Transcript

Voiceover 

This is a podcast from the Bartlett Review, sharing new ideas and disruptive thinking for the built environment, brought to you by the Bartlett faculty of the Built Environment at University College London 

John Ward 

All these different moving parts coming together creates this complexity, and it's very difficult to know from the interaction of those parts, really, how the system's going to operate. And I think that's a key kind of challenge with planning in London. 

Thaisa Comelli 

Why people move the way they move. It has to do with the infrastructure that is available, but it also has to do with social norms and cultural patterns 

Ben Coleman

Low traffic neighbourhoods, 15 minutes cities. There's a long line of terms that quickly become toxic. 

 Mike Raco:

Hello, I'm Mike Raco, Professor of Urban Governance and Development and Head of the Bartlett School of Planning here at University College London. Our focus today is on the topic of transport and infrastructure planning, how we set up systems that enable people and things to move around, how we keep the power on and water flowing, and how we respond to the challenge of a changing climate and shifting social and economic priorities.

And what with 2026 being UCL's 200th anniversary year, we will inevitably spend some of today talking about work being done by UCL researchers and how that work is impacting our home city of London. The BSP has a long history of work in London from Patrick Abercrombie's plan in the 1940s to the work of Sir Peter Hall in the 1970s and 80s, and we'll be developing some of the themes of their work in today's podcast. 

I'm pleased to say that I'm not trying to do this single-handedly, and I've got some fantastic colleagues and experts alongside me today. First of whom is Dr. Thaisa Comelli, a lecturer here at the Bartlett School of Planning, whose work focuses on the intersection between urban development and sustainability. Thanks for being here, Thaisa. 

Thaisa Comelli: 

Hi, Mike, good morning. 

Mike Raco: 

And Dr. John Ward, Associate Professor in Infrastructure Planning here at the Bartlett School of Planning. Very good to see you, John. 

John Ward:

Thank you, Mike. Likewise. 

Mike Raco: 

Also with us is Ben Coleman, who is Head of Active Travel with the consultancy Urban Movement. Welcome to you, Ben. 

Ben Coleman: 

Thank you for having me. 

Mike Raco: 

So perhaps I could start by asking each of you to set out briefly what you consider to be the priorities for transport and infrastructure planning in London. John. 

John Ward: 

Thank you, Mike. Yes. So I have quite a long list of things that I think would probably be priorities for transport and infrastructure. Summarising them, or perhaps the main thing I think would be interesting to discuss is how really we can move towards a place-based infrastructure development. So the UK now has a 10-year infrastructure plan for 2025. Also, the treasury is quite keen in its sort of green book and various guidance documents, its various procurement documents, that they start seeing infrastructure being sort of place-based. So I'd be interested to, or I think one of the key priorities is how London can do this, how it can start planning for place-based development. 

Thaisa Comelli: 

So I think I have three priorities to share today and maybe that will animate discussions. The first one is inclusivity, and I'm thinking of how transport systems now and in the future can respond to the needs and aspirations of different groups and how different groups move in the city. The second one, which comes from my expertise, is sustainability. I'm thinking here of carbon emissions. I'm thinking of net zero, of course, but I'm also thinking of the long-term environmental impacts of our actions, whether this is related to infrastructure or soft policy. And of course, I'm thinking of maintenance and financing when I think of sustainability.

And third, I would mention future proofing in relation to climate adaptation, but other types of environmental risks. So reflecting whether our infrastructures and our systems here in London can work today, but also if they can be adaptable to a climate future that is uncertain and that is complex and that comes with extreme weather events, but also unpredictable events. So that would be my three priorities. 

Ben Coleman:

 I guess the question is framed about transport, but in my experience, I think transport can be a bit of a belittling... I don't know, an insulting term almost in terms of it's a bit ugly transport as a word. You asked us how we all got here today, none of us drove. None of us probably used a motorway, but when you think of transport, that's what kind of comes with it rather than the lived everyday experience. And I think that in my mind actually at a grassroots level is the biggest obstacle is people even conceptualising transport and infrastructure and actually not more the qualitative elements of that and what it means for their journey. 

So we can always talk about the infrastructure side of it, but in my mind, it's more the grassroots of where, how are you even getting into the general public's psyche about these kind of points. 

Mike Raco: 

Okay, thank you. So a number of points there about the relationship between policy and the lived experience of transport in a city, which I think we can develop. Maybe focusing a bit more specifically on London. Perhaps Ben, if I could start with you, what are the biggest challenges that we face when thinking about transport planning and infrastructure here in London specifically? 

Ben Coleman: 

I mean, I think that the first thing is politics. My job is inherently kind of led by politics, especially in London where there's 33 different authorities, plus TFL, plus GLA, it's hyper political. And I think that's what can influence a lot but it feels like to me that what boroughs like Camden, where we are today, for example, what they're affording and what they're delivering relative to say an outer borough that's not politically aligned, it's like a chasm of a difference.  

Mike Raco: 

Could you elaborate a bit on that? What is it that makes this topic, this issue so political in London? 

Ben Coleman: 

I think because the behaviours that we associate with transport are very ingrained and probably there's social norms that are kind of like almost inherited in terms of what we associate with different people's modes of travel, or they even convey by how they travel and what they're using to travel by. I think that's a long ingrained, that's not unique to London, but I do think in my mind that's where you've kind of got the challenge of ... yeah, there's a social element too... yeah, there's inequalities as well, often who's loudest even at a public consultation event and how representative engagement is. Post pandemic, that landscape from a consultancy perspective is much better than it was. It's much more now ingrained in projects and in terms of actually like listening and much more meaningful development of projects.

Mike Raco: 

John, focusing on London, what are the biggest challenges? 

John Ward: 

I think with infrastructure, probably so far we've spoken about transport infrastructure, whereas I would looking at infrastructure to see it as a broader set of different types of assets. There is the transport, there's the energy grid, heat systems, water supply, flood risk, digital infrastructure, waste infrastructure, then the green infrastructure, social, active travel, the sort of cultural infrastructure as well. And I think that trying to plan across all those different types of infrastructure is quite a challenge. 

There's a lot of complexity around it, a lot of interdependency between those different types of infrastructure. And I think when we start looking at the stakeholder diversity, the different groups who are perhaps overseeing those different types of infrastructure, they all have particular sort of frameworks, decision making frameworks. They all have particular objectives and as these collide, they create complexity, they create challenges, uncertainty. For example, just a ... well, give an example, if you're thinking about a housing development, trying to put that in West London, or there's of course the transport connection that needs to be provided by Transport for London. 

There needs to be a grid connection. That's probably around Ofgem or if Ofgem would have the sort of oversight, but it'd be a local distribution network provider that needs to put that in. There's the water provided by Thames Water. They're overseen by Ofwat. There's flood protection, Environmental Agency, perhaps also the borough involved their digital connections, their commercial fight, well, commercial provision, and then even perhaps the heat network, that may be on the borough level, they're going to be energy operators too. So bringing all those different stakeholders together to try and facilitate that development in West London, that's going to be complex. 

All these different moving parts coming together creates this complexity, and it's very difficult to know from the interaction of those parts, really, how the system's going to operate. And I think that's a key kind of challenge with planning in London. 

Thaisa Comelli: 

Yeah. So I hear Ben and John talking about diversity and complexity, and my thoughts are along the same lines. So London, as many mega cities, is an incredibly diverse and complex city. And by complex, I mean, the layers of infrastructure that we have that have to do with how people move, but also the layers of social complexity, so why people move the way they move. It has to do with the infrastructure that is available, but it also has to do with social norms and cultural patterns that are sometimes ingrained and difficult to change. We do need to have a wide conversation with the public in a participatory and inclusive way about why do we need to perhaps move away from these single mode of transport way of building the city and move towards integration. 

So it's not just giving up great infrastructure and giving up robust infrastructure, big investments, but how can these big investments be integrated with more localised forms of transport? So we're thinking about from the perspective of different cities and to have conversations between different cities, how walking can be integrated with other modes of transport. 

So walking can be a form of enjoyment and a way of experiencing the city and not just getting to places in a very instrumentalist way. And also importantly, thinking of the consequences of these different investments, but if you have something that is more flexible and integrated, you can be more adaptable. And I think this is the contemporary way of thinking. And I think London is trying to incorporate that and different boroughs are trying to incorporate that, but how that gets implemented in a coherent way across boroughs, I think this is one of the key challenges. 

Mike Raco: 

So a lot of talk about the supply of infrastructure, supply and opportunity to use and to use the city differently, to use infrastructures differently. But isn't there also a question around reducing the demand and the need for people to travel? And if you think about what's happened to the British welfare state and other welfare state systems in the last 30 years, there's been a much bigger focus on choice, the ability to choose your school, the ability to choose your healthcare provider, the flexibility of employment also alongside that, where people are increasingly flexible about the work they do, where they do it, how they do it. That creates demand for movement within a city. How do you address the issue of this? Because of course, some people would argue that we've seen people empowered to choose new lifestyles or to do different things, and those with less power often have to travel. 

They have to travel in different ways because they're forced to. Any thoughts on that? 

Ben Coleman: 

I think my gut feeling is I think that suppressing choice is tough because you can't consciously take away choice, but you can educate in terms of the impact of what those choices are. And I think that's a key missing part of... it's interesting at the moment.  I was commenting on a master plan last week where there was a point in there about under sustainability, about promoting more EV charging points for cars. And also last week I was reading articles about the fact that switching to EV cars is not necessarily ... There is still that the consequence of building cars is actually, in some places, reinforcing the choice of people that are predisposed to own a car just to upgrade their car. 

And that was the choice thing. It's almost like the choices need to be proportionate to the people that are almost like making those decisions.. This is not like trying to be evangelical. It's more like on observation of, I went to the cinema with my son last weekend, all the adverts were sponsored by Kia. They're sponsored by a car company showing new cars driving in empty cities, advertising a lifestyle.  

Thaisa Comelli: 

Yeah. What comes to mind immediately is that when we think of choice, I immediately think of individual choice, but in order to plan the city and we're looking from a citywide point of view, we're not looking from each individual's choice, but from the perspective of different social groups and of course how these social identities and conditions intersect with each other. So when I think of choice, for example, what immediately comes to my mind is gendered behaviours when it comes to transport. We were just talking before the podcast started. I came with the tube because after I had a child, I became more afraid of taking the bicycle and cycle to work. And this is to some extent a choice, but this also comes from my social identity as a woman, as a parent, and that shapes my transport choices. 

 And yes, you can frame it as a choice, but it's also to some extent a need because you're caring and you have care responsibilities and you also have that specific identity and perspective shaping those attitudes. And so I'm not sure if what we want is to increase choice and the right to choose, or if you want to try to dig deeper into why do people choose what they choose and what is the consequence of providing some infrastructure. So for example, active travel, people are talking a lot about active travel and cycling, but what about people who choose not to cycle. A policy that is seen as looks progressive will not work for everyone and anyone. And so we need to see who's benefiting less from a specific or so- called progressive policy choice. I hope that makes sense. 

John Ward: 

Yes. So choice, I think is obviously quite linked to behaviour and we are seeing across London perhaps, and especially in the new infrastructure sort of planning frameworks or sort of spatial infrastructure planning frameworks, which are trying to bring together quite a lot of different types of infrastructure. They tend to be quite supply side, so they are looking to see how we can produce new types of infrastructure, or we can provide new supplies of infrastructure, and they seem to perhaps struggle with the demand side and thinking about ways to reduce demand. 

We could think more about how to reduce the demand for those types of infrastructure. Similarly, perhaps we could shift travel behaviour. We're all working at the same time. We're all using this infrastructure at the same time. Perhaps there are ways that we could change that. We could shift behaviours, shift usage of infrastructure so that we get more out of the types of infrastructure we already have. 

Mike Raco: 

And where are we in relation to discussions around the 15-minute city and the idea that within a 15 minute walk of where you live, there should be the services, public and private services that you need to sustain a good lifestyle. Where has that debate got to in London and maybe elsewhere at the moment, and where might that go next? 

Ben Coleman: 

It's highly politicised as a term to a point though that it I think is warped, because I think it was, I think, the experience in the pandemic of low traffic neighbourhoods or equivalent tools, and it gained a lot of traction through that discussion. But I think it was successful for better and worse as kind of conceptualising difference in what people thought about their trips. But I grew up in Brighton, lived in London for 15 years. I've never not lived in a 15-minute city, I'd say. If you're using kind of the analogy of what is kind of falling within that 15-minute catchment, I would say it has kind of calmed down.

 I think the rhetoric is still there for those that are probably opposed to certain approaches and it's kind of like, it's quite a useful rally call now in opposition. I'd say in terms of the industry, you're always trying to stay one ahead of a coining of a term because the moment the term's been coined, it very quickly pivots into being toxic and low traffic in neighbourhoods, 15 minutes cities. There's a long line of terms that quickly become toxic. 

So I have to say, I think it's in the decline probably because I think its people have moved on from it realising that it's scorched earth. 

Thaisa Comelli: 

I'm not sure if it's in decline, but definitely I think we're seeing more and more as with any concept, trying to land something that is very generic into a local reality, it is really challenging. Personally, I think of... I was born and raised in Brazilia, which is the capital of Brazil, but also to some extent, it is a 15-minute city because the super blocks, for anyone out there who knows Brazilia, the super blocks were designed as a 15 minute city. So the idea is that anyone living in a residential zone would have access to a bakery, to a printing shop, or to basic services, a local school. And so it was designed as a 15-minute city, but at the time what they ignored is that there is a macro scale to the city, which wasn't working. 

So to get from one super block to the other, if you need it, then you need to get a car. And also, and more importantly, actually, is that there is the planned area of Brazilia, which works within that 15-minute city concept. It was not called that, of course, at the time, but then the rest of the city, if we think about the outer ring of Brazilia, then it doesn't work as a 15-minute city, and it's working under a completely different paradigm. And to this date, we cannot really integrate the city through transport infrastructure, particularly public transport infrastructure. It's been a challenge for decades now. So whenever I see this concept, I think, okay, it might work, but it might work for very specific places under very specific conditions. And we cannot think like that because we need, again, to think about planning in an integrated way. 

I would rather think about what is underneath the concept, what is the value that we want to achieve. So we like the 15-minute city because it is about walking, because it is about having contact with your neighbours, because it is about being able to live a healthy, enjoyable life. That's what we want. It's not a 15 minute city. And so if that's what we want, let's achieve that within the context of where we live and not just try to land something without really thinking of how that applies to our local realities demographically and in terms of infrastructure, of course.  

John Ward: 

Yeah, having heard what you just said there, Thaisa, London's obviously, we're quite lucky with our infrastructure provision. Accessibility to transport, public transport tends to be generally quite good. As you're speaking there, it's making me think about where are those places where perhaps we haven't had such good accessibility, Canary Wharf or sort of the Battersea area, they were somewhat left behind perhaps in their accessibility. And they have experienced transport led or infrastructure led sort of development. We saw in particular the Battersea power station area. One of its core justifications for having what was the northern line extension, what ended up being the northern line extension was these really low levels of public accessibility. So probably in those places, they were in need of this sort of 15-minute city idea. 

So although London, I think we're quite lucky. There are places where I think we do have issues which sort of chime with what Thaisa you've just said there. 

Ben Coleman: 

Can I just add as well? I think actually from what Thaisa has said as well is that my gut feeling is most people probably are to an extent living within a version of a 15-minute neighbourhood. They just don't think of it that way. And what unfortunately the coining puts something under a lens like Thaisa said, actually it should good planning probably would just exist to promote that anyway and it's just slightly mutated as a point. Almost a point of the fact that we're discussing it is like, we're challenging something that actually should just be a given rather than like the exception. 

Mike Raco: 

Do we need to think a bit more about trade-offs in the sense that, of course, planning is about enabling choices, but it's also about constraining others. And is one of the problems with the concept of 15-minute city and some of the other discussions here that we imagine that there are no trade-offs, that it's good, that it's something that is positive, quote unquote, but there are trade-offs, aren't there? There are clearly restrictions on some forms of choice that come through this, and there is a politics around it, any reflections on that? 

John Ward: 

Yes. I think London is full of... well, there is a requirement for considering trade-offs. So looking at infrastructure planning at the moment, it tends to be quite growth led, or the idea is that we are developing infrastructure to contribute to growth, but of course this growth needs to be within ecological limits, planetary boundaries. We need to be looking at both of those pictures. What happens if there's no growth? What happens to our infrastructure? We have the whole expansion versus sort of stewardship ideas. Is it wise to continually be creating new capacity? Should perhaps we be spending more time looking after what we've got? The renewal repurpose of assets, the retrofitting of assets versus this, perhaps our sort of bias towards new infrastructure.  

Ben Coleman: 

The choice of actually infrastructure might be the thing that actually forces our hand. I think when you look at something like HS2 that's under constant scrutiny for escalating bills, we're going to... I think with the scrutiny of construction, it's going to be very different going forward and the justification of it. My understanding of what John was saying is that I think that's where it matters might be taken out of our hands. So as we are talking about social choice and the extent to which that's given, there might actually be more of like a factual choice of we can't afford it or it's not sustainable to keep doing what we're doing and also, and in the background of that, there is the stock take of what we're already working with and ageing systems where they're going to need increasing management as well. 

So I think actually rather than it being almost like a market led choice, it might well become like a choice of actually that infrastructure and what we can afford. 

Thaisa Comelli: 

Yeah. I think trade-offs also have not been made accessible to citizens in general and we don't have a wide discussion about what do we win and what do we lose with some choice, we do have those discussions, but not framed as trade-offs.. And we're not thinking only about resolving today's problems and problems that we have five years into the future. We're thinking of sometimes investments that will lock opportunities for like 50, sometimes a hundred years, depending on the type of infrastructure that we're talking about. And so inevitably, we will lose something. Maybe we're improving a certain neighbourhood by making it more accessible or making it more, better provided with infrastructure, but then housing and land prices will raise. 

And this is classic trade-off that we have to discuss and who will actually benefit from that decision and what type of neighbourhood that will become. And so what are the different options that we have? Which scenarios are connected to those options and how can we make conscious choices that are equitable and also that are transparently communicated as such because we do tend to sell some options as it's benefiting everyone when it's not. We're doing that through some inclusive community discussions. I was participating in a climate change group in Islington, for example, and they are talking a little bit about some real estate investments and how that creates trade-offs between the use of public spaces and housing. 

And this is not an example that connects to transport, but it does connect with, in general, how do we see land use change and improvements towards the future and how could the public be more involved in those? And I think this is the way forward, but of course it's explaining trade-offs comes with also explaining the methodologies that led to some of the models that we have for transport or for environmental change and some of the assumptions that we are embedding into those models and it becomes a complicated discussion. But in summary, I would say, yes, seeing this through trade-offs could help, but I think it's a discussion that deserves to move away from the ivory tower of practitioners and scientists, and it deserves to be more accessible to the public.

Mike Raco: 

So what works well in London? 

Ben Coleman: 

I think we're good at being British maybe in down talking things when they're delayed like the Elizabeth line was, but on the whole, it's now I think like the most used railway line in the UK or so in terms of passenger number. I think that's where London is pretty phenomenal in terms of like comparing it to other cities at least in the UK and how it invests in that infrastructure and then also sees the benefits of it. 

I think everything I said earlier was maybe negative about the politics elements, but I think there's also, it positively is like quite infectious as well. I guess that is the benefit of living in a city like London is that you kind of, there's like always a need to evolve and to make change, like you can't really stay still. So I think beyond the big public transport measures, which London I'd say is strong at, is also then what's dovetailing with it in terms of, so we're working increasingly with like micro mobility and like the roles of e-bikes, e-scooters and the change that's having actually in terms of like shorter trips and people reconsidering their choice. 

Thaisa Comelli: 

Yeah, I agree with Ben. And since the pandemic, we have seen a growth, a very steady growth of both infrastructure for active travel and also users and people actively travelling in the city. And I think this is unique in London, something that deserves to be increased further and further because it is benefiting the city, has health benefits, it has environmental climate benefits. And so it is something that needs to be gazed at from the perspective of inclusion and diversity, but it doesn't mean that it's not working, it just, it needs to work better and better and we need to be mindful of that. But I would definitely see that as something that it's definitely changing the city in positive ways. It's slow change, but it could be transformative change if we keep harnessing it. 

John Ward: 

Thinking about the challenges perhaps of climate change, something we haven't discussed so much, but there's the Thames Estuary 2100 project and that of course is thinking about guaranteeing the safety of London for the next hundred years or so. And that seems to be quite innovative. It's quite a successful project. It's looking at how we can deal with uncertainty.... It's embracing adaptive planning. It's fixing decision points. It's saying, "We don't really know what's going to happen, but let's have these points when we monitor." We understand, does it look as if climate change, the impacts are accelerating on London or not? And we're going to plan in stages iteratively in response to what we observe, instead of perhaps trying to just build a barrier and just hoping that it lasts for the next 50 years. 

Mike Raco: 

What can we learn from experiences elsewhere here in London? 

Thaisa Comelli: 

The first thing that comes to my mind is extreme heat in relation to climate change. So we have several pieces of infrastructure that are trying to deal with flooding because it's a recurrent problem in London, but we have not a lot of experience dealing with extreme heat and other cities do have that. So a couple of years ago, we had a city to city exchange, so it was a Delhi and London practitioners talking to each other about what can London learn from Delhi, which is an unusual partnership, but Delhi is a city used to dealing with heat for many decades. So I would say, thinking of unusual partnerships and thinking of how our climate is changing and how can we foster those partnerships is not about copying and pasting infrastructure and solutions, but really having conversations about how can we gather better data? 

How can we communicate better across boroughs? How can we make partnerships between the private and the public sector? And many cities have experience with that in relation to particular topics.  

John Ward: 

Over the years, so we have the Omega Centre at the Bartlett School of Planning and we did look at trying to understand what made successful infrastructure projects. We looked across 10 countries, looked at 30, they were major infrastructure projects. And the idea was to try and learn lessons perhaps from elsewhere and see how transferable they were. And of those, I think we sort of identified 10 key lessons, lots of particular lessons within topics, but one of them was perhaps to treat infrastructure as an open system. The idea of not looking at a single piece of infrastructure in isolation, but looking at infrastructure as a system of systems And I think that's something London is moving towards, but we could integrate that much further. 

Ben Coleman: 

I think what we said earlier is that London is good at building things on the whole and action, but it's doing it within the context of actually what are we up against rather than almost what we've been good at today has probably just been an evolution of normal practise rather than one that's actually kind of hurried up because of climate change and what it's going to mean. 

Mike Raco: 

And so what is the role of academic researchers, consultants? What do you see as that role being moving forward in these wider discussions? 

John Ward: 

I think it can be transferring lessons. It can be distilling what works, what doesn't work, and bringing those discussions to bear where they going to count. I think that looking at planning in London or infrastructure planning in London, this idea of embedding context scanning, understanding that context is important, making sure that projects perhaps are open systems, that they're flexible, they're adaptive. All these things, I think we'll get there eventually, but academics can perhaps accelerate that process. They can get involved with these projects and they can start bringing in that knowledge and transplanting it into those developments, perhaps to make a change faster than it would otherwise happen. 

Thaisa Comelli: 

Yeah, I fully agree with that. I think we can be very good knowledge brokers and knowledge translators and facilitate those discussions between different sectors of society and between the public and governments. And that meaningful knowledge translation can mean guaranteeing those conversations from place to place and making sure that they make sense but also building bridges between research and policy. So having those loops of learning in partnership with governments, in partnership with companies, with consultancy firms, I think this is a big role for us towards the future and especially building that bridge between people living on the ground and moving across the city and where those decisions are being made. 

I think this is where the knowledge lies and this is a massive contribution to have to just make sure that knowledge makes sense to everyone and especially vulnerable and marginalised groups who are usually not part of those discussions about big infrastructure at transport and so on. 

Ben Coleman: 

I think what I said earlier, that is one of the most positive impacts in my mind of the pandemic that consultation or engagement in projects looks to me did used to feel very tokenistic. It was in there, but it didn't necessarily have a consequence. The pandemic obviously saw, for better and worse, learned from kind of quite acute interventions, which lacked consultation, but kind of invariably drew a much quicker response in terms of their palatability. 

But I think that's also a learning point about then how do you then learn from that to make it a force for good to get out of ivory towers and make it relatable and also kind of, I guess equipping people to have a long-term view. I don't think society on the whole day today is not looking up maybe in having a long-term view about its choices and what it's doing now because you’re time poor, you’re resource poor, you’re financially poor, whatever it might be, this isn't the resource there to have that thinking. 

 

Mike Raco:

Well, my thanks to John, Ben and Thaisa for their time and expertise. I've really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on the subject and I hope our listeners have too. If you want to find out more about the work being done here at the Bartlett, links to articles and previous episodes of the Bartlett Review Podcast and a lot more information about the Bartlett faculty of the built environment is available all on our website, ucl.ac.uk/bartlett, or you can find us on LinkedIn at The Bartlet UCL. From me, Mike Raco, thank you for listening and goodbye.