| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:How Many Trees Will Go from the High Road for CS9 and where? | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 26/10/17 13:51:00 |
| "there are too many variables and too little data to reach any firm conclusions" This is a content-free statement that adds nothing. The variables considered are quite clear, the measured pollutants averaged over one year at each monitoring system. Of course there are many factors that influence the pollution level, but the point of the exercise is to see if a significant difference in a single variable can be associated with the opening of the cycleways. As for too little data, that's why the analysis looks at the variation in the data beforehand, in this case over 6 years prior to the building of the cycle route and compares it to one year after it opened. If there was not enough data to draw any conclusions, then the change would be less than variability. I actually expected that to be the case, and was surprised that in fact the drop for both PM10's and NO2 was significant. Again, it's just an empty assertion on your part that you can't reach any conclusion. You have to ignore the data if you don't want to reach a conclusion. Of course there will be differences between the two schemes analysed here, CS2 and CSEW, and CS9, but both are segregated bike lanes in London and CS2 is probably the closest comparator we have anywhere. I would certainly have been very worried if the data showed CSEW and CS9 both significantly increased pollution, and would have reconsidered whether CS9 was in fact the way forward if that had been the case. Your approach to this has been quite different. You've previously concocted datasets to try to prove your point, and now you are trying to dismiss straightforward data analysis when it doesn't support your view. Might it be better to reconsider your own position in the light of the evidence, as you yourself suggest most people would do? |