 Let's start to begin our presentation with Tony Travers, the director of the Greater London Group, to talk about governance and city design. Now, having chaired the previous session, I now find myself, and you find yourself dealing with me again, so I'm sorry about that, having so much of me so soon. I want to talk about transport and planning, not trying as hard as possible not to intrude on what Gerald Frugl will be talking about this afternoon, about the way in which cities govern themselves more generally and the hierarchies and the power structures within cities. I want to concentrate very much on governance and the way cities deal with transport, planning, roads, the issues we've just heard about from our co-chairs for this session. The urban age has moved around the world, ahead of one of its earlier meetings, one of the time the International News magazine ran this feature about the way in which city government leadership was indeed important in shaping the way cities evolved. And what I want to talk about for a few minutes this morning, heavily influenced by the urban age's excellent team of researchers who've been interviewing a number of cities, the urban age cities including several in India, try to tease out how in which, the ways in which, transport, government, planning government are influenced by the systems and the historical arrangements for government, which many people quite understandably take for granted. People involved in studying cities obsess about these things, the public often doesn't notice them except when things don't quite come out right. So this is work that the urban age has been evolving over some time, looking at the way in which cities and their administrative boundaries are often set within large regions. So inevitably we all understand this, the cities that we tend to concentrate on and their governments, generally with the exception in this case of Shanghai up there in the top middle, sit within much larger regions, sitting within a much larger 17-county region, but the city government system, certainly the mayor, governing a much smaller area right in the middle. This is common in a number of cities, in Mexico City there, in the far and the bottom left hand corner, with the city government only a part of the urban built up area indeed. Now, if we look at the Indian cities, we get very much the same, the major Indian cities, the same kind of pattern of an administrative city set within a region and often within a state. And of course all of this underestimates the way in which federal or national government levels will influence the way public services can or are delivered. So very briefly to go through this in slightly more detail, here we have New York, five boroughs of the city with this very much larger region of influence around it. This is a tri-state area, so it isn't just a city surrounded by a region, but in fact with three different states in a highly decentralized political system where states are largely sovereign within the U.S. Severely compromising regional rail operations. There's a strong center, there's a strong divide in the center-eastern west of the Hudson River which we'll see the results of here, which is trains backed up at Penn Station because they can run into the city, but the lines stop as soon as you arrive across the Hudson River in the city and so that's trains backed up because they can't run through. Now contrast that with the image here of the glorious new central station, the Hauptbahnhof in Berlin, Germany particularly good at integrating different kinds of transport coming together, not only in Berlin, in a city like this which is able very physically here to produce interchanges between different modes of transport. In Mexico, which I mentioned earlier, the city government is only a part of the larger and rapidly developing urban agglomeration. Here the metro system is limited to the Federal District of Mexico, the administrative city, and this is contributing to a decline in transport share. The fact that the city's government cannot run far beyond or indeed at all beyond the administrative boundaries proving how important boundaries can be, and this is a picture that was shown yesterday of the way in which within a city you can get a straight line dividing the way a city works in one part of itself from what happens on the other side. In London, London typically had relatively weak city government until the recent reforms, of which more in a moment, and oddly enough that weak city government has made it possible for a very widespread transport network of railways and underground systems to run across that London boundary, creating a very dense network of commuting railway systems. I wouldn't say it's the most integrated system in the world, but it does allow things to run across those borders, those administrative lines. Now, I want briefly to touch on how the systems of government operate in a number of the urban age cities and then look at the position in India. This is the London situation. We've colour-coded these, blue for national government, yellow, which you'll see in a minute, whether it's a state level, city government in this sort of ready pink colour, and then local borough government in green. London is a three-level system, two levels of local government, but with powerful central government as well, and indeed the Minister from London who was here yesterday, as it were, is that box just under this line, central government. Tessa Jowell is the Minister for London. Transport is a two-level affair. Central government and the Mayor of London runs a powerful transport agency, planning another agency of the Mayor of London, you can see there, but with the boroughs, who are powerful institutions in London, also involved, so a three-level system of planning government in London. Add the two together, that's the picture you get. New York, system of government. Now we have a system with a state level put in, very powerful city government, relatively weak boroughs in New York. They're in here, but they have relatively few powers. Transport in New York, very much a state government function, not a city function. Planning, rather more a city institutional function, but with involvement from state level and with some consultation at the borough level. You add the two together, that's the picture you get. State and city government of planning and transport. In Berlin, now Berlin has probably, certainly by European standards, a highly federal constitution. Germany has a highly federal constitution. There are three levels of government, federal city state and the Berlin boroughs. Berlin Light London has elected boroughs, but much of the power is concentrated at the local level, either in the state, senate, city government and at the borough level and with exactly the same position for planning. So transport and planning brought together in a powerful city government in Berlin, probably the most powerful and simple of the systems that we've looked at in the urban age. Moving to India, and I hardly dare say this having had the minister up here so recently, a more complex picture. Here we've got the picture in Delhi with government at the national, at the state and city level. No borough level here of course, no local local level. Transport, a series of institutions at different levels. Planning, a number of different institutions at different levels but different obviously to those for planning. They're brought together here, a complex picture. Here in Mumbai again, central government, state government and the mayor of Mumbai, a local level of government. Transport run in this way, with the state and local level as well as some transports at the national level as well. Spatial planning, very much a national or state level function in Mumbai. No local involvement at all, very unusual compared with the urban age cities we were looking at earlier on. Bringing those two together, together a three level system but again no community or borough level involvement here. Now if we try and stylise this information still further very briefly and look at the cities that I've just touched upon. The scale here is, as it were, that arrow on the left hand side there means towards the top, power towards the centre, towards the bottom, power towards the local or borough level. And this is Mumbai with power at the, towards the top of this chart. Delhi, a lot of power again at the top of the chart, some at the city level. We move on to Calcutta again, a mixed picture but a lot of power towards the upper level of government at the central or state level and the same in Bangalore. London, we begin to move down, I mean Londoners don't generally think of themselves as living in a particularly decentralised city. But if we compare the Indian cities with London, the new city government, relatively new, has pulled powers down this chart. New York, again, powered down this chart towards the local and city level. Berlin, again, another system, probably the, in many ways, the most effective towards the city level. Now, Mumbai, again, we're moving back up this system here with powers further. If we look at land use and transport, powers pulled further up this chart. In Mumbai, and I just want to touch on this point briefly as I draw to a close, because of the separation of transport and planning powers at different levels of governance, clearly it impacts upon the systems capacity to make joined up, to make consistent decisions about the city's future. So, if we take an area like the eastern waterfront here in the city, picture that some of you will know, we've undertaken a number of interviews and the kind of reactions we've got here from a representative of the government at the state level, there is a big tension at the moment. We were told we want them, that is the Port Trust, to reduce port activity and open up this area for the city. There are perceptions that the Mumbai port is declining and the port is sitting over a huge tract of land, which is suboptimally utilized, that the expansion programs of the Mumbai port are at the expense of the city. But let me tell you, with all authority at my command, these perceptions are a best inaccurate and incomplete fact. So, a different view there from the Mumbai Port Trust. Now, looking at the governance of housing and rail within the city, there's a lack of access to housing. We've heard this point made earlier yesterday, population in the area has increased significantly and in the last eight years, number of passengers on the transport system has doubled. But when this was being developed, the city authorities never told us about the new housing plans and more importantly, did not leave any land for new railway stations. So again, the impact of having planning and transport authorities that are not working together all too clear and we heard from our chair just a moment ago about the road transport issues in the city, only roads were within the state's ambit. So the state always looked upon traffic solutions in the form of more roads. In a large city like Mumbai, the railways network is probably more effective, an external made earlier than roads alone because roads essentially promote private modes of transport. And it does seem to me that one of the implications of the urban age again and again is that the earlier cities can be designed to make them environmentally and indeed in terms of living, usable, then the better. So if I can just summarize this enormously rapid canter through a very complex issue, the point I'm trying to drive across here, and I've no doubt Gerald Frugl returned to this this afternoon, is that the institutions, the boundaries of where city government stops, the different institutional mechanisms, they are layers in relation to the citizen. It's a very obvious point, but all of which can impede rational thinking and certainly in terms of the individual citizen in the green level towards the bottom of these charts make it very difficult for them to get the kind of city they wish or deserve if the complex institutions above them either cannot or dare I say occasionally will not work together. Thank you very much.