when is all the bright places movie coming out

All the Bright Places is a 2015 young adult novel by Jennifer Niven. The work was first published on January 6, 2015 through Knopf Publishing Group and is Niven's first young adult work.[1] A film adaptation starring Elle Fanning is currently in pre-production and will release in 2018 or 2019.[2]

All the Bright Places

Theodore Finch and Violet Markey are two teenagers who want to escape from their small Indiana town. Violet is a popular girl who's secretly dealing with survivor's remorse, and Finch is boy obsessed with death, labelled a freak by other students. Fate brought the two together when both climbed the bell tower at school at the same time, planning to jump off the ledge. Finch is surprised that Violet is up there, because she’s a popular school cheerleader. But Violet has been dealing with the death of her sister, Eleanor, for which she feels responsible. Eleanor died in a car accident, and Violet hasn’t been in a car since. She quit the student council, then cheerleading, and now cares about absolutely nothing. On the ledge, Finch talks Violet down, and Violet returns the favor.

As for Finch, he is depressed and experiences near-constant thoughts of suicide. Morbidly, he writes out fun facts about other people’s suicides in his journal. He initiates a partnership between himself and Violet for a school project in which they will explore their home state of Indiana together. Later at home, Finch thinks about Violet, looking her up on Facebook, reading about her sister’s accident (which he had forgotten) and chatting online with her. Finch’s family does not understand his depression, so he feels isolated.

For their project, Finch and Violet travel around their state to see important or unusual sites. They see homemade roller coasters, the highest hill in Indiana, and more. The important thing doesn’t seem to be the sites themselves, but what the wandering begins to mean for both of them—especially Violet. The two begin a romantic relationship and fall in love. Eventually, Finch becomes a kind of mentor and counselor for Violet. He helps her begin to talk about her sister’s death, which her parents have not managed to do. He inspires her to travel in a car again and begin writing again, things she had avoided for nine months. As a result, Violet begins to heal.

Finch, however, is getting worse. He suffers from an undiagnosed bipolar disorder and therefore deals with very high highs and very low lows. His behavior demonstrates the characteristic manic periods of impulsive excitability as well as the lethargic, pointless mindset during the depressive periods. He is also beaten by his father and bullied at school. The one shining spot in his life is his blossoming relationship with Violet.

One afternoon, they have sex at Finch's house before going wandering again. They accidentally stay out until the next morning. Violetâ€™s parents are angry, forbidding their daughter from seeing Finch again.

This begins a downward spiral for Finch, who ends up getting expelled from school. Although he still sees Violet on occasion, Finch is easily able to hide his worsening depression from her. Violet doesnâ€™t realize the seriousness of the situation and wonders if Finch is losing interest in her.

One particularly bad night, Finch decides to end his life. He takes a handful of sleeping pills, but almost immediately regrets it. He goes to the emergency room and gets his stomach pumped. After that, he tries to get help through a suicide support group in a nearby town. There, he runs into Amanda, another girl he knows from school. She is concerned about Finchâ€™s suicide attempt and tells Violet about it. Violet is obviously worried and tries to help. Finch explodes, and the two get in a big fight.

Finch runs away from home, and only Violet seems to be looking for him. He sends her mysterious texts while he visits the remainder of the locations for their unfinished project, but Violet doesnâ€™t understand them until much later.

A month after he has disappeared, Finch sends an email to every single person he knows, saying goodbye. Violet, in a panic, figures out that he has drowned himself at the Blue Hole, one of their wandering sites. She goes there and discovers she is right, and she becomes distraught. Later, she manages to decode the texts Finch had sent her, and at the last location they were supposed to visit together, Finch wrote a song for her. This helps the healing process, and convinces Violet that Finchâ€™s suicide was not her fault. The book closes with Violet going swimming by herself in the Blue Hole, where she went swimming with Finch, bringing her a sense of peace.

The New York Times favorably compared All the Bright Places to Rainbow Rowell's Eleanor & Park and John Green's The Fault in Our Stars in that "Violet and Finch are the archetypal offering in contemporary young adult fiction: a pair of damaged, heart-tugging teenagers who are at once outcasts and isolated, trapped by the dissonant alchemy of their combined fates."[3] Entertainment Weekly and The Guardian both gave ultimately favorable reviews for the work,[4] with The Guardian writing "Nivenâ€™s first foray into Young Adult fiction lacks narrative tension but has plenty of emotional heft".[1]

The novel won the 2015 Goodreads Choice Award for Young Adult fiction.[5]


where did john scott from fox news go

Jonathan Arthur "Jon" Scott (born November 7, 1958) is an American television news anchor who hosts Fox Report Weekend on Fox News. Also, Scott is the lead anchor for any breaking news each weekend. Jon Scott longtime co-anchored Happening Now on Fox News until the network expanded America's Newsroom from 2 hours to 3, ending the show in June 2018 after 11 years of being on air. Scott was also the host of Fox News Watch, a program that in September 2013 was replaced by the similar format Media Buzz, which is hosted by Howard Kurtz.

Jon Scott

Jon Scott was born in Denver, Colorado, and graduated from Denver Lutheran High School. He studied journalism at the University of Missouriâ€“Columbia. He is also a licensed pilot, rated to fly single-engine airplanes,[1] and sometimes uses his expertise when covering aviation stories, such as the July 6, 2013, crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214.

Scott has four children. One son is in the army after graduating from the United States Military Academy in 2011. His older brother was an infantryman in the Vietnam War.[2]

Scott began his career as a correspondent for KOMU-TV (NBC) in Columbia, Missouri, a station owned and operated by Mizzou. Later, he was the weekday evening news anchor, weekend co-anchor, and reporter for WPLG-TV (ABC) in Miami. He also worked as a reporter and bureau chief for KUSA-TV (NBC) in Denver.[3] Beginning in 1988, Scott was a reporter for the syndicated news program Inside Edition.

From 1992 to 1995 Scott was a correspondent for Dateline NBC. He served as the host of A Current Affair and eventually joined the Fox News Channel in 1996. He is an avid watcher of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. During May 1 and May 2, 2011, he served as the studio anchor for Fox News coverage of the death of Osama bin Laden.

He received an Emmy for news writing for the NBC program Dateline.

Scott drew criticism in April 2017 after stating on Fox & Friends, "Just an aside to the Muslim community, if you don't want to be portrayed in a negative light, maybe don't burn people alive and set off bombs and things like that."[4][5] Critics charged this statement as a hasty generalization, a logical fallacy in which specifics are incorrectly generalized to a greater population.

In 2009, Scott also drew criticism from Howard Kurtz, then at CNN, for plagiarizing a Republican party press release regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Scott's content repeated the same typographical error, and did not attribute or acknowledge  its source. Scott acknowledged that he had re-used the press release and apologized for not correcting the error, but did not apologize for plagiarizing the content.[6][7]


who has the most division championships in nfl

From 1966–1969 prior to the merger in 1970, the NFL and the AFL agreed to hold an ultimate championship game, first called the AFL-NFL World Championship Game and later renamed the Super Bowl after 1968. Following the merger in 1970, the Super Bowl name continued as the game to determine the NFL champion. The most important factor of the merger was that all ten AFL teams joined the NFL in 1970 and every AFL championship game and record is included in NFL record books. The old NFL Championship Game became the NFC Championship Game, while the old AFL Championship Game became the AFC Championship Game. The NFL lists the old AFL/NFL championship games with "new" AFC/NFC championship games in its record books. The Green Bay Packers have won the most championships with 13 total (9 NFL championships pre-merger, four (4) Super Bowl championships). The Packers are also the only team to win three consecutive championships, having done so twice (1929–1931, 1965–1967). The Chicago Bears have won the second most overall championships with nine (9) (eight NFL championships, one Super Bowl championship).

History of the National Football League championship

Throughout its history, the National Football League (NFL) and other rival American football leagues have used several different formats to determine their league champions, including a period of inter-league matchups determining a true world champion.

Following its founding in 1920, the NFL first determined champions through end-of-season standings, but switched to a playoff system in 1933. The rival All-America Football Conference (AAFC) and American Football League (AFL) have since merged with the NFL (the only two AAFC teams that currently exist joined the NFL in 1950â€”the Cleveland Browns and the San Francisco 49ers), but AAFC championship games and records are not included in NFL record books.[1][2] The AFL began play in 1960 and, like its rival league, used a playoff system to determine its champion.

At its inception in 1920, the NFL had no playoff system or championship game. The champion was the team with the best record during the season, determined by winning percentage, with ties omitted. This sometimes led to very unusual results, as teams played anywhere from six to twenty league games in a season, and not all teams played the same number of games or against league talent.

As a result, in the league's first six seasons, four league titles were disputed and had to be resolved by the league's executive committee. In 1920, the Akron Pros went undefeated, tying three games, but two teams that had won more games (and who had both tied Akron), the Buffalo All-Americans and Decatur Staleys, petitioned the league for a share of the title; both teams' petitions were denied, and Akron was awarded the first (and only) Brunswick-Balke Collender Cup. According to modern tie-breaking rules, Akron and Buffalo would be co-champions.[3] Akron and Buffalo both awarded their team members with gold medallions.[4] The next was in the 1921 NFL season, between the same All-Americans and Staleys (with the latter now being based in Chicago). Buffalo had insisted that the last matchup between the two was an exhibition match not to be counted toward the standings; however, Chicago owner George Halas, as well as league management, insisted the game be counted in its standings (the league, at the time, did not recognize exhibition matches). The result was that although the two teams were effectively tied in the standings, the disputed game, having been played later, was given more weight and thus ended up being considered a de facto championship game. (Chicago also had one fewer tie game.) A nearly identical situation recurred in 1924, when Chicago tried the same tactic of a final game against the Cleveland Bulldogs, but the league ruled the opposite and declared the last game "post-season", giving the Bulldogs their third consecutive league title. The fourth and final disputed title was the 1925 NFL Championship controversy between the Pottsville Maroons and the Chicago Cardinals. The Maroons had been controversially suspended by the league at the end of the 1925 NFL season for an unauthorized game against a non-NFL team, allowing the Cardinals to throw together two fairly easy matches (one against a team consisting partly of high school players, also against league rules) to pass Pottsville in the standings. The league awarded the Cardinals the title, one of only two in the team's history, but the Cardinals declined the offer and the championship was vacated. Only in 1933, when the Bidwill family (which still owns the Cardinals to this day) bought the team, did the Cardinals reverse their decision and claim the title as their own, a decision that continues to be disputed, with the Bidwills opposing any change in the record and the two current Pennsylvania teams in favor. The league recognized the Bidwills' claim to the title and has taken no other action on the issue, although a self-made championship trophy from the Maroons sits in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Ironically, it was Pottsville's win in this game against the Notre Dame All-Stars that gave professional football legitimacy over college football.

Part of the controversy over these stems from the criteria the league used to determine its champion. The league used a variation of win percentage as its criterion, in which the number of wins is divided by the sum of wins and losses, and ties were excluded. The league began considering ties in its standings in 1972, counting them as half a win and half a loss, but this was not applied retroactively. Had it been, it would have changed several championships: the Buffalo All-Americans would have won a share of the 1920 title, and the Duluth Kelleys would have tied for first place in 1924. Had win-loss differential, the standard used in baseball, been used, the 1924 title would have gone to yet another team: the Frankford Yellow Jackets, who were four games ahead of eventual champion Cleveland in the standings by that measure; the Decatur Staleys would have similarly won the 1920 title by virtue of being one game ahead of Buffalo.

In the 1932 season, the Chicago Bears and the Portsmouth Spartans tied with the best regular-season winning percentages (although the Green Bay Packers had four more wins; had the current method of calculating winning percentage been used, the Packers' record would have won them the championship, ahead of the Spartans and the Bears). To determine the champion, the league (reportedly at the behest of George Preston Marshall) voted to hold the first official playoff game in Chicago at Wrigley Field. Because of severe winter conditions before the game, and fear of low turnout, the game was held indoors at Chicago Stadium which forced some temporary rule changes. The game was played on a modified 80-yard dirt field, and Chicago won 9â€“0, winning the league championship. A number of new rule changes were instituted, many inspired by the 1932 indoor championship game: the goal posts were moved forward to the goal line, every play started from between the hash marks, and forward passes could originate from anywhere behind the line of scrimmage (instead of five yards behind). The playoff game proved so popular that the league reorganized into two divisions for the 1933 season, with the winners advancing to a scheduled championship game.

Starting in 1933, the NFL decided its champion through a single postseason playoff game, called the NFL Championship Game. During this period, the league divided its teams into two groups, through 1949 as divisions and from 1950 onward as conferences.

Home field for the 1933 title game was determined by the won-lost percentage in use at the time; the Western Division champion Chicago Bears (10–2–1,.833), having a better record that the Eastern Division champion New York Giants (11–3–0,.786), won the right to host the first title playoff. Thereafter, from 1934 onward, the divisions alternated the site of the playoff, with the East/American hosting in even years and the West/National in odd years. If there was a tie for first place within the conference, a coin was tossed for an extra playoff game determined which team played in the NFL Championship Game. (This occurred nine times in these 34 seasons: 1941, 1943, 1947, 1950 (both conferences), 1952, 1957, 1958, and 1965.)

This last occurred during the 1965 season, when the Green Bay Packers and Baltimore Colts tied for first place in the Western Conference at 10–3–1. Green Bay had won both its games with Baltimore during the regular season, but because no tie-breaker system was in place, a conference playoff game was held on December 26 (what was scheduled to be an off-week between the end of the regular schedule and the NFL Championship Game). The Cleveland Browns, the Eastern champion at 11–3–0, did not play that week. The championship game was then held on its originally-scheduled date, January 2, 1966—the first time the NFL champion was crowned in January. Green Bay won both post-season games at home, beating the injury-riddled Colts (with third-string QB Tom Matte) in overtime by a controversial field goal, and taking the title 23–12 on a very muddy field (in what turned out to be Jim Brown's final NFL game).

For the 1960 through 1969 seasons, the NFL staged an additional postseason game called the "Playoff Bowl" (aka the "Bert Bell Benefit Bowl" or the "Runner-up Bowl"). These games matched the second-place teams from the two conferences; the CBS television network advertised them as "playoff games for third place in the NFL." All ten of these consolation games were played in the Orange Bowl in Miami in January, the week after the NFL championship game. The NFL now classifies these contests as exhibition games and does not include the records, participants, or results in the official league playoff statistics. The Playoff Bowl was discontinued after the AFL–NFL merger; the final edition was played in January 1970.

Starting with the 1934 game the winning team received the Ed Thorp Memorial Trophy. The trophy was named after Ed Thorp, a noted referee, rules expert, and sporting goods dealer. Thorp died in 1934 and a large, traveling trophy was made that year, passed along from champion to champion each season with each championship team's name inscribed on it. Teams would also receive a replica trophy. The trophy was last awarded to the Minnesota Vikings in 1969. The actual trophy, however, is now missing.[5]

Late in the 1940 season, NFL President Carl Storck announced that sudden death periods would be authorized for any playoff game needed to decide either division title. It was emphasized that this did not apply to the final championship game, which would crown co-champions in the event of a tie.[6] While a shared championship was deemed an acceptable solution, it must have become obvious that an elimination game leading to the championship must necessarily produce a winner. Commissioner Elmer Layden approved a similar arrangement for the 1941 season, with the same limitation. A coin toss would decide possession of the Ed Thorp trophy that accompanied the league title should the championship game result in a tie.[7]

Sudden death overtime was finally approved for the NFL championship game in 1946[8] and has remained in effect ever since.[9][10] The first playoff game requiring overtime was the 1958 NFL Championship Game.

The 1955 and 1960 NFL championship games were played on Monday afternoons, Christmas having fallen on a Sunday in those years.

For a list of AAFC Championship Games and winners, see List of AAFC champions

The All-America Football Conference was created in June 1944 to compete against the NFL. Even though the league outdrew the NFL in attendance, the continuing dominance of the Cleveland Browns led to the league's downfall.

For its first three seasons, the league was divided into two divisions: Eastern and Western (1946–1948). The league had no divisions in 1949. The site of the championship game during the first three was determined just as it was in the NFL—a divisional rotation. In 1949, the league held a four-team playoff, with home field based upon won-lost record.

The Browns, led by Quarterback Otto Graham, won all four of the league championship games.

A tiebreaker playoff game was played in 1948 to break a tie between the Baltimore Colts and Buffalo Bills (AAFC) for the Eastern Division championship. Semifinal playoff games were held in 1949, setting up a championship final between the first-place Browns and the second-place San Francisco 49ers.

In 1948, the Browns became the first professional football team to complete an entire season undefeated and untied â€” 24 years before the 1972 Miami Dolphins of the NFL would accomplish the task, but this feat is not recognized by NFL record books. Unlike the AFL statistics which are treated as NFL statistics, records of the AAFC and its teams (most of which folded) are not recognized. However, individual AAFC player statistics are included in Pro Football Hall of Fame records, and the defunct conference is memorialized in the Hall.

With its creation in 1960, the AFL determined its champion via a single playoff game between the winners of its two divisions, the Eastern and Western. The AFL Championship games featured classics such as the 1962 double-overtime championship game between the Dallas Texans and the defending champion Houston Oilers. At the time it was the longest professional football championship game ever played. Also in 1963, an Eastern Division playoff was needed to determine the division winner between the Boston Patriots and Buffalo Bills.

In 1966, the success of the rival AFL, the spectre of the NFL's losing more stars to the AFL, and concern over a costly "bidding war" for players precipitated by the NFL's Giants' signing of Pete Gogolak, who was under contract to the AFL's Buffalo Bills, led the two leagues to discuss a merger. Pivotal to this was approval by Congress of a law (PL 89-800) that would waive jeopardy to anti-trust statutes for the merged leagues. The major point of the testimony given by the leagues to obtain the law was that if the merger were permitted, "Professional football operations will be preserved in the 23 cities and 25 stadiums where such operations are presently being conducted." The merger was announced on June 8, 1966, and became fully effective in 1970.

After expanding to enfranchise the New Orleans Saints in 1967, the NFL split its 16 teams into two conferences with two divisions each: the Capitol and Century Divisions in the Eastern Conference, and the Coastal and Central Divisions in the Western Conference. The playoff format was expanded from a single championship game to a four-team tournament, with the four divisional champions participating. The two division winners in each conference met in the "Conference Championships", with the winners advancing to the NFL Championship Game. Again, the home team for each playoff game was determined by a yearly divisional or conference rotation.

The AFL on the other hand, raised its total franchise number to ten with the Miami Dolphins joining the Eastern Division in 1966 and the Cincinnati Bengals joining the Western Division in 1968. The league until 1969 kept using the one-game-playoff format except when division tie-breakers were needed. In its final season, 1969, the AFL adopted a four-team playoff to determine its champion.

Following the NFL and AFL Championship Games for the 1966 through 1969 seasons, the NFL champion played the AFL champion in Super Bowls I through IV, the only true inter-league championship games in the history of professional football. The first two of these games were known as the AFL-NFL Championship Game, as the title Super Bowl was not chosen until 1968. Thus the third AFL-NFL matchup was dubbed "Super Bowl III" and the first two matches were retronamed as Super Bowls I and II. The first two games were convincingly won by the NFL's Packers, the last two by the AFL's New York Jets and Kansas City Chiefs, leaving the leagues even at 2-2 in "Championship" competition when they subsequently merged.

All participants in those four AFL-NFL championship games were either AFL champions or NFL champions in the record books, no matter the outcome of the Super Bowl. Three of the four league champions who lost one of the first four Super Bowls would eventually win at least one. The exception is the Minnesota Vikings which went to three others and lost all of them.

After the 1969 season and Super Bowl IV, the AFL and NFL fully merged and underwent a re-alignment for the 1970 season. Three of the pre-merger NFL teams were transferred to the AFC (Browns, Colts, and Steelers) to level the conferences (AFC and NFC) at 13 teams each; each conference split into three divisions.

With only six division winners in the newly merged league, the NFL designed an eight-team playoff tournament, with four clubs from each conference qualifying. Along with the three division winners in each conference, two wild card teams (one from each conference), the second-place finishers with the best records in each conference, were added to the tournament. The first round was named the "Divisional Playoffs", the winners advancing to the "Conference Championships" (AFC & NFC). Two weeks later, the AFC and NFC champions met in the Super Bowl, now the league's championship game. Thus, Super Bowl V in January 1971 was the first Super Bowl played for the NFL title.

With the introduction of the wild card, a rule was instituted to prohibit two teams from the same division (champion and wild card) from meeting in the first-round (Divisional Playoffs). This rule would remain in effect through the 1989 season. More significantly, the home teams in the playoffs were still decided by a yearly divisional rotation, not on regular-season records (excluding the wild-card teams, who would always play on the road). This lack of "home-field advantage" was most evident in the 1972 playoffs, when the undefeated Miami Dolphins played the AFC Championship Game at Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh against the Steelers, who were undefeated at home during the regular season, but had three losses on the road.

Beginning in 1972, tie games were included in the computing of each team's winning percentage. Each tie was then counted as half of a win and half of a loss, rather than being omitted from the computation. Previously, the NFL disregarded any tie games played when they computed the standings, basing it on winning percentage with any ties thrown out and ignored. Overtime games were not played during the regular season until 1974.

In 1975, the league modified its 1970 playoff format by instituting a seeding system. The surviving clubs with the higher seeds were made the home teams for each playoff round. The three division champions in each conference were seeded first through third based on their regular-season records, with the wild-card team in each conference as the fourth seed.

Teams that earned the top seed became known as clinching "home-field advantage" throughout the playoffs, since they played all of their playoff games at their home stadium (except for the Super Bowl, played at a neutral site).

However, the league continued to prohibit meetings between teams from the same division in the Divisional Playoffs. Thus, there would be times when the pairing in that round would pit the first seed versus the third, and the second versus the fourth.

The league expanded the playoffs to 10 teams in 1978, adding a second wild-card team (a fifth seed) from each conference. The two wild-card teams from each conference (the fourth and fifth seeds) played each other in the first round, called the "Wild Card Playoffs." The division winners (the first three seeds) would then receive a bye to automatically advance to the Divisional Playoffs, which became the second round of the playoffs. In the divisional round, much like the 1970 playoff format, teams from the same division were still prohibited from playing each other, regardless of seeding. Under the 1978 format, teams from the same division could meet only in the wild-card round or the conference championship. Thus, as before, a divisional champion could only play a divisional foe in the conference championship game.

A players' strike shortened the 1982 season to nine games. The league used a special 16-team playoff tournament for that year. The top eight teams from each conference qualified (ignoring the divisional racesâ€”there were no division standings, and in some cases 2 teams from the same division did not play each other at all that season). The playoffs reverted to the 1978 format in the following year.

In 1990, the NFL expanded the playoffs to twelve teams by adding a third wild-card team (a sixth seed) from each conference. The restrictions on intra-division playoff games during the Divisional Playoffs were removed. However, only the top two division winners in each conference (the 1 and 2 seeds) received byes and automatically advanced to the Divisional Playoffs as host teams. The 3 seed, the division winner with the worst regular season record in each conference, would then host the 6 seed in the Wild Card Playoffs.

In 2002, the NFL realigned into eight divisions, four per conference, to accommodate a 32nd team, the Houston Texans. The playoffs remained a 12-team tournament, with four division winners (the 1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds) and two wild cards (the 5 and 6 seeds) from each conference advancing to the playoffs. Again, only the top two division winners in each conference would automatically advance to the Divisional Playoffs, while everybody else had to play in the Wild Card round. Furthermore, the league still maintains the names "Wild Card Playoffs", "Divisional Playoffs", and "Conference Championships" for the first, second, and third rounds of the playoffs, respectively.

A proposal to expand the playoffs to 14 teams by adding a third wild card team (a seventh seed) from each conference, and only giving the 1 seeds the bye in the first round, was tabled by the league owners in 2013.[11]

Below is a list of professional football champions per season as recognized by the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

For the first thirteen seasons, the APFA/NFL did not hold a championship game, except in 1932, when a playoff game was held. Played indoors on a reduced-size field, it was the precursor to the championship game (though the losing team finished in third place in the final standings). For the 51 seasons from 1921â€“1971, the NFL did not officially include tie games in the winning percentage, they were omitted from the calculation.

Click on column heading to sort by teams, venue or attendance.

(The NFL was joined by the American Football League (AFL) from 1960 to 1969 with the AFL merging with the NFL in 1970. The number in the parentheses is the total number of NFL championships only.)

In 1966, the NFL and AFL agreed to merge and play an ultimate championship game between the two leagues entitled NFL–AFL World Championship game. The merger however did not formally take place until 1970; because of this the NFL–AFL championship games unofficially became an additional qualifying round in the playoffs as there was still one more game to play in the season for the winner of the AFL–NFL championship games. Officially these games were still the main championships of both leagues. The NFL–AFL championship game eventually became known as the Super Bowl. Inclusion of these eight AFL–NFL championship games is problematical in overall listing of most world championships/league championships, therefore they are generally not included in the overall records.[14][15][16][17][18][19]

After the merger the AFL and NFL championship games were replaced/retooled as/with AFC Championship Game and NFC Championship Game.

Because these AFLâ€“NFL championships are generally not included in overall league championships lists, there are no number given in parentheses counting them.

(The creation of Super Bowl was the first sign of AFLâ€“NFL merger. The first four Super Bowls served as inter-league championship games because of these inter-league championship games this created some confusion amongst football fans that there was a special World Championship series in the pre-merger era. After the merger, the Super Bowl became the NFL's championship game.

The number in the parentheses is the total number of Super Bowl championships and the bolded number in parentheses is the total number of NFL championships.)

Does not include the AFL or NFL championships won during the same seasons as the AFL–NFL Super Bowl championships before the 1970 AFL–NFL merger. Does not include AFL titles won from 1960–1965 or AAFC titles won from 1946–1949.

Italics indicate a franchise that has folded.

(*) Because the NFL did not count tied games in league standings until 1972 (when ties were added to past standings retroactively), these seasons were considered to be "perfect" at the time they finished. Because the rules existing at the times of those championships did not give the teams involved any incentive to avoid tie games in order to maintain a "perfect" season, the accuracy of calling these seasons "imperfect" is still disputed.


is bpi family savings bank different from bpi

In 1982, BPI became a universal bank, and in 2000, became the Philippines' first bank assurance firm, being the first Philippine bank to offer insurance services after acquiring the insurance companies of the Ayala Corporation, the parent company of the Ayala Corporation. Within that year, BPI also founded the BPI Direct Savings Bank, an Internet bank, which launched BPI into 21st century banking.

Bank of the Philippine Islands

Bank of the Philippine Islands (Filipino: Bangko ng Kapuluang Pilipinas, Spanish: Banco de las Islas Filipinas, commonly known as BPI; PSE: BPI) is the oldest bank in the Philippines still in operation. It is the country's third largest bank in terms of assets, the country's second largest bank in terms of market capitalization,[2][better source needed][3] and the country's most profitable bank. It is owned by the Ayala Corporation, the largest conglomerate in the Philippines, and is based in Makati's Central Business District, on the corner of Ayala Avenue and Paseo de Roxas. As of 2014, it was listed by Forbes as the Philippines' largest bank in terms of market value and overall ranking.[4]

BPI pioneered rural banking in the Philippines, as its countryside banking operations preceded that of many other banks' rural banking operations by many years. Today, it maintains a large rural branch network, with some branches dating back to the Spanish or American colonial periods. Its network of 831 branches is by far the largest branch network of any bank in the Philippines.

The bank has received several awards from various financial magazines, such as Euromoney, the Far Eastern Economic Review, The Banker, Finance Asia, and Global Finance. Its most recent award was from Asiamoney. In April 2010, it was named the Philippines' Strongest Bank. In 2009, the bank won ten awards as the Best Domestic Bank; Best Local Cash Management Bank in the Philippines as voted by Small-Sized Corporations; Best Local Cash Management Bank in the Philippines as voted by Medium-Sized Corporations; Best Local Cash Management Bank in the Philippines as voted by Large-Sized Corporations; Best Domestic Provider of FX Services in the Philippines as voted by Corporates; Best Domestic FX Provider of FX Prime Broking Services in the Philippines as voted by Corporates; and Best Domestic FX Provider of Single-Bank Electronic Trading Platform.

BPI was established on August 1, 1851 as the "El Banco Español Filipino de Isabel II" (lit. Spanish-Filipino Bank of Isabel II), named after the queen of Spain, Isabella II, the daughter of King Ferdinand VII. It was the second Philippine bank during the Spanish era after a bank was founded by Francisco Rodriguez, a Filipino Quaker based in London, in 1830.

The royal decree establishing the Banco EspaÃ±ol-Filipino also gave it the power to print Philippine currency, the first time the Philippine peso was printed in the country; before 1851, a multitude of currencies were used, most notably the Mexican peso. They were originally called Philippine peso fuerte (PF), or "strong pesos". First printed on May 1, 1852, they were reedemable at face value for gold or silver Mexican coins. The first deposit with the bank was also done on that day by a man named Fulgencio Barrera. Three days later, a Chinese man named Tadian became the first borrowing client of the bank after the bank discounted to him a promissory note amounting to ten thousand pesos fuertes.

On September 3, 1869, following a revolution which overthrew Isabella II, the name was changed to Banco EspaÃ±ol-Filipino. In January 1892, the bank moved from the Royal Custom House in Intramuros to the new business district of Binondo after it found out that Intramuros was becoming "economically inactive". It moved to 4 Plaza Cervantes, which was at that time a prime property owned by the Dominican friars.

The first branch of Banco EspaÃ±ol-Filipino outside Manila was opened in Iloilo City on March 15, 1897. However, the idea to set up branches outside Manila was formulated as far back as the 1850s, with the first branch planned to be opened in Bacolor, the capital of Pampanga at the time. However, by then, Iloilo and other provinces in Panay had become more productive than Pampanga in the sugar industry, hence the move to open the first branch in Iloilo.

Following the cession of the Philippines to the United States following the signing of the 1898 Treaty of Paris, the bank changed from a Spanish institution to a Philippine one. On January 1, 1912, a decision by the shareholders of Banco EspaÃ±ol-Filipino changed the name to the present Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) or Banco de las Islas Filipinas in Spanish. The basis for the name change was Republic Act No. 1790, passed on October 12, 1907, which permitted the bank to change its name.  The bank was also privatized during the American colonial period.

Following World War II, BPI was actively involved in the post-war reconstruction of the Philippines. In 1949, with the establishment of the Central Bank of the Philippines (now the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas), BPI lost the right to issue Philippine pesos, a right it had since the Spanish colonial era and during the American colonial period.

In December 31, 1969, Ayala Corporation, which had been affiliated with BPI since its establishment in 1851, became the dominant shareholder of BPI, and eventually made BPI into the flagship of Ayala's financial entities.[5]

Starting in the 1970s, BPI has been involved with many mergers and acquisitions. The first merger occurred in 1974 with BPI's acquisition of the People's Bank and Trust Company. Major notable acquisitions include Commercial Bank and Trust Company in 1981, CityTrust Banking Corporation in 1996 and Far East Bank and Trust Company in 2000.

On February 14, 1986, BPI established its own interbank network, Expressnet.

In October 2015, BPI launched the "Make the Best Things Happen" campaign, which empowers Filipinos to make the best of their life happen by providing innovative and accessible financial solutions.[6]

On the morning of June 7, 2017, a data processing glitch affected BPI clients making their account balances incorrect.[7] Some clients had either a negative balance[8] or an increased amount of money in their account.[9] The error was fixed in the evening,[10] but the next day, June 8, BPI suspended electronic services because incorrect balances occurred again.[11] The services were restored once more on the evening of the same day upon fixing the defect.[12]

BPI is divided into the following subsidiaries and affiliates:

BPI Direct Savings Bank was a wholly owned subsidiary of BPI and was the first internet-based bank in the country, allowing expatriate Filipinos and overseas workers in countries like Bahrain or Hong Kong to access and manage their bank accounts at any time.

BPI Direct Savings Bank was incorporated and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 26, 1986, primarily as a subsidiary meant to engage in the general business of savings and mortgage banking.

In 2000, BPI Direct underwent a major image change as it became the first Philippine bank designed around the telephone and online banking channels.  It wanted to provide its clients with a way to have access to their accounts 24/7, as well as to provide the convenience of traditional banking services, such as opening a savings account. Two years later, BPI Direct realigned its business strategy towards the Overseas Filipino community, but without alienating its existing clientele.

BPI Direct merged with BPI Globe BanKo, another thrift bank unit of BPI on December 2016 to form BPI Direct BanKO Inc. with a mission to promote financial inclusion by providing access to easy, convenient and affordable loan products to fund the operations or grow the businesses of self-employed microentrepreneurs (SEMEs).

While Philippine Central Depository is listed a major shareholder, it is more of a trustee-nominee for all shares lodged in the PCD system rather than a single owner/shareholder.

¹ Includes DBS Bank
² Voting powers are under the authority of the Archbishop of Manila.

BPI's main competitors are BDO and Metrobank. Other competitors include Land Bank of the Philippines, Philippine National Bank, RCBC, DBP, East West Unibank, and Citibank Philippines.

BPI does not compete with its two banking partners: BPI Family Savings Bank and BPI Direct Savings Bank. Instead, they offer different levels of services based on the needs of potential BPI clients.


when do you pay congestion charges in london

The London congestion charge is a fee charged on most motor vehicles operating within the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ)[1] in Central London between 07:00 and 18:00 Mondays to Fridays.[2] It is not charged on weekends, public holidays or between Christmas Day and New Year's Day (inclusive).[3] The charge was introduced on 17 February 2003. As of 2017[update], the London charge zone remains as 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 high traffic flow in the central area and raise investment funds for London's transport system.

London congestion charge

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. Since 1 July 2013 the Greener Vehicle Discount was replaced by the Ultra Low Emission Discount (ULED), which 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 vehicle that emits 75g/km or less of CO2 and meets the Euro 5 emission standards for air quality. The ULED scheme was designed to curb the growing number of diesel vehicles on London's roads, which since 24 June 2016 pay the full congestion charge.[4][5] A new toxicity charge, known as T-charge will be introduced from 23 October 2017 for vehicles that do not meet Euro 4 standards. These older polluting vehicles will pay an extra £10 charge on top of the congestion charge to drive within the Congestion Charge Zone.[6][7][8]

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 up to the end of 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.

In 2013, ten years after its implementation in 2003, 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. TfL explains that the historic decline in traffic speeds is most likely due to interventions that have reduced the effective capacity of the road network 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.[9]

The current congestion charge zone covers the area within the London Inner Ring Road 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.[10] Although primarily a commercial area, there are also 136,000 residents, out of a total Greater London population of almost 9,000,000. There is little heavy industry within the zone.

Starting at the northernmost point and moving clockwise, the major roads defining the boundary are 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.[11]

The Western Extension, introduced in February 2007 and removed on 4 January 2011, included areas surrounded by the following roads starting from the north-westernmost point: Scrubs Lane, Harrow Road, Westway (part of the A40), Park Lane, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Grosvenor Road, Chelsea Embankment, Earl's Court Road and part of the West Cross Route (A3320), but the Westway itself was not part of the zone.[12]

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 was expected to generate an estimated £84 million of additional revenue by the end of 2017/18. The consultation process ran from January 2014 to March 2014. According to TfL the objective of the increase was to recoup inflation over the past three years and ensure the charge remains an effective deterrent to making unnecessary journeys in central London.[13]

As of 16 June 2014 the following charges apply:[15]

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.[16] 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.[17] From 20 May 2013 failure to pay results in the issuance of a Penalty Charge Notice for £130, reduced to £65 if paid within 14 days, but increased to £195 if unpaid after 28 days.[18]

Refunds are available to people who pay monthly or annually 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.[19] Residents living within or very close to the zone are eligible for a 90% discount which is charged via CC Autopay.[20]

The system gives 100% discounts to registered cars which emit 75g/km or less of carbon dioxide and meet the Euro 5 emission standard, vehicles with 9 or more seats, motor-tricycles, two-wheeled motorbikes (and sidecars), mopeds, accredited breakdown companies and roadside recovery vehicles.[20] 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.[21] As of February 2016[update], approved PHEVs include all extended-range vehicles such as the BMW i3 REx, and plug-in hybrids such as the Audi A3 Sportback e-tron, BMW i8, Mitsubishi Outlander P-HEV (passenger and van variants), Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid, and Volkswagen Golf GTE.[22]

In November 2012 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.[23][24] 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 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 Â£10.[4][25][26][27] The sunset period ended on 24 June 2016.[5]

A new toxicity charge, known as T-charge will be introduced from 23 October 2017. Older and more polluting cars and vans that do not meet Euro 4 standards will have to pay an extra Â£10 charge on top of the congestion charge to drive in central London, within the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ). The charge typically applies to diesel and petrol vehicles registered before 2006, and the levy is expected to affect up to 10,000 vehicles. The public consultation on the T-charge proposals began in July 2016.[6][7]

London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced the introduction of the scheme on 17 February 2017 after London achieved record air pollution levels in January 2017, and the city was put on very high pollution alert for the first time ever, as cold and stationary weather failed to clear toxic pollutants emitted mainly by diesel vehicles.[8] The Mayor also announced plans to expand the London ultra low emission zone (ULEZ) beyond Central London a year earlier than planned in 2019. Motor vehicles that do not meet the emissions criteria would be charged from £12.50 upwards a day to enter central London. Drivers would not pay both the ULEZ and the new £10 T-charge, and the latter will not apply to taxis.[6][7][8]

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.[28] The congestion charge was suspended on 7 and 8 July 2005 in response to the terrorist attacks on London Transport.[29] The congestion charge was also suspended on 2 February 2009, in response to an extreme weather event (heavy snow fall) in the London area.[30]

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.[31][32]

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.[33]

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.[citation needed]

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, including police vehicle ANPR camera alerts.[34][35]

Following pressure from the Mayor of London,[36] 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 United States, who collectively owed £23 million as of November 2008[update].[37] 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.[37]

In May 2011 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 United States subsequently claimed diplomatic immunity.[38] A TfL spokesperson noted that U.S. embassies do pay tolls in Oslo and Singapore.[39] 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 owes the most with £8.78 million, followed by Japan at £6.0 million, Russia with £5.22 million and Nigeria with £4.92 million.[40]

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.[41][42][43] It recommended a method of "car user restraint" by a variable system of charging for road usage â€“ 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.[44] 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[45] 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.[46] The new administration, to which Ken Livingstone had just been elected for the first time,[47] studied a congestion scheme similar to the one which was eventually adopted the following year.[48]

In 1995, the London Congestion Research Programme concluded that the city's economy would benefit from a congestion charge scheme,[49] the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 required local authorities to study and reduce traffic volumes[50] and any future London mayors were given the power to introduce "Road user charging" by the Greater London Authority Act 1999.[51] In his manifesto for the 2000 London Mayoral election, Ken Livingstone had proposed to introduce a Â£5 charge for vehicles entering central London.[52]

Following his victory, the Mayor made a draft order and requested a report from TfL, which summarised the reasons for introducing the scheme.[53] 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.[53] 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.[53] It was stated that improved traffic flows would make London more attractive to business investment.[53] Substantial net revenues were anticipated, which were to be invested in London's transport system.[53] It also states that 90% of those who responded to a consultation on the scheme, viewed reducing traffic congestion in central London as 'important'.[53]

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.[54] The High Court rejected the claim.[55] 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.[56]

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"[57] and a "bloody day".[58]

On introduction, the scheme was the largest ever undertaken by a capital city.[59]

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.[10]

On the launch date of the original zone, an extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 8,000) were introduced.[60] Bus and London Underground managers reported that buses and tubes were little, if at all, busier than normal.[61]

Originally, Capita Group maintained the system under a five-year contract worth around Â£230m.[62] 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.[63] Capita employed sub-contractors including India-based Mastek, who were responsible for much of the Information Technology infrastructure.[64] 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.[65]

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.[61] 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.[66] 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.[61]

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%.[67]

The AA Motoring Trust suggested that changes to the timing of traffic lights and the end of major road works had also impacted congestion.[68]

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.[69] However the effect on business differs significantly 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.[70] 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%.[71] To partly compensate for the loss of revenue they extended opening hours and introduced regular Sunday opening for the first time.[72] However London First's own report indicated that business was broadly supportive.[73] Subsequently, another report stated that there had been a reduction in some employment in the charging zone.[74] TfL criticised the reports as unrepresentative and that its own statistics reported no effect on business.[74]

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.[75]

The London Assembly Budget Committee 2003 report on the company criticised the contract with Capita as not providing value for money.[76] 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.[77]

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.[78][79] The report also stated that around 100,000 penalty fines were issued each month, of which about 2,000 were contested.[78] 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.[80]

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.[81] 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.[82]

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.[83] The proposed extension was to cover around 230,000 residents, compared with the 150,000 in the original zone.[84]

Steven Norris, the Conservative Party candidate for mayor in 2004, has been a fierce critic of the charge, branding it the 'Kengestion' charge (a play on words for both Kensington and Ken Livingstone). 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.[85] 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."[86]

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.[87]

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,[88] 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.[89] Protests continued against the extension,[90] with residents arguing that only 5% of the road space in the selected area was congested.[91] Following on in May 2005 a further TFL 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".[92][93]

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.[94]

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."[95] 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".[96][97] The rise to £8 was announced formally on 1 April 2005, along with discounts for drivers buying month or year-long tickets.[98][99] On 10 May 2006, in a live TV debate, Livingstone supported a rise in the charge to £10 by 2008.[100]

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.[101] 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.[102] 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.[103] The Fifth Annual Review continued to show the central congestion zone outperforming the wider London economy.[32]

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.[104]

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.[105]

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.[106]

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.[107][108] 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.[109] Several roads were also to be left charge-free between the original zone and the extension.[110][111]

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.[112]

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.[113][114]

Shortly before it was introduced, The Centre for Economics and Business Research predicted that the West London extension would cause 6,000 job losses.[115]

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.[116]

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.[117]

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.[118]

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.[69]

In 2007 a green motoring website alleged to TfL that owners of luxury cars were registering their vehicles as minicabs 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.[119]

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.[120] 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".[121]

In 2006 mayor Ken Livingstone proposed variable charges based on CO2 emission rate Vehicle Excise Duty bands.[122] Charges would be reduced or eliminated for Band A vehicles, but would be increase it to up to Â£25 a day for the most polluting Band G vehicles.[123] Consultation on these proposals began in August 2007[124] and ended on 19 October 2007.[125] 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.[126][127] The main change would be the introduction of two new fees:

According to a report commissioned by Land Rover, the scheme would increase traffic delays and air pollution.[125][128] Porsche announced they intended to request a judicial review,[129] claiming that the new charges were disproportionate and would make no "meaningful difference" to the environment.[130] 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."[131]

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 5,000 tonnes of CO2 by 2009. They claimed that King's College agreed with these results and were making revisions to their report.[132][133]

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.[134] Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate, suggested exempting delivery vehicles from the charge.[135][136] Johnson was elected and immediately announced that the emissions based charges would not be implemented.[137]

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.[117] 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.[117]

In the lead-up to the 2012 London mayoral election 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 Livingstone said he would freeze the congestion charge for 4 years.[142] The election was won by 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.

A year before the congestion zone, TfL set up automatic traffic counters and augmented them with regular classified traffic counts at key locations, to monitor flows.[32]

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.[32] 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.[32] 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.[32] 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.[66]

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.[69] 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.[32]

After ten years since the scheme introduction in February 2013, TfL reports a 10% reduction in traffic levels from baseline conditions.[13] 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.[9]

The charge operates for under one third of the hours in a year and covers around two-thirds of the central London traffic.[32] In total 8% of traffic kilometres are affected by the scheme.[32] 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.[32]

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. TfL explains that the historic decline in traffic speeds is most likely due to interventions that have reduced the effective capacity of the road network 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.[9]

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.[53]

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.[103]

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.[32][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.[32]

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]

On the launch date of the original zone, an extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 8,000) were introduced.[60] 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.[32]

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]

TfL have estimated 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.[32]

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.[103]

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.[113][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]

TfL's annual report for 2014–15 shows that revenues from the congestion charge were £257.4m over the financial year, representing 8.5% of TfL's annual revenues. Nearly one-third of this was spent on the cost of running the toll system, at £80.7 million. Once other charges were deducted, the congestion charge brought in an annual operating net income of £172.5m for TfL.[156] This income compares with TfL's total revenue that year from bus and tube fares of £3.498 billion.[156]

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.[66]

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]

From the scheme's introduction in 2003 until 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]