ULEZ comes to Heathrow on 29th August – you may need to pay £12.50 to drive to the airport

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Tony1 says:

  24 Aug24 August 06:14

  Bit sneaky that

• David Cohen says:

  24 Aug24 August 06:49

  Fully support ULEZ, but the DfT needs to pull its finger out for the western spur to GWML for Heathrow, and the ever delayed AirTrack for southern access to the Waterloo lines. There need to be real public transport alternatives early in the morning and late at night for people to use their cars less.

  • Rich says:

    24 Aug24 August 07:11

    I don’t. The UK Gov’t has already set out an aggressive but laudable plan to step up the switch to electric from 2030 and car manufacturers are adapting accordingly.

    This is simply a blatant tax grab which is hurting those least able to afford it the hardest.

    • His Holyness says:

      24 Aug24 August 07:27

      Air quality and carbons are different things.
      There’s nothing low carbon about scrapping perfectly serviceable petrol cars for new electric vehicles.
      It’s junk science.

    • numpty says:

      24 Aug24 August 08:00

      Given that by 2030 ICE vehicle sales in UK will be banned then you do have to wonder if ULEZ zones are required, or have much effect. Car manufacturers are already cutting back on manufacture and sale of ICE vehicles in preparation and also to meet EU requirements on average emissions from the engines on sale (compare the engines for the same models on sale in the UK v USA).

      But over the next few years councils will declare their ULEZs a success as less ICE vehicles come into the zones regardless of the real reasons. Prematurely ending the life of a vehicle to meet ULEZ doesn’t make much sense from a carbon point of view (early end of life and subsequent scrapping processing, carbon cost of a new EV with its chemical rich battery) and would cause an increase in car sales.

      When discussing carbon, and carbon emissions, its actually ‘carbon equivalent (CO2e)’, where various different emissions/gases are converted into one number/measurement which is reported as carbon equivalent.

    • Ken says:

      24 Aug24 August 08:46

      Simply incredible that people don’t understand the broader move to reducing CO2 emissions with trying to reduce particulate emissions, which have a fairly clear impact on (usually) the health of the poorest.
      All the while peddling misinformation about how their massive car is exempt, paying the ULEZ on classic cars, or thinking the ban on sale of new ICE cars in 2030 will immediately solve a pollution problem.

      • Andy says:

        24 Aug24 August 09:01

        Yup, and as for ULEZ being a ‘tax on the poor’ in some London borough less than 30% of people own cars

        • sayling says:

          24 Aug24 August 09:42

          Are you suggesting carless Rob is poor?

      • Rich says:

        25 Aug25 August 00:00

        EV = zero emissions of CO2 and particulates at the point of use = good for the health of Londoners whatever their income or wealth. Who said the ban from 2030 will immediately solve anything? Certainly not me.

  • Travel Strong says:

    24 Aug24 August 08:01

    You aren’t supporting an environmental cause by fully supporting ULEZ. My 6.2l V8 is exempt, a new car is exempt regardless of environmental impact (on running or manufacture). Seems like it is an arbitrary tax for which those with the least disposable income will be disproportionately targeted.

    • Londonsteve says:

      26 Aug26 August 16:39

      Not for long. The inherent problem with ULEZ is the rapidly declining universe of vehicles that are chargeable. They’ll be coming from all vehicles in the highest post-2006 road tax bracket in no time as these are by definition also the most polluting. Why should a new Lamborghini or Range Rover be exempt if the purpose of the charge is to clean up London’s air? None at all. It also serves as a form of wealth tax; if someone can afford to drive a highly polluting (and therefore expensive to buy and thirsty) car on a regular basis, they can also afford a £12.50 daily charge that goes towards improving London’s public transport network.

  • Ryan says:

    24 Aug24 August 10:51

    How anyone can be supportive of ULEZ is beyond me. That and LTN are a slippery slope for freedom

    • George K says:

      24 Aug24 August 11:02

      How anyone can NOT be supportive of ULEZ is beyond me.

      It’s impressive that some people are convinced that needing to spend (on average, according to the AA) nearly £400 per month (for life) on a vehicle to meet their basic needs is ‘freedom’, but being able to walk around and rely on public transport is ‘Orwellian’.

      • Hak says:

        24 Aug24 August 11:56

        The problem with averages is that there will be huge variations within this average.

        • George K says:

          24 Aug24 August 15:45

          Of course. But I have yet to come across a properly put together argument against ULEZ that does not attempt to deflect from the actual issue of pollution by, for example, labelling the scheme as a cash grab by the bankrupt TfL, saying that this is the worst power-hungry mayor in history, question why aren’t boats/planes/buses/tubes ULEZ compliant, claim that personal freedoms are being curtailed, spout nonsense about a global conspiracy and 15-minute cities and/or pay-per-mile even for walking, etc.

          I’ve got all the time in the world for those with arguments not tied to any of the above.

  • George K says:

    24 Aug24 August 10:59

    These are my thoughts, exactly. While there are winners and losers in terms of easily accessing LHR from surrounding areas, there is no early morning public transport provision yet for most.

    I spent most of 2019 taking pre 7am flights out on an almost weekly basis. They all involved a taxi from (deep) south London.

    There has been one recent, positive, change though. The newly rebranded Superloop bus service SL7 has now doubled in frequency and actually starts a bit earlier. It still fails to get you there in time for the 6am flights, but those on the 7am services now have a chance.

  • Karl says:

    24 Aug24 August 19:19

    It Isn’t about finding or providing alternatives, it’s about taxing people off the road and out of the skies for spurious reasons.

• Nate1309 says:

  24 Aug24 August 06:50

  Don’t forget is you are doing meet and greet parking you will need to know what days your car is moved out/in to the airport and pay for those days too.

  • Qrfan says:

    24 Aug24 August 06:58

    Not really. Just setup auto pay.

    • Charlie Whiskey says:

      24 Aug24 August 17:07

      But surely the car may be moved out of/back into ULEZ by the parking company on the same day as the customer flies out and back in – and presumably has the responsibility to pay the charge? It is, after all, a DAILY charge.

• PaulC says:

  24 Aug24 August 06:59

  The trouble is some older V5 documents don’t state the vehicles Euro status and the default stand by CAZ and I imagine ULEZ is to hand out the fine. Most people don’t understand if their vehicle is or isn’t compliant so they will more than likely just pay the fee.

  To have your V5 document updated and your registration removed from the “naughty list” you have to apply to your manufacture for a Certificate of Conformity and provide this to CAZ or ULEZ along with your V5 to remove the fee, update your V5. A lot of paperwork for the manufacturers and I don’t think it will be long before they start charging for it once more and more people request it.

• Manya says:

  24 Aug24 August 07:32

  ‘If you live in Central London your car will already be ULEZ compliant’ – I’m not sure if that’s correct. Was it meant to say that if you live in Central London then you will already be within a ULEZ region and are already having to comply with ULEZ?

  • Rob says:

    24 Aug24 August 07:49

    I doubt anyone is paying £12.50 per day!

    • Arnie says:

      24 Aug24 August 08:02

      I actually know quite a few people who are paying the £12.50 a day. Several of my friends are small traders / carpenters and decorators and they pay it when they drive their vans and charge it to the client. I have a couple of friends driving classic cars who pay it because they want to keep their classics and as they dont drive daily they only pay when they drive. But my feelings are that if Mr Khan wants clean air then he needs to ban all vehicles other than public transport because now we are being told about the excess emissions from electric vehicles and the brake dust etc etc. And charging folk £12.50 a day is not getting him clean air – just revenue.

      • Ken says:

        24 Aug24 August 08:38

        Why are they paying ULEZ on a classic car ?

        • Dan says:

          24 Aug24 August 10:20

          Yeah over 40 years are exempt.

        • @mkcol says:

          24 Aug24 August 14:50

          Because it’ll not be compliant with the ULEZ 🙄

    • Comments Across The Wire says:

      24 Aug24 August 08:04

      >> I doubt anyone is paying £12.50 per day!

      There are many I suspect – including ourselves – who do very few miles a year & so retain a non compliant car. It’s the economics of the occasional £12.50 versus replacing a perfectly good car.

      • JohnG says:

        24 Aug24 August 15:59

        You do get that if you are paying £12.50 per day that isn’t occassional right? Rob’s point, which really shouldn’t be controversial, is that virtually no one is driving a non-complient car in the ULEZ daily (or nearly daily) and thus paying £12.50 per day.

        Literally the whole point of a £12.50 charge vs banning non-compliant cars is to avoid people with non-compliant cars that would rarely travel in the ULEZ being unable to or having to get a new car.

• Mouse says:

  24 Aug24 August 07:34

  Why is part of the M4 not included? It is to give people a chance to turn back?

  • Rob says:

    24 Aug24 August 07:50

    Good question and don’t know. Potentially, yes – no other logical reason (unless there is a service station?).

  • Tracey says:

    24 Aug24 August 07:53

    I think it is to do with whoever is responsible for the M4 isn’t allowing the necessary warning signage to be put on the motorway.

  • Brian P. says:

    24 Aug24 August 08:36

    Because the last available exit is outside the greater london authority boundaries. Most exits fall at the boundary. The point isn’t to do with signage, its the fact you’d be denying someone the right to drive on highway outside the GLA authority without them incurring ULEZ fees or fines.

• Andy says:

  24 Aug24 August 07:46

  Sounds very complicated / they should just do what they’ve done in Glasgow – if your vehicle doesn’t meet these (same) standards, then it’s just not allowed into the city centre at all. First offence is a £60 fixed penalty, with each subsequent offence within 90 days of the last doubling the penalty.

  • Tracey says:

    24 Aug24 August 07:52

    Can’t see that working. There are already outcries that people will have to pay to keep hospital appointments. Saying you can’t actually take your car to get to a hospital won’t wash.

    • Numpty says:

      24 Aug24 August 08:46

      The GRI, and most of the surrounding car parks, and the nearest motorway junction, are outside the ULEZ zone – but you do need to stay sharp to mistakenly going into it. As my driving instructor advised (many many years ago), driving near hospitals is made more tricky by the large number of cars driving in an area they dont know (i.e. at visiting time). I have already had a car in front of me jam on the brakes and stop in the middle of the road for no reason, until i realised they were about to drive into the ULEZ zone and they then did a u turn.

      • jjoohhnn says:

        24 Aug24 August 09:45

        Hopefully the cameras can pick up dangerous driving and fine them for that instead?!

  • Andrew. says:

    24 Aug24 August 08:20

    That’s why Glasgow City Council are currently paying £100,000 a month to hire ULEZ compliant vans, cars and bin lorries to provide their basic services.

    There’s been a few vids on TikTok etc of people driving classic tanks or military vehicles around London as they are exempt. Might raise a few eyebrows around LHR.

  • Numpty says:

    24 Aug24 August 08:32

    What Glasgow has done is bring in an ULEZ without giving any alternatives. There are very few existing Park and Rides to encourage using public transport from the outskirts, and the council has jacked up the costs for the public EV charge points, and the costs of parking. Add in what they’ve done to the city centre traffic flows with their LTN which has closed of a number of through roads and causes traffic jams on other roads where no jams previously existed, and extra miles to get from A to B – not conducive to reducing emissions. Then there was the green councillor who wanted the M8 to be included in the ULEZ, even for through traffic.

• Tom B says:

  24 Aug24 August 08:11

  I’m a big petrolhead myself but so many people completely miss the point of ULEZ. It’s primarily about cleaning up the toxic air, not climate change/reducing emissions or raising revenues. Ask any of the tens of thousands of city workers who walk around every day within in the Congestion Zone in Central London whether they want to go back to inhaling toxic fumes (and it’s still pretty grim even now with all the busses and diesel black cabbies) for the sake of other people being able to drive around conveniently. I honestly think we’ll look back on it in the same way we now view smoking indoors.

  • Karl says:

    24 Aug24 August 19:24

    You really believe, that while Kahn turns a blind eye to violence and murder in our capital, that what he really cares about is alleged “toxic” fumes?
    And not just that, but that by taxing people to high heaven, he will somehow reverse this alleged wrongdoing?

    • Londonsteve says:

      26 Aug26 August 16:50

      I do.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.