Key information
Request reference number: MGLA140121-3960
Date of response:
Summary of request
Dear Greater London Authority,
Yourself possibly through TfL run the BreatheLondon project which seeks to augment existing statutory air quality monitoring with indicative monitoring.
You have over the past year or two issue a slew of press releases charting the success of BreatheLondon's £1m 100 AQmesh monitor-based BreathLondon monitoring data, saying how successful it is, how the data is useful, and how the data is disseminated on a public website.
You have now let a follow on £750,000 four year contract in a new press release which appears to have some inconsistencies:
1/ The first contract is now referred to as a successful pilot and yet the AQMesh technology that underpinned that pilot appears to have been entirely abandoned. A pilot is by definition there to prove technology and you are restarting a new project with unproven technology?
2/ The new contract documentation required proven technology and yet the technology chosen is unproven in the UK and perhaps at all. Why has the contract chosen unproven technology especially as it is well known it can take year to colocate and prove new monitoring technology?
3/ Numerous indicative monitoring types have been tested in the UK and been found lacking in some respect or another, indeed the 'proven' AQMesh now appears to have proven to have failed. Who is carrying the risk that this new unheard-of technology will fail?
4/ Part of the value of monitoring, even with flawed indicative and reference monitors, is a consistent dataset. What has happened to the dataset from the last year or so of the AQMesh's, and what will happen to the currently installed AQMesh's eg have they been removed and directly replaced with new sensors (maybe with crossover period)? All historic BreatheLondon documentation appears to have been wiped.
5/ Many sensor systems are simply a number of 99-cent sensors soldered together only deriving value if the algorithm works. Early AQMesh systems were criticised as both the sensor technology and the algorithm were considered commercial in confidence. Will this be made public so external folk can make up their own mind on their efficacy?
1/ The first contract is now referred to as a successful pilot and yet the AQMesh technology that underpinned that pilot appears to have been entirely abandoned. A pilot is by definition there to prove technology and you are restarting a new project with unproven technology?
2/ The new contract documentation required proven technology and yet the technology chosen is unproven in the UK and perhaps at all. Why has the contract chosen unproven technology especially as it is well known it can take year to colocate and prove new monitoring technology?
3/ Numerous indicative monitoring types have been tested in the UK and been found lacking in some respect or another, indeed the 'proven' AQMesh now appears to have proven to have failed. Who is carrying the risk that this new unheard-of technology will fail?
4/ Part of the value of monitoring, even with flawed indicative and reference monitors, is a consistent dataset. What has happened to the dataset from the last year or so of the AQMesh's, and what will happen to the currently installed AQMesh's eg have they been removed and directly replaced with new sensors (maybe with crossover period)? All historic BreatheLondon documentation appears to have been wiped.
5/ Many sensor systems are simply a number of 99-cent sensors soldered together only deriving value if the algorithm works. Early AQMesh systems were criticised as both the sensor technology and the algorithm were considered commercial in confidence. Will this be made public so external folk can make up their own mind on their efficacy?
Thanks for your patience and hope your otherwise excellent good work continues
Related documents
MGLA140121-3960 - EIR response