To think it’s ironic that Heathrow will be inside ULEZ

[KajsaKavat]

Considering how much the airplanes pollute…

@SquirmOfEels
”They're covered by LEZ (same size as the upcoming expanded ULEZ) which has been in place since 2008.”

It was put on the books in 2008, but the phasing in did not start until 2012 for City lorries and busses. There was also a pause on it from 2009 for goods/trades vans as well when then mayor Boris Johnson exempted them from the LEZ pending a consultation which meant delay until 2012.

My 21 year old, 33mpg, petrol Audi is exempt, but my SIL's much newer diesel (around 10 years old) isn't.

I was astonished that my car was exempt.

It's particulates not carbon that is being charged for hence diesels ( with lower carbon) may need to pay as they can have hugely more particles that cause lung damage

And the ides is to try and limit the absolute worst vehicles not penalise everyone for driving

@midgetastic I get that, but it seems really odd to me that my DH's car that is an absolute guzzler (£65 for a tank currently but only gets about 230 miles vs our other standard version of the same car so same physical size but much smaller engine, that gets about 500 miles).

ULEZ is what it says on the tin, ultra low emissions. It’s got nothing to do with fuel efficiency.

But surely if it's in the annual £250 tax bracket (prior to the new rules) that shows it emits a high amount?? Sorry I don't know what the emission rate actually is, I just assumed as it goes through so much fuel and is in a high tax bracket that would mean it is bad for emitting high amounts.

If you are on a tube line. Most airport travellers aren't. The majority of travellers to airports need to travel long distances to get there, and often do not have convenient trains or buses. Even from Surrey for example, you have to go into London, then back out, or use a train and a bus. Not convenient. We use Gatwick by preference.

Indeed. Wait for EV's to be classified the same, for tyre and brake emissions.

Of course it is

He has mismanaged funds

Also he will change the goalposts and include more cars once it's in place

The underground is terribly polluted but that's ok for people to use and will be even more crowded

How has he mismanaged funds?

I know. It’s shocking but some people who use Heathrow don’t live in London!

I could get the train but it would cost the best part of £100 each. Or I could drive, which takes the same time, goes directly from my door and runs at 3am if I need it to.

Most people who use Heathrow don’t live in London.

It’s a huge transit hub that is allowed to pollute London for the benefit of its shareholders.

it does not seem to bother the Mayor.

It’s a huge transit hub that is allowed to pollute London for the benefit of its shareholders.

Yes it’s big on transit passengers but a lot (I think the majority) of people do arrive at Heathrow with London and the south East as their final destination so do disembark/do not transit…

Oh and it provides direct employment for tens of thousands of people, many living in west London, so it doesn’t just benefit the shareholders.

But jobs, eh, who needs them…..

I’m with ChardonnaysBeastlyCat that Heathrow is an issue. It creates air pollution and noise pollution for locals, while the owners offshore profits, avoid the majority of the tax they should be paying, and do sod all to mitigate any of the problems they cause people who live near it or under its flight paths.

However, that is a matter that falls to the responsibility of the incumbent Tory government, not the Mayor. The Mayor has no power over Heathrow at all. There’s no evidence that it doesn’t bother the Mayor. He simply had no means of changing anything there.

And the fact that Heathrow is an issue, should not be used to sit back lazily about other sources of air pollution. It’s not a reason to delay expanding ULEZ, quite the opposite. If we never took action of anything because of whataboutery, nothing would ever change for the better. We need to do what we can.

But jobs, eh, who needs them…..

What about the jobs and livelihoods affected by ULEZ? Any consideration for those or only sympathy for one of the biggest polluting airports and for the industry that contributes to the current climate crisis?

Shouldn't they be paying as well?

What about jet fuel tax? There isn't one, is there? As opposed to petrol and diesel for the public.

The only people driving into Heathrow in older cars will be holiday makers.

No. Many staff who work at Heathrow drive older cars (me included, my car is 12 years old, works very well and is well maintained so should last me ages yet, but is not ULEZ compliant.) It has caused much annoyance among airport workers who live to the west of Heathrow. Thousands of airport workers live west, but the public transport systems seem to be oblivious to that. Trust me, if I could easily hop on a train or bus to commute, I would. However, even though Heathrow is well served by tube, it is the end of the line, and the only way you can travel onward from a Heathrow tube or train station is east - into the city centre. This more than doubles the cost and time it would take me to get to work. I did the sums, and it turns out the cheapest way to avoid the ULEZ charge is to actually buy a cheap little car. So I now have 2 cars. I am a long haul airline employee, but many workers like baggage handlers, terminal shop and hospitality staff, check in staff, and nearly all short haul workers will be coming in 4-5 days a week. It’s added about £900 a year to my expenses, for those travelling in daily from, say, Maidenhead or Slough it would add over £2000.

For the majority of those workers there isn’t really a public transport option that works. There are no buses or trains serving Heathrow from the west that will get you there for 5am, or get you home when you finish late at past midnight. Staff car parks are all on the perimeter roads, so it is not possible to park up outside the ULEZ and get a shuttle bus in.

Having to pay another £25 to go on holiday is slightly tiresome. But having to pay £1000s to just come into work is really bloody annoying.

so many people complaining but nobody ever seems to comes up with an alternative policy suggestion to lower fine particulate pollution in urban areas.

Well, exactly. This is a public health emergency. It’s about taking the action we can to reduce the serious harms of air pollution. If other measures would be effective then I’d be all for them. But nobody has come up with them (yet).

Air pollution can be lowered by planting more trees, planning for green spaces, using green walls and roofs.

None of this makes money though.

Those things help, and I agree we should do more of them. And actually there are schemes being proposed to being more greenery into London and high streets.

But they’re not a magic solution and are not enough by themselves. We can’t keep allowing as many pollutants to be discharged into the air as we have been, the inputs need to change as well as the mitigating factors. it can’t be an either/or, as that won’t be effective enough. It needs to be both.

What about jet fuel tax? There isn't one, is there?

No and if you had actually read and actually understood the response I gave to your comment yesterday calling for effectively a London tax on air fuel you'll know why. A local tax, or even a national tax on fuel uplift could be a really dumb move from an environmental POV.....it leads to something called tankering which can increase emissions...

Having spent years seeing tech change (e.g. engine design, improved routings) and procedures changing at Heathrow to try and reduce emissions (e.g. reduced engine taxi in and out, reduced use of Auxiliary Power Units) I know the industry and those in it have done a tremendous amount to try and reduce environmental impact, especially around the Heathrow boundary.

I accept what has been done is not enough to compensate for the increased demand for air travel but any idea Heathrow and the industry at large have been immune to pressure from local and national groups and haven't modified their way of doing business is wrong.

As for the economics - regardless of how you spin it Heathrow is a big employer and travellers through Heathrow put directly or indirectly a lot of money into the West London economy...it's an untruth to suggest the only people who benefit are the shareholders

Your arguments about the loophole in tax fuel duty only show how harmful
the air travel industry is.

The drop-off charge annoys me because there isn't much alternative. It's fine if you live somewhere like Woking (hourly bus to LHR) or anywhere along the Elizabeth Line, but otherwise it gets more difficult.

I could get a train to Woking and then the bus, but it's a massive faff.

But then there's the argument none of us should be flying anyway - or not as much.

It’s not “my argument” and FWIW it’s wrong to think or portray of the whole industry acting as some monolithic and harmful block.

There’s probably more discussion and debate gone on about the environmental impact of aviation than many people realise but it’s tempting for some to portray it otherwise.

Paper on tankering here that may or may not help.

https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/EnvironmentalReports/2022/ENVReport2022_Art38.pdf

Yes and a lot of the staff do night and late shifts which makes it even more punitive