There are times when the Dame feels a comment deserves to be on her 'front page', as she pretentiously refers to it.
This comment from Hornbill should be read by all who love Chelsea.
Maybe it will pass, as OWL says. But for those who don't want to see Chelsea decimated for 15 years and then end up as just another suburban high street, there is still plenty of fight left.
Take the battle to Greg Hands. He doesn't want a station in King's Road, he wants it at Imperial Wharf or Fulham Broadway where the local need is manifestly greater. But that it seems is an engineering impossibility and would add to both the cost and the journey times on the line so is hardly going to be a big attraction for people living in Surrey and Essex.
Take the battle to TfL. They said that a Chelsea station would unlock 1,000 new homes. But ask them where those homes will be built and they haven't a clue. Timothy Coleridge said at the 3 November meeting at Chelsea Town Hall that new homes would be needed over the next 30years to replace old buildings at the end of their useful lives in West Chelsea. But what's that got to do with Crossrail 2?
As for the cost-benefit analysis that started this string, my recollection of the 3 November meeting was that Michele Dix said that the cost benefit analysis was undertaken for the line as a whole, ie 200,000 new homes and 200,000 new jobs. When someone else asked how the 50-50 funding of the line would work in Chelsea, she said that the 50-50 split would work for the line as a whole, and not for every separate component of it. Now that's a great story for Boris and any other London politician - "commercial development in the outer reaches will fund a station for the poor deprived people of Chelsea". Pull the other one.
So the answer for Coleville Resident is you should fill in the TFL survey question 20 with the simple sentence "no Crossrail 2 station in Chelsea" and, as the Dame wrote in her earlier post, explain why in your words. And write to Greg Hands saying the same thing.