William Robb wrote:
> We have a lot of excess land here that can be used as parking
> lots that you
> in the UK just don't have.
True.
> Not that we should be turning excess land into parking lots, mind you.
Well said.
Malcolm
> The National Trust is a charitable organisation who rely on
> property being 'given' to them, generally of outstanding
> national historic interest, most of which come with a
> substantial amount of land, which they can open to visitors
> to help offset the maintenance costs. I can't think of
- Original Message -
From: "Malcolm Smith"
Subject: RE: OT Stanstead, was: Unusual subjects to photograph.
>
>
I would like to see parking areas reduced, thus
> destroying less land, but for the point you make above, it's never going
to
> happen.
>
We
Amita Guha wrote:
> > Government won't pay. People will argue about the funding and never
> > agree on a suitable re-location.
>
> What about an organization like the National Trust stepping in?
The National Trust is a charitable organisation who rely on property being
'given' to them, generall
Bill Owens wrote:
> Here in the USA, airport parking lots are an airport's
> largest source of income.
Here in the UK, particularly airports like Gatwick, Heathrow and Stanstead
have astonishingly good bus, coach and rail links (and Underground to
central London in the case of Heathrow) and unle
> Nearly all of the increase in air miles is by internal flights. Well, the
> road and rail network has gone to hell on a handcart and will cost
billions
> to sort. Airport expansion is the quick cheap fix - a *bit* of land around
> the airports and journey times are kept low. The numbers travellin
Cotty wrote:
> In a word, no. Stanstead is a 2 hour drive for me and way
> over in a different TV region. The whole Stanstead thing will
> be VERY contentious over the coming years. It's a nest of vipers.
Yep. This one is set to run and run...
> Problem is, air travel is increasing and there
7 matches
Mail list logo
