text:
Sign In to Your GRE® Account
Important Message
Note: On Saturday, March 28, 2015, between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time (New York), registration services for the computer-delivered GRE® revised General Test at Prometric testing locations will be unavailable due to scheduled maintenance. Registration services at additional testing locations outside of the Prometric test center network will not be affected. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Note: On Sunday, March 29, 2015, between 2 a.m. and 8 a.m. Eastern Time (New York), the GRE® website and My GRE online services will be unavailable due to planned maintenance. You will not be able to access the GRE website, register for a GRE test, view/print admission tickets, view scores online, or order additional score reports during this time. We apologize for any inconvenience.
If you have an existing GRE®, TOEFL® or Praxis™ account, enter that User Name and Password below.
Returning User
New User
Signing up allows you to:
- Register online for a GRE General or Subject Test
- View/Print paper-based admission ticket
- View scores online
- Order additional score reports
- Register for the free GRE Search Service
Note: Test takers with disabilities requesting accommodations; test takers requesting fee reductions, standby testing or Monday testing. Online test registration is not available.


text:
여러분께 필요한 상품을 찾아보세요.
쇼핑 계속하기.
Books, 카테고리
Books, The Thyroid Hormone Breakthrough, Mary J. Shomon, 406 Pages, Paper-Back-Book
Books, Living Well with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia, Mary J. Shomon, 396 Page, Paper-Back Book
Books, Living Well with Autoimmune Disease, Mary J. Shomon, 530 Page, Paper-Back Book
Books, 5 HTP The Natural Way to Overcome Depression, Obesity and Insomnia, Michael Murray, N.D., 286 Page Paperback Book
Books, 메리 J. Shomon이 만든 갑상선 다이어트, 384 페이지, 종이책
Books, Get A Grip on Arthritis and Other Inflammatory Disorders, Lorna R. Vanderhaeghe, 116 Page Paperback Book
Books, Living Well with Hypothyroidism by Mary J Shomon, 587 Page, Paper-Back Book
Books, M.D., From Fatigued to Fantastic!, 444 Page, Paper-Back Book
Books, How to Prevent and Treat Cancer with Natural Medicine, Dr. Michael Murray, 415 Page Paperback Book
Books, The Alpha Lipoic Acid Breakthrough by Burt Berkson, M.D., Ph.D., 172 Page, Paper-Back Book
Books, How to Prevent and Treat Diabetes with Natural Medicine, Michael Murray, N.D., 369 Page Paperback Book
Books, The Perricone Prescription, Nicholas Perricone M.D., 265 Page Hard-back Book
Books, Living Well With Grave's Disease and Hyperthyroidism, Mary J. Shomon, 427 Pages, Paper-Back-Book
Books, L-트립토판, 슬립 배터 필 패터 저자 리사 캐스핀, 의학 박사, 페이퍼 북 43 페이지
Books, Dr. Eskeland's Young Tissue Extract, Norway's Anti-Aging Miracle, 41 Page Paper-Back Book

subset: commoncrawl


text:
On the North Sea coast live many seals and sometimes they come on the beach.
This picture I've taken from a boat; when the boat is floating for a moment these nosy animals come for a look…..wonderful!
Camera Maker=NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model=NIKON D80
Lens=Nikkor 18-135mm
Exposure Time=1/100 sec
ExposureProgram=Shutter priority
Date Time Original=2007:08:07 14:53:37
Metering Mode=Center
Focal Length=135,00 mm
Lovely capture!
– Adri Padmos
Yes, I agree Adrian… wonderful!!!!! Such a fun experience!! I wish for you many more of these beautiful captures!!!!
– Adri Padmos
Super catch Adri …
– Adri Padmos
What a wonderful expression you have captured there dear Adrian. great shot.
– Adri Padmos
Stunning portrait! Looks like he came up just for you! Gorgeous!
– Adri Padmos
– Adri Padmos
Wonderful !!!!
– Adri Padmos
Wonderful shot Adri!!
– Adri Padmos


text:
Hotel Miro Bilbao
The Miro Hotel is a chic property situated in the city center, near to the Guggenheim, and approximately ten miles from Bilbao Airport. Hotel amenities include 24-hour room service, car rental desk, currency exchange, laundry/valet services, complimentary CD/DVD library, indoor parking, and business center. Guests may also enjoy the fitness center and Jacuzzi. On-site drinks and dining are available at the Miro Bar and the Snacks Miro. Guest rooms feature flat-screen TVs, A/C, DVD players, telephones, bathroom telephones, mini-bars, in-room safes, CD player radios, and free newspapers.
Hotel Address:Location Summary
- Hotel Miro Bilbao
- Alameda Mazzaredo 77
- Bilbao , 48009
- Spain
Local attractions include the Palacio de Euskalduna, Plaza Moyua, and Plaza del Museo.
Note Bene
The hotel is ideally positioned opposite the Guggenheim Museum.
Hotel Amenities
- - Banquets & Meetings
- - Disabled Access
- - Fine Dining on Site
- - Fine Dining Nearby
- - Fitness Center
- - High Speed Internet
Special Valentine's Day Special Offers in Paris
Special Valentine's Day Special Offers in ParisRead more >>
The Roof Garden at Grand Hotel de la Minerve
When in Rome one must eat, drink, live like the Romans at The...Read more >>
Five Star Eats - Roman Style
Dining at Brunello Lounge & Restaurant, located in The Regina...Read more >>
Dining at Carlton Hotel Baglioni
Luxury eats. Read more >>


text:
In This Section
AES Store
- Learn From The Experts:
Norman Pickering "Early Years of AES"
- Oral History Project Gallery
- Other AES Publications
Journal Forum
Reflecting on Reflections - June 2014
4 comments
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback - September 2007
10 comments
Quiet Thoughts on a Deafening Problem - May 2014
1 comment
AES E-Library
Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Loudspeaker Bass Unit Design
This paper presents a practical and useful approach to the problem of ensuring the optimization of the many variables present in base unit and cabinet design. A design procedure and computer program are derived from current theory. Examples of driver and cabinet design combinations are given for different requirements. The paper proves that for every cabinet a specially designed bass driver must be used for optimum response characteristics.
Click to purchase paper or login as an AES member. If your company or school subscribes to the E-Library then switch to the institutional version. If you are not an AES member and would like to subscribe to the E-Library then Join the AES!
This paper costs $20 for non-members, $5 for AES members and is free for E-Library subscribers.
Learn more about the AES E-Library
Start a discussion about this paper!


text:
London congestion charge
|This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
|British politics portal
The London congestion charge is a fee charged on most motor vehicles operating within the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ) in central London between 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday. It is not charged on weekends, public holidays or between Christmas Day and New Year's Day (inclusive).[1] The charge, which was introduced on 17 February 2003, remains one of the largest congestion charge zones in the world despite the cancellation of the Western Extension which operated between February 2007 and January 2011. The charge aims to reduce congestion, and to raise investment funds for London's transport system.
The standard charge is £11.50 for each day, for each non-exempt vehicle that travels within the zone, with a penalty of between £65 and £195 levied for non-payment. Enforcement is primarily based on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR). Transport for London (TfL) is responsible for the charge which has been operated by IBM since 1 November 2009. During the first ten years since the introduction of the scheme, gross revenue reached about £2.6 billion through December 2013. From 2003 to 2013, about £1.2 billion (46%) of net revenue has been invested in public transport, road and bridge improvement and walking and cycling schemes. Of these, a total of £960 million was invested on improvements to the bus network.
After ten years since its implementation in 2013, TfL reported that the congestion charging scheme resulted in a 10% reduction in traffic volumes from baseline conditions, and an overall reduction of 11% in vehicle kilometres in London between 2000 and 2012. Despite these gains, traffic speeds have also been getting progressively slower over the past decade, particularly in central London. TfF explains that the historic decline in traffic speeds is most likely due to interventions that have reduced the effective capacity of the road network in order to improve the urban environment, increase road safety and prioritise public transport, pedestrian and cycle traffic, as well as an increase in road works by utilities and general development activity since 2006. TfL concludes that while levels of congestion in central London are close to pre-charging levels, the effectiveness of the congestion charge in reducing traffic volumes means that conditions would be worse without the Congestion Charging scheme.[2]
- 1 Present scheme
- 2 History
- 2.1 Background
- 2.2 Planning and preparation
- 2.3 Introduction (February 2003)
- 2.4 Immediate impact
- 2.5 2004 election campaign
- 2.6 Preparing for the Western Extension
- 2.7 Introduction of the Western Extension
- 2.8 Proposed CO2 emissions based charging
- 2.9 2008 Mayoral election
- 2.10 Boris Johnson administration
- 2.11 2012 mayoral election
- 3 Effects
- 4 Operations and technology
- 5 Income and costs
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 Further reading
- 9 External links
Present scheme[edit]
The current congestion charge zone covers the area within the London Inner Ring Road (which forms the A501, A1202, A1210/A1211, A100, A201, A202, A302, A3204, A4202 and parts of the A5) which includes both the City of London, which is the main financial district, and also the West End, which is London's primary commercial and entertainment centre.[3] Although primarily a commercial area, there are also 136,000 residents, out of a total Greater London population of around 7,000,000. There was little heavy industry within the zone.
Starting at the northernmost point and moving clockwise, the major roads defining the boundary were Pentonville Road, City Road, Old Street, Commercial Street, Mansell Street, Tower Bridge Road, New Kent Road, Elephant and Castle, Kennington Lane, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Park Lane, Edgware Road, Marylebone Road and Euston Road (other roads fill the small gaps between these roads). Signs were erected and symbols painted on the road to help drivers recognise the congestion charge area.[4]
The Western Extension, introduced in February 2007, was removed by major Boris Johnson beginning on 4 January 2011.[5]
In January 2013 Transport for London opened a public consultation to increase the standard charge 15% by mid 2014, from £10 per day to £11.50 if paid in advance or on the day. The increase is expected to generate an estimated £84 million of additional revenue by the end of 2017/18. The consultation process run from January 2014 to March 2014. According to TfL the objective of the increase is to recoup inflation over the past three years and ensure the charge remains an effective deterrent to making unnecessary journeys in central London.[6]
|February 2003
|July 2005
|January 2011
|June 2014
- Fees and penalties
Since 16 June 2014 the following charges applied:[8]
The standard fee is £11.50 per day if paid by midnight on the day of travel, £14 if paid by the end of the following day, or £10.50 if registered with CC Autopay, an automated payment system which records the number of charging days a vehicle travels within the charging zone each month and bills the customer debit or credit card each month.[9] Businesses with six or more vehicles can register with Fleet Auto Pay, and will be charged £10.50 rather than £11.50 per vehicle per day for each vehicle detected within the zone.[10] From 20 May 2013 failure to pay results in a fine of £130, reduced to £65 if paid within 14 days, but increased to £195 if unpaid after 28 days.[11]
- Exemptions and discounts
Refunds are available to people who pay monthly or annual in advance whose plans change; reimbursements are available to NHS patients assessed to be too ill to travel by public transport, NHS staff using vehicles on official business and fire fighters.[12] Residents living within or very close to the zone are eligible for a 90% discount which is charged via CC Autopay.[13]
Registered cars which emit 75g/km or less of carbon dioxide and meet the Euro 5 standard, vehicles with 9 or more seats, motor-tricycles, accredited breakdown companies and roadside recovery vehicles receive 100% discounts.[14] All-electric vehicles (BEVs) and eligible plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) qualify for a 100% congestion charge discount. A plug-in electric drive vehicle qualifies if the vehicle is registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and has a fuel type of 'electric', or alternatively, if the vehicle is a 'plug-in hybrid' and is on the Government's list of PHEVs eligible for the OLEV grant.[15] As of February 2015[update], approved PHEVs include all extended-range vehicles such as the BMW i3 with range extender and Vauxhall Ampera, and plug-in hybrids such as the Audi A3 Sportback e-tron, BMW i8, Mitsubishi Outlander P-HEV, and Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid.[16]
- End of Greener Vehicle Discount
In November 2012 Transport for London(TfL) presented a proposal to end the Greener Vehicle Discount that benefited mainly vehicles with small diesel engines, that avoid the charge because their engines produce emissions of less than 100 g/km of CO2.[17][18] The proposal was approved by Mayor Boris Johnson in April 2013, after taking into account a number of comments received during the 12-week public consultation that took place. The new scheme, the Ultra Low Emission Discount (ULED), went into effect on 1 July 2013. The ULED introduced more stringent emission standards that limit the free access to the congestion charge zone to all-electric cars, some plug-in hybrids, and any car or van that emits 75g/km or less of CO2 and meets the Euro 5 emission standards for air quality. As of July 2013[update] there are no internal combustion-only vehicles that meet this criteria. The measure was designed to curb the growing number of diesel vehicles on London's roads. About 20,000 owners of vehicles registered for the Greener Vehicle Discount by June 2013 were granted a three-year sunset period (until 24 June 2016) before they have to pay the full congestion charge. Other changes were the removal of the option to pay the charge in shops, and the penalty charge was increased £10.[19][20][21][22]
TfL can and does suspend the congestion charge either in a small local area to cope with incidents and if directed to do so by a police officer.[23] The congestion charge was suspended on 7 and 8 July 2005 in response to the terrorist attacks on London Transport.[24] The congestion charge was also suspended on 2 February 2009, in response to an extreme weather event (heavy snow fall) in the London area.[25]
Avoidance and evasion[edit]
Although avoidance has become more sophisticated, compliance with the scheme and terms of payment has improved over the last few years, as is evidenced by the income from penalties dropping by approximately a quarter between 2005 and 2007. However, even after charges were increased, enforcement charges still make up a significant proportion of the net revenues.[26][27]
The 2008 annual report on the operation of the scheme shows that around 26% of penalties go unpaid, because the notice is cancelled on appeal or the amount cannot be recovered, for example if the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be traced, is deceased, or bankrupt.[28]
Entry authorisation and penalties cannot be issued to non-UK numberplates, and detection cameras may also be unable to read them, although cars with foreign plates may only be used in the UK for up to six months before being considered to have been officially imported and thenceforth required to have UK plates, and even then only if they are bona fide visitors and not residents.
Several newspapers have reported that copied number plates are being used to avoid the congestion charge, resulting in vehicle owners receiving penalty notices for failure to pay when their vehicles have not been inside the zone. TfL has stated it is keeping a database of these numbers and that they will trigger an alert.[29][30][31]
Payment by embassies[edit]
Following pressure from the Mayor of London,[32] an increasing number of embassies accepted the charge and by 2008 a total of 99 out of 128 embassies had agreed to the charge; decliners included Germany, Japan, Russia and the USA who collectively owed £23 million as of November 2008[update].[33] The United States and Germany are reported to consider it to be a local tax, from which they are protected by the Vienna Convention, rather than a toll.[33]
In May 2011 the Mayor, Boris Johnson, raised the issue with the President of the United States, Barack Obama, who was fined £120 after driving through London in the Presidential state car without paying the toll during a state visit to Buckingham Palace. The USA subsequently claimed diplomatic immunity.[34] A TfL spokesperson noted that US embassies do pay tolls in Oslo and Singapore.[35] As of December 2013[update], Transport for London estimated that £82m was owed by foreign embassies in London. Since the charge was introduced in 2003, the U.S. Embassy owns the most with £8.78 million, followed by Japan at £6.0 million, Russia with £5.22 million and Nigeria with £4.92 million.[36]
The government's Smeed Report of 1964 was the first full assessment of the practicality of road pricing in a British city on the basis of congestion.[37][38][39] It recommended a method of "car user restraint" by a variable system of charging for road usage – if the government had the will to do so. During the early years of the Greater London Council, which was formed in 1965, the first plans were drawn up for a system of cordon charging or supplementary licensing for use in the central area. A formal study was undertaken into the merits of the scheme, and in 1973 concluded that it would improve traffic and environmental conditions in the centre.[40] These plans were being developed at the same time as the London Ringways, a series of 4 orbital motorways around and within London including Ringway 1 (the London Motorway Box) leading to widespread public protest by Homes before Roads and others. Only a small section of these road schemes had been implemented[41] by the time Labour gained control in the 1973 Greater London Council elections, and the new administration abandoned the road building plans in favour of public transport and traffic management.[42][43] The new administration, to which Ken Livingstone had just been elected for the first time,[44] studied a congestion scheme similar to the one which was eventually adopted the following year.[45]
Planning and preparation[edit]
In 1995, the London Congestion Research Programme concluded that the city's economy would benefit from a congestion charge scheme,[46] the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 required local authorities to study and reduce traffic volumes[47] and any future London mayors were given the power to introduce "Road user charging" by the Greater London Authority Act 1999.[48] In his manifesto for the 2000 London Mayoral election, Ken Livingstone had proposed to introduce a £5 charge for vehicles entering central London.[49]
Following his victory, the Mayor made a draft order and requested a report from TfL, which summarised the reasons for introducing the scheme.[50] The scheme was to be introduced to reduce congestion in the centre of the capital following the Draft Transport Strategy of January 2001 which had highlighted the importance that the Mayor placed on tackling this issue.[50] The charge was to be part of a series of measures to improve the transport system in London and was to combined with public transport improvements and increased enforcement of parking and traffic regulations. The report stated that the scheme was expected to be the most effective in reducing through traffic, reducing congestion both within and outside the zone, improving the speed of buses and the quality of life in central London.[50] It was stated that improved traffic flows would make London more attractive to business investment.[50] Substantial net revenues were anticipated, which were to be invested in London's transport system.[50] It also states that 90% of those who responded to a consultation on the scheme, viewed reducing traffic congestion in central London as 'important'.[50]
In July 2002, Westminster City Council launched a legal challenge against the plans, arguing that they would increase pollution and were a breach of human rights of residents on the boundary of the zone.[51] The High Court rejected the claim.[52] The London Ambulance Service (LAS) anticipated increased volumes of traffic around the edge of the zone and an increase in demand within the zone, that might both adversely affect clinical outcomes.[53]
Before the charge's introduction, there were fears of a very chaotic few days as the charge bedded down. Indeed Ken Livingstone, then Mayor of London and key proponent of the charge, himself predicted a "difficult few days"[54] and a "bloody day".[55]
On introduction, the scheme was the largest ever undertaken by a capital city.[56]
Introduction (February 2003)[edit]
The charge was introduced on 17 February 2003 covering the approximate area of the London Inner Ring Road. Starting at the northernmost point and moving clockwise, the major roads defining the boundary were Pentonville Road, City Road, Old Street, Commercial Street, Mansell Street, Tower Bridge Road, New Kent Road, Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Park Lane, Edgware Road, Marylebone Road and Euston Road (other roads filled the small gaps between these roads). The zone therefore included the whole of the City of London, the financial district, and the West End, London's primary commercial and entertainment centre.[3]
On the launch date of the original zone, an extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 8,000) were introduced.[57] Bus and London Underground managers reported that buses and tubes were little, if at all, busier than normal.[58]
Originally, Capita Group maintained the system under a five-year contract worth around £230m.[59] Having been threatened with the termination of the contract by Ken Livingstone, then Mayor of London, for poor performance, when the zone was subsequently extended, Capita was awarded an extension to the original contract up until February 2009 to cover the expanded zone.[60] Capita employed sub-contractors including India-based Mastek, who were responsible for much of the Information Technology infrastructure.[61] Due to the wide spread of sub-contractors around the world and due to varying data protection regulations in different countries, the scheme had prompted concerns about privacy.[62]
Immediate impact[edit]
On the first day 190,000 vehicles moved into or within the zone during charging hours, a decrease of around 25% on normal traffic levels, partly due to it also being the half-term school holiday.[58] A report from the Bow Group stated that historically, London congestion is at its worst during the morning rush hour, and that the early days of congestion charging had little impact on that critical time, the main effect occurring after 11 am.[63] Just over 100,000 motorists paid the charge personally, 15–20,000 were fleet vehicles paying under fleet arrangements, and it was believed around 10,000 liable motorists did not pay the due charge.[58]
Initial suggestions that school holidays were responsible for part of the traffic drop during the first week of operation of the charge were confirmed when traffic rose again by 5% following the return to school at the beginning of the second week of the charge. Reports indicated that, over the first month or so of operation, traffic was consistently down at least 15% on pre-charge levels, with the second week seeing the reduction drop to 20%.[64]
The AA Motoring Trust suggested that changes to the timing of traffic lights and the end of major road works had also impacted congestion.[65]
The effect of the congestion charge zone on local businesses is a contested issue. The TfL estimates that the effect on business has been overall neutral.[66] However the effect on business differs significantly by between stores. Some shops and businesses are reported to be heavily affected by the charge, both in terms of lost sales due to reduced traffic and increased delivery costs, as recognised by the London Chamber of Commerce.[67] In August 2003, the John Lewis Partnership, a large department store, announced that in the first six months of the charge's operation, sales at their Oxford Street store fell by 7.3% whilst sales at other stores in the Greater London area but outside the Congestion Charge Zone rose by 1.7%.[68] To partly compensate for the loss of revenue they extended opening hours and introduced regular Sunday opening for the first time.[69] However London First's own report indicated that business was broadly supportive.[70] Subsequently another report stated that there had been a reduction in some employment in the charging zone.[71] TfL criticised the reports as unrepresentative and that its own statistics reported no effect on business.[71]
After the introduction of the charge, there were a number of suggestions for its future. Soon after charging commenced, Livingstone announced that he would carry out a formal review of the charge's success or failure six months after its introduction – brought forward from one year, following the smooth start. On 25 February 2003 Livingstone stated, "I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps ten years down the line it may be necessary" referring to the amount that drivers have to pay, indicating that £5 was sufficient to bring about the reduction in traffic that he had hoped for.[72]
The London Assembly Budget Committee 2003 report on the company criticised the contract with Capita as not providing value for money.[73] It was reported in July 2003 that TfL agreed to subsidise Capita by paying it £31 million because it was making no profits from the project, and that the most critical problem was the 103,000 outstanding penalty notices not paid.[74] Capita was also the company that won the 'Most Invasive Company' award in the Privacy International 2003 'Big Brother Awards'.[75]
On 23 October 2003 TfL published a report reviewing the first six months of the charge. The report's main findings were that the average number of cars and delivery vehicles entering the central zone was 60,000 fewer than the previous year. Around 50–60% of this reduction was attributed to transfers to public transport, 20–30% to journeys avoiding the zone, 15–25% switching to car share, and the remainder to reduced number of journeys, more travelling outside the hours of operation, and increased use of motorbikes and bicycles. Journey times were found to have been reduced by 14%. Variation in journey time for a particular route repeated on many occasions also decreased. The report also claimed that although the charge was responsible for about 4,000 fewer people visiting the zone daily, that the charge was responsible for only a small fraction of the 7% drop in retail sales reported.[76][77] The report also stated that around 100,000 penalty fines were issued each month, of which about 2,000 were contested.[76] By comparison, the initial seven-month trial in 2006 of the Stockholm congestion tax in the Swedish capital saw an average 25% reduction in traffic numbers.[78]
In November 2003 Scientific American magazine listed Ken Livingstone as one of the top 50 visionaries building a better world and who were considered to have contributed most to science and technology during the year.[79] They praised the mayor for his "guts and leadership" in introducing the charge which had reduced traffic and his "courage" in combating a classic case of externality, i.e. "the exploitation of common resources by some people at the expense of others". They noted that other cities were now considering similar projects.[80]
2004 election campaign[edit]
In February, shortly before the June 2004 mayoral election TfL issued a consultation document on the expansion of the zone to the west that would cover the rest (western portion) of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.[81] The proposed extension was to cover around 230,000 residents, compared with the 150,000 in the original zone.[82]
Steven Norris, the Conservative Party candidate for mayor in 2004, has been a fierce critic of the charge, branding it the 'Kengestion' charge. A few days before the scheme came into operation, he wrote in a BBC report that it had been "shambolically organised", that the public transport network had insufficient spare capacity to cater for travellers deterred from using their cars in the area by the charge. Further, he said that the scheme would affect poorer sections of society more than the rich, with the daily charge being the same for all, regardless of vehicle size.[83] He pledged to scrap it if he became mayor in June 2004. He had also pledged that, if elected, he would grant an amnesty to anyone with an outstanding fine for non-payment of the charge on 11 June 2004.
In an interview with London's Evening Standard newspaper on 5 February 2004, Conservative leader Michael Howard backed his candidate's view by saying that the charge "has undoubtedly had a damaging effect on business in London."[84]
Liberal Democrat candidate, Simon Hughes, however, supported the basic principles of the scheme. Amongst some of the changes he proposed were changing the end time from 6:30 pm to 5 pm and automatically giving all vehicles five free days each year so as not to affect occasional visitors.[85]
Preparing for the Western Extension[edit]
In August 2004, following Livingstone's re-election, the results of the consultation on the Western Extension were published which showed that a substantial majority of respondents did not want the extension,[86] however Livingstone said he was going ahead and that the polls were a "charade" which did not diminish his electoral mandate. "A consultation is not a referendum" he said.[87] Protests continued against the extension,[88] with residents arguing that only 5% of the road space in the selected area was congested.[89] Following on in May 2005 TfL a further consultation began with specific proposals about the extensions. These included a plan to reduce the operating hours of the charge by half-an-hour to "boost trade at London's theatres, restaurants and cinemas".[90][91]
In October 2004, TfL stated that only seven of the 13 government aims for London transport would be met by 2010. The target on reducing congestion for Greater London overall will not be met, the report said.[92]
By November 2004, Livingstone directly contradicted his belief that the charge would not be raised, saying: "I have always said that during this term [his second term in office] it will go up to at least £6."[93] By the end of the month, Livingstone announced that, in fact, the rise would be to £8 for private vehicles and £7 for commercial traffic. Business groups such as London First said following the announcement that the charges were "totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable".[94][95] The rise to £8 was announced formally on 1 April 2005, along with discounts for drivers buying month or year-long tickets.[96][97] On 10 May 2006, in a live TV debate, Livingstone supported a rise in the charge to £10 by 2008.[98]
A report in May 2005 stated that the number of shoppers had declined by 7% year-on-year in March, 8% in April and 11% in the first two weeks of May. TfL countered that an economic downturn, the SARS outbreak and threat of terrorism were likely factors. At the same time, a London Chamber of Commerce report indicated that 25% of businesses were planning on relocation following the charge's introduction.[99] However, an independent report six months after the charge was implemented suggested that businesses were then supporting the charge. London First commissioned the study which reported that 49% of businesses felt the scheme was working and only 16% that it was failing.[100] The Fourth Annual Review by TfL in 2004 indicated that business activity within the charge zone had been higher in both productivity and profitability and that the charge had a "broadly neutral impact" on the London-wide economy.[101] The Fifth Annual Review continued to show the central congestion zone outperforming the wider London economy.[27]
In May 2005, businessman Miguel Camacho set up fivepounds.co.uk (referring to the then-current pricing), whose sole function was to sign up private drivers to their "fleet", thus offering the convenience of not having to pay the charge pro-actively, avoiding fines in the case of a forgotten journey and also potentially getting a "free journey" if undetected by the cameras. TfL moved quickly to quash the loophole, by demanding that fleet operators provide the registration document for each vehicle in their fleet. Fivepounds went out of business on 26 February 2006.[102]
The June 2005 increase in charges by 60% only resulted in a relatively small rise in revenues, as there were fewer penalty payments. The anticipated start-up costs of the Western extension were £125 million with operating costs of £33 million; expected gross revenues were expected to be £80 million, resulting in net revenues of £50 million.[103]
In 2005, the Liberal Democrats claimed that Capita had been fined £4.5 million for missing the targets set for the congestion charge, that was equivalent to £7,400 for every day that the charge had existed.[104]
At the end of September 2005, London Mayor Ken Livingstone confirmed the western expansion of the congestion charge, which came into effect on 19 February 2007.[105][106] It was expected that the extension would increase congestion in the zone by around 5% as the 60,000 residents in the new zone will be entitled to the discounts available.[107] Several roads were also to be left charge-free between the original zone and the extension.[108][109]
In 2005, The Guardian obtained documentation under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which showed that out of 65,534 penalty tickets issued to non UK-registered vehicles, only 1,993 had been paid.[110]
In October 2005, it was reported that two London embassies, those of the United States and Germany, were not paying the charge as they considered it to be a tax, which they are protected from paying under the Vienna Convention. Some other embassies do pay the charge.[111]
TfL ran a six-month trial of "tag and beacon" (transponder) from February 2006 to replace the camera-based system. This uses an electronic card affixed to the windscreen of a vehicle and can be used to produce "smart tolls" where charges can be varied dependent on time and direction of travel. This system automatically deducts the charge so that the 50,000 drivers a year who forget to pay the fine would not be penalised. TfL has suggested that this scheme could be introduced from 2009.[112][113]
Shortly before it was introduced, The Centre for Economics and Business Research predicted that the West London extension would cause 6,000 job losses.[114]
Introduction of the Western Extension[edit]
The boundary of the zone, as of 19 February 2007, started at the northern end of Vauxhall Bridge and (travelling in a clockwise direction) heads along the northern bank of the River Thames as Grosvenor Road, the Chelsea Embankment and Cheyne Walk. From there, it heads north, along the eastern edges of the Kensington and Earl's Court one-way systems, part of the A3220, with the roads in between charged, before continuing to the A40 Westway as the Holland Road and the West Cross Route. The boundary then includes parts of North Kensington, but the actual boundary is defined by the West London Line railway track, which runs between Latimer Road (inside the zone) and Wood Lane (outside the zone), until Scrubs Lane, before turning east, following the Great Western Main Line out of Paddington towards Ladbroke Grove. Here, the boundary followed the Grand Union Canal and rejoined the existing zone at Edgware Road after skirting Paddington, by way of the Bishop's Bridge Road, Eastbourne Terrace, Praed Street and Sussex Gardens.[115]
The Western Extension was officially removed from the charging zone beginning 4 January 2011, with charging on the Western extension effectively ended on 24 December 2010.[5]
TfL provided some free through routes, where drivers do not have to pay the charge. The main route was defined by the western boundary of the original zone Vauxhall Bridge Road, Grosvenor Place, Park Lane and Edgware Road, with some additions around Victoria. To the north, the through route is the Marylebone Road, Euston Road and Pentonville Road. The Westway flyover at the eastern end is the other exempt route even though it cuts across the north-west corner of the zone.[116]
In May 2007, a survey of 150 local businesses stated they had seen an average drop in business of 25% following the introduction of the charge, which was disputed by TfL which stated that there had been "no overall effect" on business and that it had outperformed the rest of the UK in the central zone during 2006.[66]
In 2007 a green motoring website alleged to TfL that owners of luxury cars were registering their vehicles as minicabs in order to qualify for exemption from the charge. Registering a vehicle as a minicab costs £82 plus £27 per year licence fee, much less than the congestion charge. TfL responded that it carried out regular checks to confirm that cars were being used for the purposes they were registered for, and that they had not discovered any such cases.[117]
Transport for London consulted on a charge for the Blackwall Tunnel in east London, but these proposals were suspended in November 2007 following significant opposition from the public.[118] Former Mayor Ken Livingstone has stated that he had "absolutely no plans to set up a congestion charging zone to charge vehicles that use the Blackwall Tunnel or the Blackwall Tunnel Approach Road. But if Greenwich wishes to do so on any of its roads then I will support them".[119]
Proposed CO2 emissions based charging[edit]
In 2006 mayor Ken Livingstone proposed variable charges based on CO2 emission rate Vehicle Excise Duty bands.[120] Charges would be reduced or eliminated for Band A vehicles, but would be increase it to up to £25 a day for the most polluting Band G vehicles.[121] Consultation on these proposals began in August 2007[122] and ended on 19 October 2007.[123] On 12 February 2008 TfL announced that they would introduce a new charging structure for vehicles entering the congestion zone, based on potential CO2 emission rates on 27 October 2008 following the imminent mayoral elections.[124][125] The main change would be the introduction of two new fees:
- £25 per day (with no residents' discount) for cars which, if first registered on or after 1 March 2001 are rated in Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) "Band G" (emitting above 225g/km of CO2), or if first registered before 1 March 2001 have an engine capacity of greater than 3000 cc and for pickups with two rows of seats which either are rated as emitting above 225g/km of CO2 or which have an engine capacity of greater than 3000 cc.[124] In Alistair Darling's 2008 budget it was announced that VED Band G would be lowered to 151g/km of CO2. TfL had not clarified whether the £25 daily charge would be linked to the band until the point became moot as the scheme was cancelled.
- £0 per day (a 100% discount) for cars that either are rated as emitting less than 100g/km CO2 and which meet the Euro 5 air pollution emissions standard or which are rated as emitting no more than 120g/km CO2 and which appear on the PowerShift register.[124]
Land Rover commissioned a report which concluded that the scheme would increase pollution.[126][127] Porsche announced they intended to request a judicial review,[128] claiming that the new charges were disproportionate and would make no 'meaningful difference' to the environment.[129] Acting director of the RAC Sheila Raingner commented that "The congestion charge was originally developed to reduce congestion and that the changes would confuse the public and reduce support and trust for future initiatives."[130]
At the request of Porsche, King's College released the full report of the possible effects of the new system that was originally commissioned by Transport for London which indicated that the proposed new system would reduce CO2 emissions in central London by 2,200 tonnes by 2012, but would increase CO2 emissions by 182,000 tonnes in outer London, due to drivers of more polluting vehicles avoiding congestion charge zones. A spokesman Transport for London stated that the methodology used by King's was 'less robust and accurate than TfL's methodology' and that their findings suggested reductions of up to 5000 tonnes of CO2 by 2009. They claimed that King's College agreed with these results and were making revisions to their report.[131][132]
2008 Mayoral election[edit]
The congestion charge remained an issue during the run up to the 2008 mayoral election. Boris Johnson, the Conservative Party candidate said he would look at a graduated charging scheme, would consult on whether to reduce the size of the charging zone and would not introduce the proposed emissions based charging system.[133] Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate, suggested exempting delivery vehicles from the charge.[134][135] Boris Johnson was elected and immediately announced that the emissions based charges would not be implemented.[136]
Boris Johnson administration[edit]
Following his election, Johnson announced that the CO2 emissions based charging would not go ahead,[137] saying "I am delighted that we have been able to scrap the £25 charge, which would have hit families and small businesses hardest. I believe the proposal would actually have made congestion worse by allowing thousands of small cars in for free".[137] Porsche announced that they had been successful in the high court and had been awarded their legal costs which would run to 'a six-figure sum'. Their Managing director said: "The charge was clearly unfair and was actually going to increase emissions in London ... Porsche is proud to have played a decisive role in striking down such a blatantly political tax increase targeting motorists."[138]
The Mayor also announced that he would review the Western Extension following a public consultation planned for September 2008.[139] Having held this consultation with residents he announced that the extension would be removed by 2010. Out of 28,000 people who responded to the consultation, 67% of the respondents, including 86% of businesses, said they wanted the extended zone removed.[140]
On 20 October 2010, TfL announced that Western Extension would formally be removed on 4 January 2011, noting that charging on the Western extension would in practice end on 24 December 2010 at the start of the Christmas break.[5] Other changes implemented on 4 January 2011 included an increase of the charge to £10 if paid in advance or on the day and to £12 if paid by midnight the charging day after travel, with a reduced charge of £9 for people who sign up to 'Congestion Charging Auto Pay' (CC Auto Pay) (with a £10 registration fee) which allowed users to nominate up to five vehicles with all fees being automatically debited from a nominated bank account at the end of each month.[5]
2012 mayoral election[edit]
In the lead-up to the 2012 London mayoral election Boris Johnson announced that he would give the Metropolitan police access to cameras used to monitor vehicles travelling in the London congestion charge zone and the region-wide low emission zone, to help detect crime and would ensure that automatic number-plate recognition (ANPR) was used "across all London" to help track down the vehicles of criminals.[141] Ken Livingston said he would freeze the congestion charge for 4 years.[142] The election was won by Boris Johnson.[143]
A number of studies have been made of its effects on congestion, traffic levels, road safety, the use of public transport, the environment, and business activity matters.
Traffic changes[edit]
- Traffic volume
A year before the congestion zone, TfL set up automatic traffic counters and augmented them with regular classified traffic counts at key locations, in order to monitor long term trends.[27]
TfL's report in June 2007 found that the number of chargeable vehicles entering the zone had reduced by 30% (primarily cars and minicabs, although vans and lorries had decreased by 13%), while there were overall increases in the numbers of taxis, buses, and especially bicycles. The daily profile of traffic flows had changed, with less traffic after 9:30 am and a peak immediately before and after the end of the charging period. The level of traffic entering the zone during the morning peak had not reduced as much as at other times.[27] The overall level of traffic of all vehicle types entering the central Congestion Charge Zone was consistently 16% lower in 2006 than the pre-charge levels in 2002.[27] Year on year, counts of inbound traffic approaching the zone had also seen a distinct and significant 5–7% decline in the number of chargeable vehicles, which was unexplained.[27] They had noted a small but pervasive long term trend of less traffic entering the zone, expected to be a result of people changing their location and lifestyle, perhaps influenced by the charge. The conservative Bow Group noted that the main effect occurred after 11 am.[63]
Once within the charging zone car and delivery traffic remained unchanged, suggesting that the journeys made by residents and businesses within the zone were broadly unaffected. Changes to the road network over the years has made direct comparisons difficult, but TfL suspect that certain routes used heavily by taxis and buses within the zone have seen substantially increased traffic. On some of the boundary roads traffic numbers had increased slightly but congestion and delays were largely unchanged from 2002 levels.
Following the introduction of the Western Extension, TfL stated that traffic had fallen around 10 to 15% in the extended zone.[66] The original zone is showing a 4% increase in congestion following expansion of the congestion charge and the introduction of extended to discounts to residents of the new zone and buffer zone.[144] TfL assessed the increase in charges in 2005 to have had only a slight impact overall.[27]
After ten years since the scheme introduction in February 2013, TfL reports a 10% reduction in traffic levels from baseline conditions.[6] TfL assessed that the scheme has had a significant impact in shifting people away from using cars, contributing to an overall reduction of 11% in vehicle kilometres in London between 2000 and 2012.[2]
- Traffic speeds
The charge operates for under one third of the hours in a year and covers around two thirds of the central London traffic.[27] In total 8% of traffic kilometres are affected by the scheme.[27] TfL have extrapolated the trends in road speed in the congestion zone; they have suggested that speeds would have dropped from 17 km/h in 2003 to 11.5 km/h by 2006, had the scheme not been put in place.[27]
A report by TfL in early 2007 indicated that there were 2.27 traffic delays per kilometre in the original charging zone. This compared with a figure of 2.3 before the introduction of the congestion charge. After the scheme was introduced they had measured an improvement in journey times of 0.7 minutes per km, or 30%. This improvement had decreased to 22% in 2006, and during 2006 congestion levels had increased so that the improvement, compared to the year before the scheme, was just 7%. TfL explained this as a result of changes to road priorities within the zone, delays caused by new pedestrian and road user safety schemes, and, most particularly, a doubling of road works in the latter half of 2006.[145] Utilities were encouraged to complete planned road works in the year preceding the congestion charge, so it would appear that the first year of measurement used for later comparisons would also have been affected by streetworks to some extent.[144][146]
TfL reported in January 2014, that despite a reduction of traffic volume within London, traffic speeds have also been getting progressively slower over the past decade, particularly in central London. TfF explains that the historic decline in traffic speeds is most likely due to interventions that have reduced the effective capacity of the road network in order to improve the urban environment, increase road safety and prioritise public transport, pedestrian and cycle traffic, as well as an increase in road works by utilities and general development activity since 2006. This explains the lower levels of congestion reduction compared to the pre-charge baseline: 8% in 2006, compared to 30% in 2004. Since 2006 this trend towards slower traffic movement has ceased and traffic speeds have remained more stable, as evidenced by GPS satellite tracking data from 2006 to 2012. Indicators of excess delay or congestion also suggest a stable overall picture, with some improvements in the past two years. TfL concludes that while levels of congestion in central London are close to pre-charging levels, the effectiveness of the congestion charge in reducing traffic volumes means that conditions would be worse without the Congestion Charging scheme.[2]
Air quality[edit]
The pre-commencement report from TfL noted that the scheme wasn't expected to significantly affect air quality, but that offering a discount to encourage the use of greener fuels would be a positive measure.[50]
TfL did however reported that levels of nitrogen oxides (NOX), fell by 13.4% between 2002 & 2003, and carbon dioxide, as well as the levels of airborne particulates (PM10) within and alongside the Inner Ring Road boundary of the zone.[101]
Since 2002, the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) produced by diesel exhaust has become a serious problem, with the London Air Quality Network of King's College London reporting that the annual mean NO2 objective (of 40 μgm-3 or 21 ppb) was exceeded at all kerbside and roadside monitoring sites across central and greater London during 12 months between 2005 and 2006. Although no areas within the Congestion Charge Zone reported NO2 levels above an upper limit of 200 μgm-3 (105 ppb), some monitoring areas near the zone boundary experienced very long periods at such levels, notably the A23 near Brixton (3741 hours) and the Marylebone Road (849 hours).[147]
In 2007, the Fifth Annual Monitoring Report by TfL stated that between 2003 and 2006, NOX emissions fell by 17%, PM10 by 24% and CO2 by 3%, with some being attributed to the effects of reduced levels of traffic flowing better, with the majority being as a result of improved vehicle technology.[27][148] In total, the rate of fall in CO2 has been almost 20% as of 2007.[149]
The 2007 TfL report makes it clear that only a one-off reduction of emissions could be expected from the introduction of the charge, whilst further reductions are unlikely to be as a result of the charge. It notes that lower vehicles emissions may not necessarily feed through into improvements in air quality as vehicle emissions are only one contributor to total emissions of a particular pollutant along industrial sources and that weather conditions play a significant role, and that pollutant concentrations were being affected by changes in the make up of the vehicle fleet. It also suggests that the rate of decline in certain pollutants is decreasing.[27]
A 2011 independent study published by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), and led by a researcher from King's College London, found that there is little evidence the congestion charge scheme has improved air quality. This research used modelling and also compared actual air pollutant measurements within the congestion charge zone with those of control sites located in Outer London. The investigators concluded that "it is difficult to identify significant air quality improvements from a specific program—especially one targeted at a small area within a large city—against the backdrop of broader regional pollutant and weather changes."[150] National trends had already shown a rapid decline of some other emissions during the late 1990s, notably carbon monoxide, and levels have been relatively stable since 2002 across London.[citation needed]
|Charging zone
|Inner Ring Road
|Overall traffic emissions change 2003 versus 2002[101]
|Overall traffic emissions change 2004 versus 2003[101]
|Changes due to improved vehicle technology[27]
|Source: Transport for London 2003–2004 figures are TfL estimates.
Public transport[edit]
On the launch date of the original zone, an extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 8,000) were introduced.[57] Bus route changes have been made to take advantage of the presumed higher traffic speeds and the greater demand for public transport; route 452 was introduced and three others (routes 31, 46 and 430) were extended. The frequency of buses on other routes through the zone extension were also increased.[151]
In 2007 TfL reported that Bus patronage in the central London area (not the same as the Congestion Charge Zone) had increased from under 90,000 pre-charge to stabilise at 116,000 journeys per day by 2007. Also that usage of the Underground has increased by 1% above pre-charge levels, having fallen substantially in 2003/2004. They could not attribute any change in National Rail patronage to the introduction of the central zone charge.[27]
Parking issues in outer London[edit]
The charge has proved controversial in the outer areas of London, where it has encouraged commuters who previously drove into central London to instead park at suburban railway or underground stations. This has been accompanied by the introduction of extra on-street parking restrictions and controlled parking zones in these areas, which affects local residents.[152]
Road safety[edit]
TfL have estimate that the charge has led to a small reduction in road traffic casualties against a background trend of improvement across London and across the rest of Great Britain over the period. Cars and motorcycles have seen the biggest reduction in accidents, whereas bicyclists have seen a slight increase, which may reflect their increased numbers.[27]
Of the reduction from 2,598 personal injury crashes inside the zone in the year before the scheme to 1,629 by 2005 TfL estimated that some 40 and 70 injuries may have been avoided annually due to the introduction of the charging zone, with most of the remaining reduction attributed to other changes to the road network favouring its people-moving capacity.[101]
Operations and technology[edit]
Whilst TfL is responsible for the scheme, the operation is sub-contracted to a number of outside companies. Since 2009, IBM has been responsible for the day-to-day operation of the charging system, whilst Siemens Traffic Solutions provides and operates the physical enforcement infrastructure. Transport for London announced that from 2009 IBM would operate the charge, along with the London low emission zone under contract.[153]
The scheme makes use of purpose-built automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, manufactured by PIPs Technology, to record vehicles entering and exiting the zone. Cameras can record number plates with a 90% accuracy rate through the technology.[112][154] The majority of vehicles within the zone are captured on camera. The cameras take two still pictures in colour and black and white and use infrared technology to identify the number plates. The camera network and other roadside equipment is managed largely automatically by an instation system developed by Roke Manor Research Ltd, which delivers number plates to the billing system. These identified numbers are checked against the list of payers overnight by computer. In those cases when a number plate has not been recognised then they are checked manually.[154] Those that have paid but have not been seen in the central zone are not refunded, and those that have not paid and are seen are fined. The registered keeper of such a vehicle is looked up in a database provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), based in Swansea.[154][155]
Income and costs[edit]
TfL's annual report for 2006–7 shows that revenues from the congestion charge were £252.4m over the financial year, representing 8.5% of TfL's annual revenues. More than half of this was spent on the cost of running the toll system, at £130.1 million. Once other charges were deducted, the congestion charge brought in an annual operating net income of £89.1m for TfL.[156] This income compares with TfL's total revenue from bus and tube fares of £2,269.4m, or 76.6% of revenue before costs, or grants from central government of £2,390.3 million.
The initial operating revenues from the congestion charge did not reach the levels that were originally expected. Within six months of the start of the scheme, the reduction in traffic had been such that TfL were predicting a £65 million revenue shortfall.[157]
By law, all surpluses raised must be reinvested into London's transport infrastructure; at the start of the scheme it was anticipated that this would be around £200 million.[158][159] According to a report issued in February 2007, the initial costs of setting up the scheme were £161.7 million,[159] with an annual operating cost of about £115m anticipated.[160] Total revenues over the first three and a half years had been £677.4 million, with TfL reporting a surplus over operating costs of £189.7 million.[159] The Bow Group, compiled from TfL data estimated that by 2007 the project had only returned a modest £10 million profit.[63]
Although Parliament has limited the amount that authorities can borrow, for some time it had been speculated that the regular income obtained from the congestion charge and other revenues could be used to securitise a bond issue that finances other transport projects across London.[161] TfL issued their first bond for £200 million in 2005, to be repaid at 5% interest over 30 years. TfL plans to borrow £3.1 billion more to fund a 5-year transport programme across London, including works on London Underground and road safety schemes.[162]
|Revenues (£m) provisional
|Standard daily vehicle charges (currently £10)
|not available
|Enforcement income
|not available
|Fleet vehicle daily charges (currently £7)
|not available
|Resident vehicles (currently £4 per week)
|not available
|Other income
|not available
|Total revenues
|Total operation and administration costs
|Net revenues
|Expenditure (% of operating revenue)
|Bus network improvements (incl. vehicles, garages & shelters)
|Road and bridge maintenance & upgrades
|Road safety (incl. research & campaigns)
|Walking & cycling programmes & publicity
|Distribution and freight (incl. review of a London lorry ban)
|"Safer routes to schools" initiative
Since the scheme's introduction in 2003 through December 2013, gross revenue reached about £2.6 billion,[164] of which, over £1.2 billion (46%) has been invested in transport, including £960 million on improvements to the bus network; £102 million on roads and bridges; £70 million on road safety; £51 million on local transport/borough plans; and £36 million on sustainable transport and the environment.[165]
See also[edit]
- Congestion pricing
- Electronic toll collection
- Road pricing in the United Kingdom
- Transport in London
- Westminster motorcycle parking charge
- ^ TFL. "Maps & Times". TFL (Transport For London). Retrieved 16 Feb 2013.
- ^ a b c Transport for London (TfL) (January 2014). "Public and stakeholder consultation on a Variation Order to modify the Congestion Charging scheme Impact Assessment". TfL. Retrieved 15 February 2015. See pp. 12: Traffic volume, speed and congestion.
- ^ a b "What it is". BBC News. 2003. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Signs and Symbols". CCLondon.com. Transport for London. Retrieved 27 May 2007.
- ^ a b c d "Consultation results". Transport for London. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ a b Gwyn Topham (6 January 2014). "London congestion charge expected to rise by at least 15%". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2014.
- ^ Reg Evans, TfL Policy Analysis Division (September 2008). "Demand Elasticities for Car Trips to Central London as revealed by the Central London Congestion Charge". Transport for London. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
- ^ a b Press Association (28 May 2014). "London congestion charge to rise". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
- ^ "Paying the Congestion Charge". Transport for London. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
- ^ "Fleet Auto Pay". Transport for London. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
- ^ "Penalties and Enforcement". Transport for London. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
- ^ "Transport for London Refunds and reimbursements". Transport for London. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
- ^ "Transport for London Residents discount". Transport for London. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
- ^ "Discounts and exemptions". Transport for London. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
- ^ Transport for London (February 2015). "Discounts and exemptions - Ultra Low Emission Discount (ULED)". Transport for London. Retrieved 15 February 2015. Click on "Ultra Low Emission Discount (ULED)" for details.
- ^ Go Ultra Low (February 2015). "Vehicle technologies - Plug-in hybrids". Go Ultra Low. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
- ^ "Congestion charge greener vehicles rule change planned". BBC News. 2012-12-11. Retrieved 2012-11-20.
- ^ Tom McGhie (2012-12-01). "Only electric cars to beat London's congestion charge from next year if emission proposals are accepted". This is Money. Retrieved 2012-12-09.
- ^ "London to introduce new Ulta Low Emission Discount for Congestion Charge scheme; countering dieselization". Green Car Congress. 24 April 2013. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
- ^ "London tightens up congestion charge in attempt to drive out diesel". The Guardian. 24 April 2013. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
- ^ Faye Sunderland (1 July 2013). "London tightens Congestion Charge exemptions". The Green Car Website (UK). Retrieved 1 July 2013.
- ^ "New green discount for the congestion charge comes in". BBC News. 2013-07-01. Retrieved 2013-07-02.
- ^ "Will I have to pay the Charge if I am diverted into the Zone?". Transport for London. Retrieved 27 May 2007.[dead link]
- ^ AFX News Limited (7 July 2005). "London Bombs Roundup Four terrorist blasts kill at least 37 people Update". Forbes. Retrieved 26 May 2007.[dead link]
- ^ "Heavy snow hits much of Britain". BBC News. 2 February 2009. Retrieved 2 February 2009.
- ^ a b c "Impacts Monitoring – Third Annual Report" (PDF). Transport for London. April 2005. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q "Impacts Monitoring – Fifth Annual Report" (PDF). Transport for London. June 2007. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ "Central London Congestion Charging—Impacts monitoring—Sixth Annual Report, July 2008" (PDF). Transport for London. July 2008. pp. 215–19. Retrieved 7 August 2008.
- ^ "Car cloners try avoiding charges". BBC News. 24 June 2004. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ Arthur, Charles (26 February 2003). "London congestion charge leads to flood of false number plates". The Independent (UK). Archived from the original on 10 December 2007. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ Sheth, Niraj (26 February 2003). "London's Congestion Fee Begets Pinched Plates". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 5 January 2008.
- ^ "Embassy to pay congestion charge". BBC News. 6 April 2006. Retrieved 25 May 2006.
- ^ a b Mulholland, Helene (19 November 2008). "Foreign diplomats owe £23m over London congestion charge". The Guardian.
- ^ Wilson, Graeme (20 July 2011). ""Obama motorcade's £120 congestion charge fine", 20 July 2011". London: The Sun. Retrieved 2011-09-03.
- ^ "Embassy road toll row continues". BBC News. 14 May 2006. Retrieved 25 May 2006.
- ^ "Embassies run up £82m London congestion charge bill". BBC News. 15 July 2014. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
- ^ Tempest, Matthew (7 August 2006). "Q&A: National road charging scheme". The Guardian (London: Guardian News and Media). Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ Smeed,, R.J. (1964). Road pricing: the economic and technical possibilities. HMSO.
- ^ "Experts' plan to cut traffic pressure". The Times. 11 June 1964.
- ^ Bannister, David (2002). Transport Planning.
- ^ "Ringways – Background – Epilogue". www.cbrd.co.uk. Retrieved 13 February 2009.
Within London, a few fragments had been built: the Ringway 1 East Cross Route was complete by the early 1970s, and the A40(M) Westway and a short stub of the West Cross Route were open to traffic before the GLDP inquiry halted the plans
- ^ The Lumbering Elephant. 2008. Retrieved 2011-05-13.
- ^ R Porter, Hamish Hamilton (1994). London: A Social History. p. 448pp. ISBN 978-0-241-12944-9.
- ^ "CV: Ken 'Red Ken' Livingstone". British Broadcasting Corporation. 17 November 1999.
- ^ Urban Road Pricing: Public and Political Acceptability. Ashgate Publishing. 2003. p. 248. ISBN 0-7546-3449-3.
- ^ Her Majesty's Stationery Office (1995). The London Congestion Research Programme. HMSO. ISBN 0-11-551755-3.
- ^ Her Majesty's Stationery Office (1997). "Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 Chapter 54". HMSO.
- ^ "What does the mayor get to do?". BBC News. 16 May 2000. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Blair accuses Livingstone of £5 car toll". The Guardian (London: Guardian News and Media). 7 August 2006. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ a b c d e f g "Report to the Mayor of London" (PDF). The Greater London (Central Zone): Congestion Charging Order 2001. Transport for London. February 2002. Archived from the original on 28 February 2008. Retrieved 24 January 2008.
- ^ "Congestion charges face legal challenge". BBC News. 15 July 2002. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ Hardie, Alison (1 August 2002). "Livingstone wins road toll battle". The Scotsman (Edinburgh: Johnston Press plc). Retrieved 6 January 2008.
- ^ "Annual Report 2002-3" (PDF). London Ambulance Service. Archived from the original on 28 February 2008. Retrieved 22 January 2008.
- ^ Beard, Matthew (17 February 2003). "Livingstone predicts 'difficult few days' as congestion charge begins". The Independent (London: Independent News and Media Limited). Retrieved 9 April 2006.
- ^ "Congestion charge cuts traffic levels". BBC News. 18 February 2003. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Smooth start for congestion charge". BBC News. 18 February 2003. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ a b "First congestion fines to go out". BBC News. 18 February 2003. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ a b c "10,000 chased for congestion fine". BBC News. 18 February 2003. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ Rogers, James (21 February 2003). "Capita admits congestion charge 'teething problems'". Computer Weekly (Reed Business Information).
- ^ Clark, Andrew (13 December 2005). "Capita congestion charge contract to be extended". The Guardian (London: Guardian News and Media Limited). Retrieved 21 November 2007.
- ^ "London traffic gets a helping hand from Mastek". Pune: Financial Express. 29 October 2004. Retrieved 19 March 2012.
- ^ Lettice, John (21 February 2003). "The London charge zone, the DP Act, and MS .NET". The Register. Retrieved 8 April 2006.
- ^ a b c Christopher Mahon, Alastair Sloan. "London Under Livingstone: An evaluation of Labour's Mayor" (PDF). The Bow Group.[dead link]
- ^ "Congestion charge survives school run". BBC News. 23 February 2003. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Congestion charge cuts jams". BBC News. 6 June 2003. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ a b c "Traders rally against charge zone". BBC News. 21 May 2007. Retrieved 23 May 2007.
- ^ Muspratt, Caroline (21 April 2004). "Congestion charge cost £300m, say Oxford St traders". Daily Telegraph (UK: Telegraph Media Group Ltd). Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ Allison, Rebecca (5 September 2003). "Store chief hits at congestion charge". The Guardian (London: Guardian News and Media). Retrieved 5 January 2008.
- ^ Blitz, Roger (5 July 2005). "Damaging rise in congestion charge not justified, says West End store". Financial Times. Retrieved 25 December 2007.
- ^ "Jury out on congestion charging". BBC News. 16 February 2004. Retrieved 28 May 2007.
- ^ a b Clark, Andrew (25 November 2003). "C-charge 'leads to layoffs'". The Guardian (London: Guardian News and Media). Retrieved 6 January 2008.
- ^ "'No increase' in congestion charge". BBC News. 25 February 2003. Retrieved 8 April 2006.
- ^ "Public Interest, Private Profit: Transport for London's Contract with Capita for the Congestion Charging Scheme" (RTF). London Assembly Budget Committee. October 2003. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 22 January 2008.
We dispute the Mayor's frequently made claim that TfL's contract with Capita represents 'best value' for Londoners. It has not proved to be a good deal for taxpayers
- ^ "Capita making no profits from London congestion charge scheme – report". Interactive Investor. Interactive Investor Trading Limited. 31 July 2003. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Mayor Ken named Big Bad Brother". BBC News. 25 March 2003. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ a b Congestion charging six months on (PDF). Transport for London. Archived from the original on 15 May 2006. Retrieved 8 April 2006.
- ^ Muspratt, Caroline (16 February 2004). "Charge fails to stop roar of London traffic". Daily Telegraph (Telegraph). Retrieved 27 May 2007.
- ^ Mayman, Michelle (9 March 2007). "Traffic solutions". The Politics Show (BBC News). Retrieved 6 May 2007.
- ^ "The 2003 Scientific American 50 List of Winners". Scientific American.
- ^ Warren, Marcus (10 November 2003). "Livingstone becomes 'leading thinker'". The Telegraph (London).
- ^ "Londoners views sought on c-charge western extension" (Press release). Transport for London. 16 February 2004. Retrieved 6 January 2008.
- ^ "Protest over congestion charging". BBC News. 5 June 2004. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ Norris, Steve (12 February 2003). "Why Ken's charge will do damage for years to come". BBC News. Retrieved 27 May 2007.
- ^ Murphy, Joe (5 February 2004). "Howard: C-charge damages business". Evening Standard (Associated Newspapers Limited). Retrieved 6 January 2007.[dead link]
- ^ "Hughes will stop road toll at 5 pm". BBC News. 8 March 2004. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Congestion Charge Zone to expand". BBC News. 30 September 2005. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ Barney, Katharine (7 December 2005). "C-charge consultation is charade, admits Ken". Evening Standard (Associated Newspapers). Retrieved 26 May 2007.[dead link]
- ^ "Go-slow protest over road charge". BBC News. 27 April 2005. Retrieved 24 November 2007.
- ^ Rohrer, Finlo (17 February 2007). "Leafy Kensington shows its anger". BBC News. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ "Public Consultation on detail of proposed extension to congestion charging zone begins" (Press release). Transport for London. 9 May 2005. Archived from the original on 1 October 2007. Retrieved 28 May 2007.
- ^ "Charge zone times could shorten". BBC News. 9 May 2005. Retrieved 11 October 2005.
- ^ "Road toll 'fails to cut traffic'". BBC News. 27 October 2004. Retrieved 8 April 2006.
- ^ "Road toll up by 'at least £1'". BBC News. 1 November 2004. Retrieved 8 April 2006.
- ^ Blitz, Roger (1 December 2004). "Congestion charge rise to £8 planned by London mayor". Financial Times (The Financial Times Ltd). Retrieved 8 April 2006.
- ^ "Congestion charge may rise to £8". BBC News. 30 November 2004. Retrieved 8 April 2006.
- ^ "Congestion charge increases to £8". BBC News. 1 April 2005. Retrieved 25 May 2006.
- ^ "Congestion charge to increase to £8; fleet and regular users to receive discounts" (Press release). Greater London Authority. 1 April 2005. Retrieved 25 November 2005.
- ^ "Anger at '£10 congestion charge'". BBC News. 11 May 2006. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ Allen, Richard (27 May 2003). "Congestion charge hammers shops". Evening Standard (Associated Newspapers). Retrieved 26 May 2007.[dead link]
- ^ Clark, Andrew (13 August 2003). "Business backs congestion charge". The Guardian (London: Guardian News and Media). Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ a b c d e f "Impacts monitoring – Fourth Annual Report" (PDF). Transport for London. June 2006. Retrieved 11 February 2008.
- ^ Williams, David (9 May 2005). "TfL changes rules to stop C-charge 'fleet' scheme". Evening Standard (Associated Newspapers Limited). Retrieved 6 January 2008.[dead link]
- ^ Transport for London with GLA Economics (April 2005). "Congestion Charging: Proposed Western Extension Public Consultation Economic and Business Impact Assessment" (PDF). Transport for London. pp. 9, 10. Archived from the original on 30 June 2007. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Capita fined £4.5 million for missing C-Charge targets". Liberal Democrats. 8 March 2005.
- ^ "Congestion Charging Western Extension". Greater London Authority. Archived from the original on 10 April 2006. Retrieved 8 April 2006.
- ^ Webster, Ben (1 October 2005). "Livingstone takes charge zone farther west despite opposition". The Times (UK: News International Limited). Retrieved 9 April 2006.
- ^ Woodman, Peter (19 February 2007). "Capital's congestion charge area extended". The Independent (London: Independent News and Media Limited). Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "The Western Extension". BBC London. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ "Congestion Charge Zone increases". BBC News. 19 February 2007. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ Clakr, Andrew (15 March 2005). "TfL axes C-charge debt collection agency". The Guardian (London: Guardian News and Media Limited). Retrieved 6 January 2008.
- ^ "Road toll leads to diplomatic row". BBC News. 18 October 2005. Retrieved 8 April 2006.
- ^ a b "C-charge plans 'will waste £166m'". BBC News. 11 February 2003. Retrieved 27 May 2007.
- ^ Webster, Ben (22 February 2006). "Electronic tags for cars as congestion charge spreads out". The Times (London: News International Ltd). Retrieved 27 May 2007.
- ^ Clement, Barrie (20 February 2007). "Congestion charge: Green lobby hails road-toll extension". The Independent (London: Independent News and Media Ltd). Retrieved 26 May 2004.
- ^ Simon Jeffery and Sarah Phillips (7 August 2006). "Q&A: The congestion charge". The Guardian (London: Guardian News and Media). Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Congestion Charge Through Roads". BBC London. 22 February 2007. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Minicab Scam To Avoid Congestion Charge". sky.com (British Sky Broadcasting). 5 November 2007. Retrieved 21 November 2007.
- ^ "77% reject A12 Blackwall Tunnel toll, says City Hall survey". East London Advertiser (Archant Regional Limited). 5 November 2007. Retrieved 24 November 2007.
- ^ Livingstone, Ken (8 January 2008). "Letters". The Londoner. Greater London Authority. Archived from the original on 11 February 2008. Retrieved 2 February 2008.
- ^ Transport for London. "CO2 charging". Archived from the original on 3 April 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2008.
- ^ "CO2 Charge and CO2 Discount: February 2008". Mayor of London. Archived from the original on 17 October 2007. Retrieved 22 February 2008.
- ^ "Polluting cars C-charge discussed". BBC News. 10 August 2007. Retrieved 25 November 2007.
- ^ "Warning over pollution c-charge". BBC News. 18 October 2007. Retrieved 25 November 2007.
- ^ a b c "Consultation begins today on Emissions Related Congestion Charging". TfL. Retrieved 29 March 2010.
- ^ "Congestion Charging: CO2 Charge and CO2 Discount: February 2008". Mayor of London. Archived from the original on 28 February 2008. Retrieved 22 February 2008.
- ^ "New C-Charge zone 'will raise traffic and pollution'". London Evening Standard. 18 October 2007. Retrieved 2011-09-03.
- ^ "Warning over pollution c-charge". BBC News. 18 October 2007. Retrieved 16 August 2008. According to a report commissioned by Land Rover, the emission-related scheme would increase traffic delays and air pollution.
- ^ "Porsche challenges C-charge rise". BBC News. 19 February 2008. Retrieved 6 January 2010.
- ^ "Porsche Judicial Review". Porsche.
- ^ "'Gas guzzlers' C-charge up to £25". BBC News. 12 February 2008. Retrieved 6 January 2010.
- ^ 'C-charge hike 'will increase CO2 BBC News
- ^ Gribben, Roland (10 April 2008). "'Row over Congestion Charge pollution claims'". The Daily Telegraph (UK). Retrieved 12 December 2010.
- ^ Crerar, Pippa (16 November 2007). "Boris backs small shops campaign". Evening Standard (Associated Newspapers Limited). Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ Rachel Sylvester and Alice Thomson (18 November 2007). "Brian Paddick: 'Why I want to be mayor'". The Daily Telegraph (London: Telegraph Media Group Limited). Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ Carlin, Brendan (14 November 2007). "Brian Paddick is Lib Dem London candidate". The Daily Telegraph (Telegraph Media Group Limited). Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ "Mayor quashes £25 C-charge hike". BBC News. 8 July 2008. Retrieved 8 July 2008.
- ^ a b "Mayor quashes £25 C-charge hike". BBC News. 8 July 2008. Retrieved 16 August 2008.
- ^ Kirkup, James (8 July 2008). "Boris Johnson scraps congestion charge for 4x4 vehicles". The Daily Telegraph (London).
- ^ Dan Milmo (2 July 2008). "Transport: London Mayor unveils congestion charge rethink". The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 16 August 2008.
- ^ "C-charge extension to be scrapped". BBC News. 27 November 2008. Retrieved 24 February 2009.
- ^ Mulholland, Helene (2 April 2012). "Boris Johnson plans to give police access to congestion charge cameras". The Guardian (London).
- ^ "Ken Livingstone promises to freeze congestion charge for four years". Mayorwatch.
- ^ London Elects - Declared Results
- ^ a b "Road toll 'cut traffic by 70,000'". BBC News. 11 July 2007. Retrieved 24 November 2007.
- ^ "Congestion charge 'not working'". BBC News. 23 February 2007. Retrieved 23 November 2007.
- ^ Marston, Paul (16 February 2004). "London congestion charge 'not working'". The Daily Telegraph (Telegraph News and Media Limited). Retrieved 24 November 2007.
- ^ Fuller & Green (28 July 2006). "Air Quality in London 2005 and mid 2006 – Briefing" (PDF). London Air Quality Network. Retrieved 8 January 2008.
- ^ Sadler, Lucy. "Detailed assessment London congestion charging" (DOC). UK Air Quality Archive. Archived from the original on 28 February 2008. Retrieved 20 January 2008.
- ^ "Milan introduces traffic charge". BBC News. 2 January 2008. Retrieved 20 January 2008.
- ^ "HEI study finds London Congestion Charging Scheme shows little evidence of improving air quality". Green Car Congress. 27 April 2011. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
- ^ "Buses increased after congestion extension". BBC London. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ Clark, Andrew (17 March 2003). "Road and rail promises leave commuters unmoved". The Guardian (London: Guardian News and Media). Retrieved 6 January 2008.
- ^ "Capita to lose congestion charge". BBC News. 25 October 2007. Retrieved 21 November 2007.
- ^ a b c Symonds, Tom (11 February 2003). "Preparing for Congestion". BBC News. Retrieved 27 May 2007.
- ^ "How it Works". BBC News. Retrieved 27 May 2007.
- ^ Transport for London (April 2007). "Annual Report and Statement of Accounts 2006/07" (PDF). Mayor of London. p. Note 26. Retrieved 25 November 2007.
- ^ "Congestion charge leads to budget shortfall". BBC News. 12 June 2003. Retrieved 6 January 2008.
- ^ "Drivers face £5 London toll". BBC News. 7 October 2001. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ a b c "Where has the money gone?". BBC London. 19 February 2007. Retrieved 26 May 2007.
- ^ "Congestion charging". Confederation of British Industry. Archived from the original on 19 August 2006. Retrieved 20 August 2006.
- ^ Glaister, Stephen (10 April 2000). "Rocky road to a smoother journey". New Statesman. Retrieved 25 December 2007.[dead link]
- ^ "Newsletter Issue 8" (PDF). Transport for London. Spring 2005. Archived from the original on 28 February 2008. Retrieved 25 December 2007.
- ^ a b "Annual Report and Statement of Accounts" (PDF). Transport for London. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
- ^ Ross Lydall (15 February 2013). "Congestion Charge 'has cost drivers £2.6bn in decade but failed to cut traffic jams'". London Evening Standard. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
- ^ "Views sought on proposed changes to Congestion Charging scheme". Transport for London. 6 January 2014. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
Further reading[edit]
- Richards, Martin G. (2006). Congestion Charging in London: The Policy and the Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hampshire. ISBN 978-1-4039-3240-2.
External links[edit]
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to London congestion charge.
- Electronic toll collection
- Fare collection systems in London
- Motoring taxation in the United Kingdom
- Road congestion charge schemes in the United Kingdom
- Road transport in London
- Town and country planning in London
- Transport policy in the United Kingdom
- Transport infrastructure in London
- 2003 in London
- 2003 introductions
- Automobile costs


text:
Humana Inc., headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, is one of the nation's largest publicly traded health benefits companies.
Schumacher Group is currently seeking a HM Physician to join our team at St. Mary's Regional Medical Center
Non-Invasive Cardiology Opporutnity in Springdale, AR
Gastroenterology Opportunity in Bentonville, AR
OBGYN - Northern Arkansas City! Seeking additional OB/GYN. Service area: 8 counties.
Employed ENT Position Available in Sophisticated Small Arkansas Town
Sparks Health System Seeks Additional Neurosurgeon
Sparks Neurology Center Seeks 3rd Neurologist
CHI St. Vincent - and the surrounding community of Little Rock - is a welcoming place where physicians and their families can feel a real sense of life balance and belonging.
Merritt Hawkins, the nation's leading physician search and consulting firm, is pleased to announce the availability of a premier General Surgery position.
Unique partner opportunity to join an independent, physician-owned medical group in a community named one of the fastest growing cities and one of the best places to live.
Unique Phyisician Partner Opportunity to join an independent, physician-owned medical group and assume the established rheumatology practice of a retiring rheumatologist.
Employed Urology in Sophisticated Small South Arkansas Town!
If you are interested in joining the only hospital in the county, which is looking for two Family Practitioners then please consider this practice where you will be needed and completely appreciated.
We have evaluated the opportunity to ensure that there is a defined need for your services.
Merritt Hawkins, the nations leading physician search firm, invites you to experience a Family Practice opportunity located in the Wonder and the beauty of the Ozark Foothills.
Family Medicine
Merritt Hawkins, the nations leading physician search firm, invites you to examine a superb Orthopedic Surgery opportunity with a unique balance of well above average earning potential and an excellent quality of life.
One hour to state capital city- 3 recreational lakes,National park w/ campgrounds and outdoor activities for the whole family.
Employed Urology in West Arkansas - 492 bed hospital; service area over 450K!
Interventional Cardiology Opportunity in El Dorado, AR


text:
COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — Missouri's defense pretty much held up its end of the bargain last week. If there's been any griping about the lack of production on the other side of the ball heading into the perceived mismatch against top-ranked Alabama, the Tigers have kept it to themselves.
Tigers not finger-pointing with Alabama up next
Outspoken defensive tackle Sheldon Richardson said no one's getting frustrated, and no one's pointing fingers.
"Nothing too dramatic. Ain't no wedges getting built," Richardson said. "It ain't, 'Are we fighting, we just enemies for the rest of our lives?' No, it's nothing like that at all."
After Missouri limited Vanderbilt to 295 yards, end Brad Madison said the defense hasn't done its job if the opponent ends up with more points.
"We've got to stop the run," Madison said. "Alabama's going to pound the ball on us."
In the face of adversity, cornerback Kip Edwards remained very optimistic.
"We can still go 9-3. I don't see what the fuss is about," Edwards said. "We can still win the East. You never know."
Missouri (3-3, 0-3 SEC) dropped to .500 and its long-anticipated debut season in the SEC has produced mostly groans, especially after a 19-15 upset at home by lightly regarded Vanderbilt last week. The Crimson Tide (5-0, 2-0) are three-touchdown favorites to send another Faurot Field sellout crowd home disappointed on Saturday.
The Tigers' no-huddle, spread offense is averaging just 25 points, the school's lowest since 2004. They're averaging less than 16 points the last three games, getting held to just 10 in the first SEC road game at South Carolina.
Even the opener, a 62-10 romp over Southeastern Louisiana, is a bit deceptive because there were two punt returns for touchdown by Marcus Murphy, plus an interception return and fumble return for scores.
Missouri is just 88th in the nation in time of possession at 28 minutes and 21 seconds, putting the burden on a defense that's sagged at the end of the half and end of the game.
It's rare during the Gary Pinkel years for the defense to carry such responsibility. But that's just the way it is right now, and all segments are far from perfect.
"It's just us playing for each other," Edwards said. "That's really what it all boils down to. You can't just blame the offense, you can't just blame the defense, you can't just blame the special teams. You have to blame us as a whole. We haven't played four quarters of football yet."
Continue reading this story on the...


text:
Chelsea Krost is a millennial, which means a 20-something who is often derided by grumpy members of older generations, including mine. She bills herself as a millennial lifestyle expert and she appeared in that capacity...http://www.neatorama.com/2015/01/11/Worst-Job-Title-Ever/
[http://youtu.be/4db3zcShG6g] (YouTube link)A thoroughly modern horror film shows us what really instills fear into the hearts of young adults. You know you've stepped into another dimension when there's sudd...http://www.neatorama.com/2014/10/30/Millennial-Horror-Story/
The millennial generation, those born between 1981... ...ng bust, the longest war in American history, and millennials have developed their own ways of dealing with the... ...ern life."Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of millennials said they would rather make $40,000 a year at a j... ...orley Winograd an...http://www.neatorama.com/2014/08/17/Generation-Nice/
(Video Link)It's hard to believe b... ...squo;t explain the importance of 80s Awareness to Millennials then nobody can.Let two time Saturn award nominee...http://www.neatorama.com/2014/03/12/Kevin-Bacon-Explains-The-80s-To-Millennials/
Cartoonist Matt Bors is fed up with writers piling on the younger generation like it's their fault they can't find jobs and move out of their parents' homes. This is just the beginning of an illustrated refutation at CNN...http://www.neatorama.com/2013/07/10/Can-We-Stop-Worrying-About-Millennials-Yet/


text:
Within City
Within 1 mile
Within 2 miles
Within 5 miles
Within 10 miles
Within 20 miles
Sort by
highest rated first
most reviewed first
closest first
alphabetical order
best match
sponsored result
"Was there today to pick up my car (purchased used car yesterday). Very good experience and would go back again."
"We have bought 3 cars from Burns and will go back the next time we are looking. We have not been able to beat their pricing. We have ..."
"About five years ago, I bought my Jeep Cherokee from this dealership. They were very professional and never felt rushed when I decided to make my purchase."
"I leased a jeep laredo from this dealership. My salesperson was good and still works there. Very knowledgeable. Service was always good. Lease price was reasonable."
"I've done business with Burns GMC on a number of occasions, for both auto body repair, and vehicle purchases. Overall, I've generally been satisfied. The auto body shop ..."
"Steve made my experience and Kerbeck a wonderful one. Thank you!!"
"Colin Campbell was my friendly, professional, patient sales rep and Lew Burcaw walked me through financing. I had a great car buying experience. I love my 2012 Subaru ..."
"I had the worst experience ever in the service dept. After spending $4000 to get my car running, the service advisor called to say they couldn't put the ..."
"I have gone to this dealership for repairs many times. Their service was excellent even though I originally did not buy my Windstar from them."
"I had co-signed for a lease for my daughter three years ago when she had leased a 2010 Corolla from Toyota of Runnemde and the entire process was ..."


text:
I'm trying to fetch records from a table in MySQL 5.5 (Community Server) which has 22 fields in total, the first field is of type
DATETIME, and I want that field formatted with
DATE_FORMAT() method, while I want to fetch remaining fields as they are. So basically what I'm trying to do is something like this
SELECT DATE_FORMAT(fdate,'%r %d-%m-%Y'),* FROM userdetails;
While I know this is invalid syntax, and currently I'm accomplishing this by selecting all the remaining fields manually which obviously makes the query longer. So is there a more elegant way to do the same? I also thought to use two different queries where 1st will fetch the formatted date and second will be usual
SELECT * FROM userdetails;
But since I fetch records sorted by date field itself, I guess using two different queries may lead to conflicts on order of records returned.


text:
Space where guests can cook their own meals
Space where guests can cook their own meals
Towels, bed sheets, soap, and toilet paper
Central heating or a heater in the listing
In the building, free or for a fee
In the building, free or for a fee
Continuous access in the listing
Breakfast is provided.
The listing can accommodate a gathering of 25 or more attendees
Easy access to the building and listing for guests in wheelchairs
Private or Shared
Free, in the building or nearby
Posted emergency information and resources
The Space
Spacious BK 2 Bedroom (only one bedroom available see house rules) located on Eastern Parkway just a few blocks from the Brooklyn Museum, The Brooklyn Botanical Garden and Prospect Park is available for select dates. I've lived here for over 10 years & love the place. It's very spacious for a New York apartment, yet cozy & comfortable. The neighborhood offers a great Brooklyn experience, with many restaurants & pubs within walking distance, and lower Manhattan is just a 20 minute train ride away. Please inquire about availability prior to booking, and note "House Rules" section of the listing.
Amenities include:
-Flat-screen LCD TV
-Cable and DVR
-XBox 360 Elite with several games
-DVD player with several movies
-Wireless internet access
-Fax machine
- Linens & towels
-Iron & ironing board
-Hair Dryer
-Air Conditioner
-Microwave oven
-Subway directly in front of the apt
**Note: Only renting my spare bedroom (one bedroom), not my personal room as well. Thanks!
Interaction with Guests
I am always available for my guests, via telephone, text, or email for any issues they may have. I've hosted over 60 guests, and am still in communication with several of them.
Getting around
There is a subway station directly in front of my apartment, as well as 2 others within a short walk.
1 bedroom available for the listed price. 2nd bedroom not included. **No smoking allowed inside the apt please.** Studio room is for professional use, and not included. Please leave shoes at the door and report any damages or breakages asap. No pets allowed in the building. Please note that cleaning fees are to prepare the apt prior to guests arrival, so try to leave the apt in the same condition. Thanks!
I was in New York for New Year's Eve 2015, and stayed in Sun's apartment for 7 days. The apartment is spacious and really nice to live in. The is a living room with a big TV and a very comfortable couch.The bed in the bedroom is big enough for 2 persons and comfy. Looks like in the pictures, and it was tidy and clean.
As a location, the metro no. 3 is right in front. And you can go directly to Manhattan with it. We visited a lot, so this was a huge help. We didn't walked to much in the neighborhood, but I can say the street where the apartment is located looks good and feels safe.
The host, Sun, was fast responding to my questions, and gave us all the information we needed before coming there. Simple and fast, just the way I like to communicate.
I enjoyed Sun's apartment and I recommend it to others.
Sundiata is an excellent host. He was available when we needed him and provided prompt assistance. His home is roomy and very clean. The neighborhood is convenient to all of Brooklyn.
The place was at a good location. The subway is literally just outside the front door. And there are other stations nearby to use when commuting late at night and some lines aren't running. The apartment was nice however it was fairly chilly at night and there weren't enough covers available to stay warm. The apartment was clean with the exception of the blanket on the bed that had some stains on it. Sun was a great host and responded to my messages and questions promptly and was always willing to help to the best of his ability. He was flexible in accomodating our check in and check out times, which was very helpful as we were flying in to nyc. There are a lot of places to eat nearby and we checked out one of the spots he recommended and his suggestion was great.
Sundiata's apartment offers a lot of space. Room is in the back so very quiet. It's not the most modern apartment but everything you need is there. Communication with Sundiata was very easy, I could even use his hipster bike. The area is very interesting; the park and the museum of course but also all kinds of nice places pupping up everywhere and all that with a very cool and mixed crowd. I wish I could have stayed longer!
I was very pleases with my experience with Sun. He was easy to contact and addressed all my concerns. The apartment was as described and its located in a quiet neighborhood. It's located directly across from 3 train metro station.. I often travel to NY, & plan to stay again!!! Thanks Sun
Great neighborhood. The apartment was super close to subways. Very clean and spacious. Sundiata was kind enough to suggest some local food spots to hit up. Overall a good experience.
Sundiata took care of having those little but important essentials ready for us: supply of bathroom tissue, towels, a new, pkgd box of Dove bath soap, Kleenex, a comfortable and made bed, a table in bedroom for our use and needs etc. Interesting how some folks are more intuitive than others about those needs.
Our contacts and arrangements for arrival and departure were seamless and easy. The location could not be better for use of the subway, which we used extensively. We felt safe at all hours and shopping was close by.
I love traveling, I love sports, and I love music. I live in Brooklyn, but I'm on the go a lot, so renting out my apartment when I'm out of town works perfectly for me. I'm always game to meet new people as well, so this site attracted me.