, viewing it as a superannuated mode of transport even though it meets many of the goals of a sustainable civilisation. There is some discontent with the growth of automobility in China, particularly amongst urban planners, environmentalists, cycling commuters and those who make a living as cyclists. So far, these groups have had a limited influence in policy, yet an inclusive approach combining public transit and motor vehicles for longer journeys with bicycles and tricycles for local movement and commerce holds promise not just for China’s cities, but for the cities of most nations, of a more sustainable future. Acknowledgements The guidance of reviewers in revising this paper was both constructive and helpful. I also acknowledge with thanks the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Standard Research Grants Program # 410-2007-28495/CID28495, and Dr. Boyang Gao of the Central University of Finance and Economics in Beijing for diligently searching the relevant literature in Chinese. References Adams, J. (1999). Hypermobility: The road to ruin. BBC News, 11 December. Adams, J. (2010). Risk in a hypermobile world. http://john-adams.co.uk/10/2/2010. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. Beck, U. (2009). World at risk. Cambridge: Polity Press (translated by Ciaran Cronin). Chu, W.-W. (1997). Causes of growth: A study of Taiwan’s bicycle industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21(1), 55–72. Epperson, B. (2010). Peddling bicycles to America: The rise of an industry. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co. Freud, S. (1929). Civilisation and its discontents. (re-published by Penguin: London in 2002). Furness, Z. (2010). One less car: Bicycling and the politics of automobility. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Gilbert, R., & Perl, A. (2010). Transport revolutions: Moving people and freight without oil (2nd ed.). Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Harmond, R. (1971). Progress and flight: an interpretation of the American cycle craze of the 1890s. Journal of Social History, 5(2), 235–257. Herlihy, D. (2004). Bicycle: The history. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. New York: Harper and Row.
242
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
Lemon, J. T. (1996). Liberal dreams and nature’s limits: Great cities of North America since 1600. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Mackintosh, P., & Norcliffe, G. (2006). Flâneurie on bicycles: acquiescence to women in public in the 1890s. Canadian Geographer, 50(1), 17–37. Mei, L., & Wang, J. (2008). The changing geography of Chinese bicycle industry: The case of Tianjin bicycle cluster and its evolutional trajectory. Paper presented at the annual conference. Boston, MA: Association of American Geographers. Miller, D. A. (Ed.). (2008). Urban sprawl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Norcliffe, G. (2001). The ride to modernity: The bicycle in Canada 1869–1900. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Norcliffe, G. (2006). Associations, modernity and the insider-citizens of a Victorian highwheel bicycle club. Journal of Historical Sociology, 19(2), 121–150. Norcliffe, G. (2007). On the technical and social significance of the tricycle. In G. Norcliffe (Ed.), Cycle history17: Proceedings of the seventeenth international cycle history conference (pp. 59–68). San Francisco: Van der Plas Publications. Pan, H.-X., Shen, Q., & Xue, S. (2010). Intermodal transfer between bicycles and rail transit in Shanghai, China. Transportation Research Record, 2144, 181–188. Pan, H.-X., Shen, Q., & Zhang, M. (2009). Influence of urban form on travel behaviour in four neighbourhoods of Shanghai. Urban Studies, 46(2), 275–294. Peck, J. (2004). Geography and public policy: Constructions of neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 28(3), 392–405. Rosen, P. (2002). Framing production: Technology, culture and change in the British bicycle industry. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Sheller, M. B., & Urry, J. (2000). The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 737–757. Sivaramakrishnan, K., & Vaccaro, I. (2006). Introduction: Postindustrial natures: Hyper-mobility and place attachements. Social Anthropology, 14(3), 301–317.
Smith, R. A. (1972). A social history of the bicycle. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton. Thacker, A. (2003). Moving through modernity: Space and geography in modernism. Manchester UK: Manchester University Press. Warner, S. B. (1962). Streetcar suburbs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Weinert, J., Ma, C.-T., & Cherry, C. (2007). The transition to electric bikes in China: History and key reasons for rapid growth. Transportation, 34(3), 301–318. World Bank (2005). Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations. East Asia Infrastructure Department, Urban Development Working Paper, 9. Xiong, Y. (2006). The choice of governments ruling behaviour and their market oriented economy mode. Journal of Liaoning Provincial College of Communications, 8(2), 51–53 (in Chinese). Yang, C., Wang, W., Shan, S.-F., et al. (2010). Effects of personal factors on bicycle commuting in developing countries: A case study of Nanjing, China. Transportation Research Record, 2193, 96–104. Zacharias, J. (2002). Bicycle in Shanghai: Movement patterns, cyclist attitudes and the impact of traffic separation. Transport Reviews, 22(3), 309–322. Zacharias, J. (2007). The non-motorized core of Tianjin. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 1(4), 231–248. Zacharias, J., & Zhang, J.-M. (2008). Estimating the shift from bicycle to metro in Tianjin. International Development Planning Review, 30(1), 93–111. Zhan, Yuhu., Fengyan, Zhang., & Hui, Zhou. (2009). Research methods for new urban areas that ban the use of passenger tricycles. Transportation World, 12, 90–93 (in Chinese). Zhao, P. (2010). Sustainable urban expansion and transportation in a growing megacity: Consequences of urban sprawl for mobility on the urban fringe of Beijing. Habitat International, 34(2), 236–243.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
City, Culture and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ccs
Neoliberal mobility and its discontents: Working tricycles in China’s cities Glen Norcliffe ⇑ Department of Geography, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 29 November 2010 Received in revised form date 22 November 2011 Accepted 25 November 2011 Available online 24 December 2011 Keywords: Hypermobility Working tricycle Neoliberalism China’s cities Sustainability Informal sector
a b s t r a c t What kind of civilization are we trying to build? Prior to the neoliberal age Freud considered civilization to be a collective social project with discontent arising when individuals are constrained by society from pursuing their own self-interested goals. Today, with globalization and competitive laissez-faire dominant, Stiglitz sees this relationship being reversed with individual self-interest as the norm, and discontentment arising when broader societal objectives are pursued. This theme is taken up in the context of working tricycles in China’s cities which serve as the platform for millions of micro-enterprises, but are being squeezed out by automobility. In the neoliberal age there has been a substantial increase in mobility, with some people becoming hypermobile, particularly with excessive automobile use. Working tricycles were popular in the West in the late nineteenth century, but in the twentieth century they virtually disappeared. The same trend is evident with China’s carrier tricycles, but a case is made that history should not be allowed to repeat itself because they continue to fill a valuable social need. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Movement is a necessary part of daily life, but for those enamoured with the project of modernity, mobility has become a fetish. Thus in the neoliberal age a new version of Baudelaire’s flâneur has appeared, one who engages in excessive movement. The biomechanical term hypermobility is used by Adams (1999) to describe this pattern of extreme travel; he argues that while mobility is normally a creative and liberating activity, recent shifts in cultural practices have resulted in people over-exercising that freedom with negative consequences which increase the risks of contemporary global capitalism (Beck, 1992). Subsequently, Sivaramakrishnan and Vaccaro (2006, 314) have extended the metaphor to propose that ‘‘the scale and frequency of this interconnectivity” and the resulting hypermobility have become the distinguishing feature of postindustrial society. And in their exploration of the ‘‘system of automobility” Sheller and Urry (2000) see the car initiating large numbers of new trips that arise not from economic or social necessity, but to construct a personal identity. This trend might simply be attributed to technological improvements speeding up movement and lowering the ⇑ Tel.: +1 519 396 6552; fax: +1 519 396 5988. E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-9166/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ccs.2011.11.006
real cost of travel. The very success of some technologies has, however, had the reverse effect due to increased congestion, the case of China’s epic 11 day 100 km traffic jam in August 2010 being a case in point. Indeed in some cases automobility has put into question the sustainability of the city in its present form (Lemon, 1996). For certain, the built form of each city favours particular technologies and modes of movement, which both reflects and, in turn, influences diverse cultures of movement. The bicycle networks of Belgium encourage cycling, while the narrow pre-industrial streets of Rome promote honking horns in frustration. I will argue, however, that technology and the built-form of the city explain only in part this tendency towards hypermobility. A new class of ‘‘world citizens” are establishing their credentials as members of the global elite through excessive travel. In other words I see hypermobility to have both technological and cultural roots. Furness’ (2010) recent book on the politics of automobility explores in depth both the variegated nature of this cultural process and the importance of urban and environmental politics to the form it takes. The development by civil society of new modes of transport during the industrial age led the modern city to grow in particular ways. Tramways, streetcars and then electric railways allowed cities to spread in a linear way along rail
236
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
lines (Warner, 1962), while the automobile led to suburban sprawl in all directions, especially in North America where private interests had a major influence on land management (Miller, 2008). But as the cost of increasingly scarce fossil fuels rises, some planners are looking for a sustainable alternative. My focus here is on a mode of transport that for a long time fell below the radar in studies of urban mobility, although there is increasing awareness of the potential of cycling as a clean, silent, fairly swift and low cost means of movement within the city (Furness, 2010; Gilbert & Perl, 2010). The bicycle’s contribution to urban mobility first became apparent during the late Victorian age when it was one of the most visible manifestations of modern life performed prominently in public spaces such as city streets and parks (Harmond, 1971; Herlihy, 2004; Norcliffe, 2001). Since then bicycles and tricycles have played a complex role both in the advance of modernity and in various counter-modern environmental resistance movements such that their impact on urban mobility is not easily read off a list of technological improvements.1 While at certain times and in specific places, they were discursively constructed as an artefact close to the cutting edge of modern city lifestyles, in other settings they have been presented as environmentally-friendly machines associated with minimalist lifestyles. I will pursue this theme in four stages. First I will outline the argument concerning civilization, mobility and its discontents, contrasting the visions of Sigmund Freud and Joseph Stiglitz. Then I will turn to urban cycling in the neoliberal age and its commercial possibilities in the particular form of the working tricycle in China’s cities.2 The next section turns the clock back a century to examine the parallel history of the working tricycle in late Victorian Britain, tracing its decline in the twentieth century, and recent modest revival. These serve as background to the final section assessing two contrasting visions of future urban transportation in China. Argument In the view of Sigmund Freud (1929) human behaviour tends to be aggressive, competitive and self-gratifying. In his book, Civilisation and its Discontents, he argues that these traits run counter to the need of civilization for individuals to conform to certain social norms and to repress these selfish impulses by sharing, acting peacefully, and respecting the wishes of others. Civilisation punishes individuals who do not obey community laws, and rewards those who do. Thus Freud sees discontentment arising from pressure on individuals to conform to the law and to social norms by suppressing their more self-serving instincts. Freud’s notion of discontentment was re-visited by Joseph Stiglitz in his book on Globalization and its Discontents (2002) in which he turns round Freud’s argument by arguing that, in the neoliberal age, it is now proponents of civ1 Unless the word ‘tricycle’ is explicitly used, throughout this paper the term ‘bicycles’ should be taken to include ‘tricycles’. 2 The discussion is based on interviews at 26 Chinese factories making cycles and components conducted in October 2009; field observations in twelve major cities across China in 2007, 2009 and 2011; and interviews with planning officials, China specialists at various conferences, cyclists in Beijing, and students from China studying in Canada.
ilisation who have reason to be discontented, since social norms, legislation, as well as the policies of the IMF, WTO, the World Bank, and many governments and institutions implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) favour possession, competition and (as the financial services sector well illustrates) self-reward, all manifestations of the instinctive traits that, in Freud’s view, run counter to the priorities of civilisation. I wish to take up one very particular aspect of this tension between individual and communal social values as they relate to mobility in the city by contrasting the bicycle as an instrument that enhances the identity of the individual as ‘‘modern” and may contribute in a small way to hypermobility, and the bicycle as a utilitarian and social vehicle whose use conforms to broader societal goals. At various moments in the past century the bicycle has promoted modern sensibilities as an efficient conveyance for the flâneur on wheels (Mackintosh & Norcliffe, 2006), as a racing machine embedding the latest technologies, as a highly visible class marker both in the nineteenth century and more recently as a high-end status symbol, and as a technologically superior delivery vehicle. It is often overlooked that the bicycle was the first machine that significantly accelerated the mobility of the individual both for social as well as commercial purposes. Cycles permitted the rider a freedom of individual choice denied to travelers of mass transit. Paradoxically, at other times and in other places the bicycle has played a role in resisting modern tendencies as an environmentally-friendly conveyance, as a means of escaping to quiet spaces, as a tool for conviviality when riding in social groups (Illich, 1973), and as a lowcost way of delivering diverse consumer goods. For Victorians, cycles were among the most visible markers of individual status and of western technological progress, certainly for the younger generation; indeed the outlay on a bicycle, its accessories and participation in the activities of a cycling club was considerable. In consequence in an age of marked inequalities of wealth, cycle ownership became a recognized class marker (Norcliffe, 2006; Smith, 1972). Those discontented with bicycles at this stage were a small minority of anti-moderns fearful either that the new machines would threaten their livelihood, or compete in city spaces which they had previously monopolized. In particular, there were reports of road rage between cyclists, teamsters and drivers of other horsedrawn vehicles. Subsequently the bicycle lost its social cachet and morphed into a popular utilitarian vehicle for everyday use. Today, the versatility of the cycle results in contrasting cycling practices in different settings, giving rise to a series of post-structural contingencies that often reflect national and local politics. In low-income countries the bicycle is an inexpensive and energy-efficient means of travel and delivering goods in the city; in major metropolises it provides courier services with an efficient way of moving packages rapidly around congested inner cities; in France and Italy it is a machine for road racing that valorizes such lucrative media-events as Le Tour de France and the Giro; in China it is an efficient means of urban commuting, with electric bikes becoming uniquely popular after 1998 due to technical, economic and political factors (Weinert, Ma, & Cherry, 2007); in Japan and South Korea bicycles are of-
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
ten used to commute. It is not possible to unravel all these complex histories and geographies but they do demonstrate that today, the bicycle has a wide range of meanings, some of which favour individual interests, while others advance the interests of larger collectivities and help to reduce the risks of a hypermobile society. In recent years geographies of cycle production and mainstream attitudes towards the bicycle have undergone some profound shifts. With very few exceptions, the famous national cycle makers of yesteryear – Schwinn and Huffy in the US (Epperson, 2010), CCM in Canada, Raleigh in the UK (Rosen, 2002), Manufrance and Peugeot in France – have ceased making bicycles domestically. They have become brands that sub-contract production mainly to OEM manufacturers in China, some of which are Taiwaneseowned. Taiwan’s Giant Cycle Company has become the world’s largest cycle manufacturer, with its biggest factory now located at Kunshan in the Yangtze Delta, although Giant still make their high-end machines at Taichung in Taiwan (Chu, 1997). India now has several major cycle makers serving the domestic market, though few are exported. As these changes in the geographies of cycle production have taken place, the bicycle has – with some notable exceptions – shifted from being a high-cost to a low-cost vehicle. And it now has to compete in terms of its cost, symbolic status, environmental friendliness and speed, with the automobile, motor bicycle, scooter, ATV, E-bike, and even the skateboard as conveyances that permit individual mobility around cities. A minority seeking greater speed continue the pursuit of modernity by incorporating the newest cycle technologies such as carbon–fibre frames, but for a growing number of users the bicycle is welcomed as an earth friendly technology, a low-cost way of shopping and commuting, or an alternative to motorized vehicles that reduces some of the dangers of contemporary risk capitalism (Beck, 2009). But this summation does depend on the geographical circumstances. I will explore this argument using the specific example of the working tricycle which is widely used in African and Asian cities to transport goods and people. In the late nineteenth century working tricycles became a common sight on Western city streets, for deliveries, as a platform for micro-enterprises, and for transport. During the second half of the Twentieth century, however, carrier tricycles were increasingly seen as an anachronism in the West, although very recently they have made a modest comeback as a practical (even funky) means of transportation. In the global South, in contrast, the use of working tricycles increased in post-war years, and only in the most recent era of globalization have these working tricycles become, in the eyes of some critics, an obsolescent technology. Many of the broader debates over the role of cycles in civilisation are captured by the case of the working tricycle. Working tricycles in China’s cities In the post-war period the working tricycle came into widespread use in many non-Western cities transporting goods and people, and in the surrounding countryside carrying farm workers, tools and farm products between villages and the land. In China, for instance, the Changhe Bicycle Works, built in Tianjin in 1936 by two entrepre-
237
Fig. 1. Delivering beer in Shanghai, 2007.
neurial Japanese army veterans, began the mass production of bicycles for the Chinese market. Converted to munitions production during the war, after the Communist takeover in 1949 it was re-converted to make Flying Pigeon (Fei Ge) cycles which, along with a sewing machine and a watch, were designated the three ‘‘must-have” household consumer goods. By the 1960s and 1970s, with the large scale production of bicycles and tricycles by the ‘‘big four”, Fei Ge and Hong Qi (Red Flag) in Tianjin, and Yong Jiu (Forever) and Feng Huang (Phoenix) in Shanghai, plus several other smaller makers, China could legitimately be heralded as the Empire of Bicycles (Mei and Wang, 2008). Urban infrastructure was built to reflect this priority as bicycles became the dominant form of urban transport (Zacharias, 2002). On most city roads dedicated rights-of-way (usually with a low barrier) were created for the thousands of slow moving bicycles, rickshaws and animal drawn vehicles to separate them from motorised vehicles. Traffic in the bike lanes usually moves at 12–15 km/h, and unlike the motor vehicle lanes, is rarely blocked by jams.3 This bicyclefriendly arrangement with slower traffic segregated from motor vehicles became institutionalized in China’s cities. Today, however, low-density suburbs do not encourage cycling, and arterial roads such as Beijing’s six concentric ring roads exclude slow-moving vehicles, although segregated lanes for slower-moving vehicles parallel them in many sections. Average motor vehicle speeds in city centres are probably about the same as those of bicycles, though cycles keep mov-
3 Li Bingren, chief economist for the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, said the average cyclist can reach speeds of up to 14 km/h, making bicycles a far more efficient and ‘‘green” form of transport for short and medium distances. (China Daily 17/9/2010).
238
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
ing when vehicular traffic is jammed (which happens frequently during peak traffic). Carrier tricycles became widely used in China during the Maoist era, and played a role in modernizing China during that phase of its development. Today, almost every farm has one that is used to transport tools and fertiliser between villages and fields, to go shopping in the nearest centre, and to deliver produce either directly to urban markets or to collection points where larger trucks gather food products in a hierarchical system. In cities they are used to transport a huge variety of goods including: bottled water; parcels; propane tanks; fruit and vegetables; soft drinks; beer; coal and other fuels; furniture; plants; and clothing (Fig. 1). Shipping companies and China’s post office may also use them for local deliveries. They are also used as mobile shops – for repairing bicycles and shoes, selling food and goods, sharpening knives and other cutting instruments, as mobile food stands (often with a heating apparatus) and at street markets. They are also an essential component of the night life of Chinese cities when many people eat at these mobile food stands, and shop at these curb-side stalls; working tricycles provide the micro-transport essential to these numerous micro-enterprises. And every city market has a parking area outside for the dozens of carrier tricycles that each day ferry in the goods offered for sale. Nearly all municipal road and garden maintenance is done by workers using these carrier tricycles to transport their tools, collect road and garden rubbish, and to commute from the city depot to the section of the road or park where they are working. Perhaps most important of all is the amount of urban rubbish gathered with these tricycles, almost all of it recycled; the World Bank (2005) estimated that there were 2.5 million tricycle-based waste collectors in China. They form a key element of one of the most effective low-cost recycling systems in the world, with tricycles collecting waste in city neighbourhoods which they deliver to collection points for weighing and counting, and then loading onto a truck for delivery to a major re-cycling centre. And, as already noted, these tricycles also serve as various forms of pedicabs, mainly for short distance travel around city neighbourhoods. They are very effective in short haul journeys, particularly along congested and narrow streets. In Beijing, independent tricycle operators tend to be older and male, which contrasts with the finding of Yang, Wang, Shan, et al. (2010) that gender and age has no significant impact on bicycle commuting in Nanjing. Two decades ago the majority of Chinese carrier tricycles were human powered, but then owners began to equip some of them with a very small two-stroke engine which allowed them to cruise at up to 20 km/h on flat roads, although some additional pedalling was needed up hills. More recently, many have been retro-fitted to become battery-powered E-tricycles. Carrier tricycles are particularly well adapted to moving along the narrow and congested hutong, alleyways and side streets that survive in older parts of the cities. Most have the box or platform for carrying goods placed behind the rider, but tricycles manufactured in Changchun, in the north, have two front wheels and the box placed in front of the rider. Data on the number of working tricycles in China do not appear to be published. In rural areas, field observations show approximately one per every three households (some
in a state of disrepair), so with close to 175 million rural households, there could be as many as 40 million working tricycles in the countryside, although many are not used very frequently. In urban areas, tricycles are rarely used by dwellers of high-rise buildings, but large numbers are in daily use on the streets. By the crudest of estimates – if one in twenty of China’s 200 million urban households have a tricycle, then there are another 10 million in cities. Add perhaps 5 million carrier tricycles used by municipal workers and employees of formal and informal companies, and a grand total of perhaps 40–60 million working tricycles seems possible. Many of these carrier tricycles are old and dilapidated, but improved models are appearing. This ball-park estimate would seem to agree with production numbers. One of China’s largest cycle manufacturers – the Ningbo Nanyang Vehicle Company of Cixi City, close to Hangzhou – makes 3.5 million units a year, of which roughly 10% are carrier tricycles. If other makers combined produce six-times this total, and the average tricycle is operating for 20 years, this suggests approximately 42 million working tricycles are to be found in China. Thus a crude estimate of between 40 and 60 million working tricycles in China seems credible. A very brief case-study based on 40 repeated observations in October 2011 of a 300 m section of Xibalizhuang Lu, in Beijing’s Haidian District, will illustrate some of the daily rhythms of tricycle commerce. The smallest number of working tricycles observed on this section was 36 and the largest 52. In the morning around 10 fruit and vegetable stall holders and a few food sellers claim the spaces they trade in during the day, padlocking their tricycles there but not opening until between 10 and 11 a.m. One pedicab was observed, with an elderly man taking his wife to shop. On every occasion half a dozen or more tricycles were observed moving up and down the street, some delivering goods, others empty. A barber who keeps a couple of battery-packs on his tricycle to power his hair clippers works from the morning until it goes dark. Around 5 p.m. a bigger group of food sellers plus 3 or 4 clothing sellers arrive and stay open until around 10 p.m., serving city workers whose work does not end until late evening. Some of these stalls are operated by people who have another job during the day so the stall provides a supplemental income. Peck (2004) stresses that neoliberalism is constructed by state policies in many variegated ways. China’s developmental state practices a form of state-capitalism managed by the People’s Republic. Arguably, no other economy has embraced globalization so extensively, such that China is now the world’s largest exporter of manufactured goods, a major importer of raw materials, as well as the principal buyer of Western debt. The luxury cars and modern houses of China’s rapidly emerging business class are quite visible, indeed car ownership has grown so fast that on 24 December 2010 Beijing introduced a lottery system to limit new car sales in that city (The Economist: 1/1/2011, 34). The rapid rate of economic growth in post-Maoist China, the huge investment in infrastructure and urban development, and the mass migration of younger workers from the countryside to the cities (despite the hukou system controlling rural-urban migration) are indicators that many are engaged in the modernization of China. Such consequences as the razing of a number of historic hutong and other pre-modern
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
Chinese remnants to make way for wider roads and highdensity developments are becoming issues of concern. The negative consequences of the rapid growth of infrastructure, utilities, housing and manufacturing industries have been accepted, for the most part, as unfortunate but necessary, as have the negative environmental impacts of rapid urbanization. These sentiments also apply to the working tricycle. The most common response to inquiries about the future of working tricycles was that they were residuals of a passing age. Suggestions that an up-dated version might also be part of China’s future were usually met with scepticism: technological progress, I was told, was making working tricycles an obsolete form of city transport. To connect the national economy with the rest of the globe and catch up with development practices elsewhere, high levels of mobility were a necessity. There is, of course, concern about the environmental risks that result from this engagement with modernity, carnage on the roads, and the high levels of air pollution in cities, but the majority saw these risks as an acceptable, if unfortunate, price to pay to modernize the country. Rarely noted is the possibility that the humble carrier tricycle, with a past stretching back over a century, can still boast several advantages including: generating almost no pollution; moving quietly, safely and quite rapidly on congested city streets; providing essential micro-transport for millions of micro-enterprises; accessing narrow alleyways that larger vehicles cannot; providing employment for unskilled workers, particularly the older generation whose education was interrupted by the Cultural Revolution; collecting many varieties of re-cycled materials, giving China one of the most efficient low-cost recycling systems in the world; and having low capital costs. Interestingly, in a study of tricycles in Shanyang in Shaanxi Province, Xiong Yi (2006) reports that government measures to prohibit tricycles have been in vain: they keep returning, presumably because they fill a valuable and needed commercial role. Despite these evident advantages, Pan, Shen, and Zhang (2009) report that since the 1980s most urban development in China has promoted automobility and mass transit,4 although their comparison of four urban neighbourhoods in Shanghai shows that where urban form is pedestrian/cyclist friendly, automobile and transit dependence is reduced. Urban planners in China debate these contrasting forms of urban transportation, but for many consumers, motorised transport has become a high priority, hence the dramatic rise in automobile ownership from 5 million cars in 2001 to over 100 million in 2011 (China Daily: 17/9/2011). As this happened, a number of events have marginalized the working tricycle and limited what Furness (2010, 83) calls alternative mobilities. Under the headline ‘‘Cycle of Misery on Congested Roads”, the China Daily (17/9/2010) reports the difficulties encountered by cyclists in the cycle lanes: ‘‘Transport experts say bikes are being ‘squeezed off the roads’ in China’s major cities and have urged authorities to protect riders’ rights . . . Despite efforts by cities across China to get more people back onto bicycles, experienced cyclists . . . say motorists and urban planners are ignoring their interests and endangering their lives. Roughly 63 percent of commuters traveled by 4 In 2008 seven Chinese cities were building metro systems (Zacharias & Zhang, 2008).
239
bicycle in Beijing in 1986. Today, that number is already below 18 percent, while the number of cars on the capital’s roads has rocketed from 77,000 in 1978 to 4.3 million as of last May” (travel by public transit also grew rapidly during this period). Increasing safety concerns are listed as the main reason for abandoning the bicycle, as bicycle lanes are narrowed or totally eliminated to widen vehicle lanes, and as motor vehicles increasingly use the cycle lanes for parking and short-cuts round jams: ‘‘Since the 1990s, the boom in automobile sales nationwide has resulted in routes becoming clogged with cars . . . Unfortunately for cyclists, the preferred solution in many cities has been to narrow or even remove bicycle lanes from roads to make more room for the increased traffic ... In some areas of Guangzhou . . . lanes have been moved onto sidewalks and are just 1 meter wide, leaving little room to manoeuvre.” Such narrow bicycle lanes effectively squeeze the working tricycle out of city streets, as a new generation of hypermobile motorists gain more lanes that rapidly fill up and congest. Cyclists in China are now banned from using many expressway cloverleaf crossings, forcing them to take longer detours. And they are often prohibited from using bridges for safety reasons: ‘‘In Wuhan, capital of Hubei province and Central China’s largest city, cycling is permitted on just one of its seven Yangtze River crossings . . . Two of three cross-Yangtze bridges are also blocked to twowheeled traffic in Nanjing, capital of Jiangsu province” China Daily (17/9/2010). Zhan, Fengyan, and Hui (2009) use the case of Hefei, capital of Anhui province, to assess the negative effects of banning pedicabs in urban areas. But there is also recognition of the value of bicycles: on 15 June 2006, Qiu Baoxing, China’s Vice-Minister of Construction ‘‘called on local governments to preserve or restore bicycle lanes in order to halt the decline in bicycle commuting, as rapid car ownership growth threatens China’s energy security and urban quality of life” (Forbes.com: 15/6/2006) while two days earlier an announcement ordered government employees to take public transportation or ride bikes to work (World Changing: 16/6/2006). Citing the example of cycle routes being constructed in Los Angeles, New York and London, Beijing’s transportation planners are re-thinking current practices: ‘‘According to plans released by the Beijing transport authority, a network of bicycle-only lanes is to be constructed using hutong within the Second Ring Road, as well as in the Central Business District and many new residential areas” China Daily (17/9/2010). Transportation planners are clearly aware of the issues and pressing for changes. For instance Pan, Shen, and Xue (2010) describe the possibilities for intermodal bicycle-public transit transfers in Shanghai , while in Tianjin, which has long had a high level of cycling, the city has developed a successful pedestrian zone where many visitors arrive by bicycle and tricycle (Zacharias, 2007). But overall, the supremacy of motor vehicles and decline of bicycle use in Chinese cities has not yet been reversed. For operators of China’s working tricycles, some state actions have been quite discouraging. The BBC News (http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/far_east/37260.stm) for 5 December 1997 reported that 200 motorised rickshaw drivers in the city of Zigong in Sichuan Province used their vehicles to block traffic in protest against a government ban on rickshaws in the city centre. Soon after, on 21 February 1998
240
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
the same source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/58792.stm) reported that a tricycle driver in Wuhan had been sentenced to three years in prison for his role in a demonstration: ‘‘around 1,000 disgruntled drivers blocked roads in Wuhan for several hours with their tricycles as a protest against plans by the city to ban the vehicles to ease traffic congestion last October”. And on Xibalizhuang Lu (the case study described above) at 8 p.m. on 6 November 2011 a stampede of around 30 tricycles were seen fleeing inspectors from Beijing’s Municipal Bureau of City Administration and Law Enforcement who, as in many developing countries, periodically harass the informal sector. This is not, however, the first time in recent history that working tricycles have faced competition from motorised vehicles and eventually been squeezed out. During the tricycle boom in Europe in the late nineteenth century, working tricycles were widespread, disappearing only slowly during the twentieth century. Working tricycles in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries The modern tricycle era was launched by a British inventor, James Starley, who in 1877 developed and/or patented three quite different tricycles which in turn launched a little recognized tricycle boom dating from 1877 to 1886 (Norcliffe, 2007). Each of these tricycles was then adapted to carry freight or passengers such that, soon after, the carrier tricycle became a significant novelty on the streets of western cities. The importance of these carrier tricycles is that they performed the newest technology very visibly. A horse drawing a delivery van carried a greater load, and when whipped up could travel as fast as the carrier tricycle, but horses were commonplace, whereas carrier tricycles were not, and they did not need watering or feeding or a stable, nor did they mess up the streets. The tricycle represented clean modern technology (Fig. 2). From the late 1870s on, the carrier tricycle was used extensively in western cities. Not surprisingly it lost much of its novelty by the end of the nineteenth century, but it was still widely used as a practical vehicle for local movement in the first half of the twentieth century, with advantages of flexibility, low operating costs, and an ability to move fairly quickly. Only in the 1950s with the increasing use of motor vehicles did the working tricycle fade away in Britain, with the ice-cream tricycle the last to go.
Fig. 2. Coventry Rotary Parcels Express, 1884.
Since the 1960s cycling has arisen phoenix-like from its ashes and during the past two decades has been advocated as an efficient and healthy alternative to motorised and mass transport. In a few countries such as Holland and Denmark, the necessary infrastructure has long been in place such that large numbers still commute by bicycle to study, work, and shop. Less visible are the factories (such as Canada’s newsprint mills) where workers use tricycles to travel inside the factory from one work station to another. Meanwhile, in the past decade most western jurisdictions have met with modest success in their efforts to encourage cycling, partly to reduce carbon footprints, but also for reasons of health, lifestyle and because there is a public demand to increase the possibility of safe cycling. For example, in the past 5 years the city of Seville in Spain has installed 120 km of bike lanes, with the number of daily cycle trips rising from 6,000 to 60,000. Interestingly, the carrier tricycle has also made a modest come-back in western cities, although numbers remain small. At popular tourist destinations, cycle-rickshaws have become a trendy form of transport – at least seasonally. In Britain, the specialist cycle manufacturer, Pashley, offers a range of tricycles in its line-up of working bicycles: they can be seen on busy corners where food vendors are selling sandwiches, soft drinks, ice cream, and hot dogs. In places such as Florida many retirees have taken up tricycling round the neighbourhood for shopping and pleasure. That said, the recovery of the working bicycle in the West thus far remains modest. Who is discontented? Hypermobility vs the environment The sustainable ‘‘Green City” concept entered planning discourses in the 1990s as impacts on the environment and the quality of life of unconstrained city modernization and automobility became evident. Awareness of the speed of global warming and the rise in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere led to urgent calls for a reduction in the burning of hydrocarbons. The associated rise in the search for sustainable urban structures and lifestyles, and concerns for the quality of life and liveability of the city accelerated at the same time that Keynesian welfare politics were being rolled back and supplanted by neoliberal programmes (Peck, 2004). These competing visions of the city became the object of political debates both in municipal and national elections, in academies and research institutes, and in the media. The outcome depended upon which viewpoint had the upper hand, with the result that complex geographies of modernity and sustainability were inscribed on the map (Thacker, 2003). Many cities chose to invest in public transit, build bicycle ways, promote recycling, ration road space (e.g. Mexico City and Sao Paulo), and impose congestion charges (e.g. London, Milan and Singapore). But other cities invested heavily in expressways, underpasses, the clearance of older factories and houses, and their replacement by office and residential towers that increase the flow of vehicles, while some cities – such as Beijing (Zhao, 2010) – have built low-density suburbs that encourage automobility. On the whole, jurisdictions closest to major hydrocarbon deposits have continued to aggressively modernize (with Dubai in a class of its own), while residents of historic cities have been
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
more sensitive to issues of sustainability, more protective of their past, and cautious about the scale of development. Forms of governance evidently need to be added to this simplistic balance since some authoritarian regimes are dedicated to modernizing. In many newly industrialising countries there is a sense of entitlement to modernize their economies, as OECD countries have done before them. In China, as noted above, Green City politics are discussed and are beginning to have some traction. Modernizers are critical of those who resist ‘‘progress”, while others (such as tricycle drivers and micro-entrepreneurs who use carrier tricycles for their businesses) are concerned with the impacts of rapid modernization on their livelihood. There is a strong case for investing in alternative forms of transport, for three reasons. Firstly the sheer size of cities in India, China, Indonesia and other large states means that if their citizens added the same amount of greenhouse gases to the Earth’s atmosphere as Canadians or Americans do, the global consequences will be huge. It would be far better for OECD nations to reduce their carbon footprint than for newly industrializing countries to raise theirs. Second, the trajectory towards a modern energy-intensive urban society in China is unsustainable for reasons often rehearsed: quite simply, the Earth’s accessible hydrocarbon resources will soon be used up. These two arguments have often been spelled out and will not be elaborated on. It is the third argument that may be novel, and which connects to the previous discussion. The carrier tricycle has obvious advantages in the Green City, especially in a low-income country. Yet there is little audible discontent with the on-going project to modernize these cities; rather, there is an enthusiasm to participate in the material benefits of new housing, modern transport, better paying work, enhanced education and improved health care. These are legitimate aspirations. But in the case of mobility there is a case for a more pluralistic approach. High speed trains, aircraft and expressways may assist in long-distance movement, but the humble tricyclist has a competitive advantage at the neighbourhood scale. And there is innovative technology being developed for tricycles: in 2009 in Tianjin I rode a newly designed light short wheelbase recumbent tricycle with a geared front wheel drive designed for seniors to travel and shop locally. Other useful innovations include tricycles with battery power assistance and very small motors. Unfortunately, by widening vehicle lanes and narrowing or eliminating bicycle lanes, and by destroying the hutong and alleyways so suited to the carrier tricycle, the state is shrinking the spaces of cycling where, up until now, China has had a distinct advantage. Those dispossessed of their working spaces and daily movement spaces by this process may well be discontented. Conclusion Whereas Freud was concerned with discontented individuals who bucked the rules of civilization, Stiglitz is concerned that free-market global practices of the neoliberal era, while they give enormous benefits to some, do little to help the quality of life of others and may weaken civilization itself. One corollary of neoliberal globalization is the hypermobility of a small group of individuals. For John
241
Adams (2010) the risks of hypermobility include polarisation between rich and poor, less convivial communities, less cultural variation, increased risk to pedestrians, and reduced health and fitness. This theme was explored in the context of the carrier tricycle which was in the vanguard of technological modernity in the late Victorian era. Only with the rise of the automobile was it displaced as a social marker, to become a utility vehicle which was to prove its worth for the next 50 years in western countries, before being eclipsed by motor vehicles. Meanwhile, in the global South the carrier tricycle emerged is an efficient and adaptable vehicle for short-haul local transportation using well developed cycling infrastructure. It does not pollute very much, is silent yet fairly swift, it costs little to manufacture and maintain, is flexible in where it can go and in the loads it can carry, is a safe vehicle with minimal risks, technological innovation is improving its performance, and it provides meaningful work for people with limited skills by supporting millions of city micro-enterprises. Yet many people in developing countries, eager to engage with the modern world and its technological wonders, are disinterested in this vehicle and, indeed, in cycling in general, viewing it as a superannuated mode of transport even though it meets many of the goals of a sustainable civilisation. There is some discontent with the growth of automobility in China, particularly amongst urban planners, environmentalists, cycling commuters and those who make a living as cyclists. So far, these groups have had a limited influence in policy, yet an inclusive approach combining public transit and motor vehicles for longer journeys with bicycles and tricycles for local movement and commerce holds promise not just for China’s cities, but for the cities of most nations, of a more sustainable future. Acknowledgements The guidance of reviewers in revising this paper was both constructive and helpful. I also acknowledge with thanks the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Standard Research Grants Program # 410-2007-28495/CID28495, and Dr. Boyang Gao of the Central University of Finance and Economics in Beijing for diligently searching the relevant literature in Chinese. References Adams, J. (1999). Hypermobility: The road to ruin. BBC News, 11 December. Adams, J. (2010). Risk in a hypermobile world. http://john-adams.co.uk/10/2/2010. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. Beck, U. (2009). World at risk. Cambridge: Polity Press (translated by Ciaran Cronin). Chu, W.-W. (1997). Causes of growth: A study of Taiwan’s bicycle industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21(1), 55–72. Epperson, B. (2010). Peddling bicycles to America: The rise of an industry. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co. Freud, S. (1929). Civilisation and its discontents. (re-published by Penguin: London in 2002). Furness, Z. (2010). One less car: Bicycling and the politics of automobility. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Gilbert, R., & Perl, A. (2010). Transport revolutions: Moving people and freight without oil (2nd ed.). Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Harmond, R. (1971). Progress and flight: an interpretation of the American cycle craze of the 1890s. Journal of Social History, 5(2), 235–257. Herlihy, D. (2004). Bicycle: The history. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. New York: Harper and Row.
242
G. Norcliffe / City, Culture and Society 2 (2011) 235–242
Lemon, J. T. (1996). Liberal dreams and nature’s limits: Great cities of North America since 1600. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Mackintosh, P., & Norcliffe, G. (2006). Flâneurie on bicycles: acquiescence to women in public in the 1890s. Canadian Geographer, 50(1), 17–37. Mei, L., & Wang, J. (2008). The changing geography of Chinese bicycle industry: The case of Tianjin bicycle cluster and its evolutional trajectory. Paper presented at the annual conference. Boston, MA: Association of American Geographers. Miller, D. A. (Ed.). (2008). Urban sprawl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Norcliffe, G. (2001). The ride to modernity: The bicycle in Canada 1869–1900. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Norcliffe, G. (2006). Associations, modernity and the insider-citizens of a Victorian highwheel bicycle club. Journal of Historical Sociology, 19(2), 121–150. Norcliffe, G. (2007). On the technical and social significance of the tricycle. In G. Norcliffe (Ed.), Cycle history17: Proceedings of the seventeenth international cycle history conference (pp. 59–68). San Francisco: Van der Plas Publications. Pan, H.-X., Shen, Q., & Xue, S. (2010). Intermodal transfer between bicycles and rail transit in Shanghai, China. Transportation Research Record, 2144, 181–188. Pan, H.-X., Shen, Q., & Zhang, M. (2009). Influence of urban form on travel behaviour in four neighbourhoods of Shanghai. Urban Studies, 46(2), 275–294. Peck, J. (2004). Geography and public policy: Constructions of neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 28(3), 392–405. Rosen, P. (2002). Framing production: Technology, culture and change in the British bicycle industry. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Sheller, M. B., & Urry, J. (2000). The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 737–757. Sivaramakrishnan, K., & Vaccaro, I. (2006). Introduction: Postindustrial natures: Hyper-mobility and place attachements. Social Anthropology, 14(3), 301–317.
Smith, R. A. (1972). A social history of the bicycle. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. New York: Norton. Thacker, A. (2003). Moving through modernity: Space and geography in modernism. Manchester UK: Manchester University Press. Warner, S. B. (1962). Streetcar suburbs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Weinert, J., Ma, C.-T., & Cherry, C. (2007). The transition to electric bikes in China: History and key reasons for rapid growth. Transportation, 34(3), 301–318. World Bank (2005). Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations. East Asia Infrastructure Department, Urban Development Working Paper, 9. Xiong, Y. (2006). The choice of governments ruling behaviour and their market oriented economy mode. Journal of Liaoning Provincial College of Communications, 8(2), 51–53 (in Chinese). Yang, C., Wang, W., Shan, S.-F., et al. (2010). Effects of personal factors on bicycle commuting in developing countries: A case study of Nanjing, China. Transportation Research Record, 2193, 96–104. Zacharias, J. (2002). Bicycle in Shanghai: Movement patterns, cyclist attitudes and the impact of traffic separation. Transport Reviews, 22(3), 309–322. Zacharias, J. (2007). The non-motorized core of Tianjin. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 1(4), 231–248. Zacharias, J., & Zhang, J.-M. (2008). Estimating the shift from bicycle to metro in Tianjin. International Development Planning Review, 30(1), 93–111. Zhan, Yuhu., Fengyan, Zhang., & Hui, Zhou. (2009). Research methods for new urban areas that ban the use of passenger tricycles. Transportation World, 12, 90–93 (in Chinese). Zhao, P. (2010). Sustainable urban expansion and transportation in a growing megacity: Consequences of urban sprawl for mobility on the urban fringe of Beijing. Habitat International, 34(2), 236–243.