Why have C&RT applied for a spending review now?

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

 

No. That would count as 5,000,000,000,000 visits, obviously.

6,000,000,000,000 - you forgot to include the dog

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

6,000,000,000,000 - you forgot to include the dog

That can't be right, dogs have 4 legs

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

That can't be right, dogs have 4 legs

 

God help us if they start including Millipedes and Centipedes in the survey.

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

God help us if they start including Millipedes and Centipedes in the survey.

 

It would be closer to accurate footfall ...

 

 

Joking aside, we're at Middlewich for Folk & Boat this week and my biggest complaint is the numbers of people blocking the towpath when I'm trying to get from one venue to another.

 

Don't judge the entire network visitor numbers by the standards of quiet rural moorings on a rainy day in Yorkshire.  The commuters in the cities and towns count too.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It would be closer to accurate footfall ...

 

 

Joking aside, we're at Middlewich for Folk & Boat this week and my biggest complaint is the numbers of people blocking the towpath when I'm trying to get from one venue to another.

 

Don't judge the entire network visitor numbers by the standards of quiet rural moorings on a rainy day in Yorkshire.  The commuters in the cities and towns count too.

 

But, similarly, don't take the footfall in London or Birmingham and use that as the basis for extrapolating it to cover the 80%-90% of the waterways which never see anyone.

[TheBiscuits]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

the 80%-90% of the waterways which never see anyone.

 

*Citation needed.

 

I think the only places I've not seen someone using the towpath for a whole day is where it's been closed for maintenance.

 

I think you're making numbers up.

[Alan de Enfield]

14 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

*Citation needed.

 

I think the only places I've not seen someone using the towpath for a whole day is where it's been closed for maintenance.

 

I think you're making numbers up.

 

Indeed it is simply a notional figure, but there have been many days when we have maybe seen an odd person - there is very little in the way of towpaths alongside Rivers except where they run thru residential areas, there are many days when it is raining / snowing / cold / windy when pedestrians are harder to find than a Yorkshire man saying "its my round".

 

Simply taking the figures from a single "Summers day" for people stopped and questioned in (say) London is hardly the basis for extrapolation across the whole of the UK (folks may live 50 miles from their nearest canal) on a wet day in November.

 

My business background is in Marketing (Member of the CIM and Postgraduate dergree in Marketing) so I know how surveys are undertaken and the importance of using relevant questions and criteria.

[ditchcrawler]

I find it quite surprising for the few number of people I see walking rural towpaths is how well worn some of them are.

[Mike Todd]

20 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Indeed it is simply a notional figure, but there have been many days when we have maybe seen an odd person - there is very little in the way of towpaths alongside Rivers except where they run thru residential areas, there are many days when it is raining / snowing / cold / windy when pedestrians are harder to find than a Yorkshire man saying "its my round".

 

Simply taking the figures from a single "Summers day" for people stopped and questioned in (say) London is hardly the basis for extrapolation across the whole of the UK (folks may live 50 miles from their nearest canal) on a wet day in November.

 

My business background is in Marketing (Member of the CIM and Postgraduate dergree in Marketing) so I know how surveys are undertaken and the importance of using relevant questions and criteria.

And also that surveys can be useful even if they approximate to a desired criterion. If used consistently over time, and if carefully designed, they can indicate that change has happened even if we cannot be precise about the quantity either absolute or relative. An important part of statistics is non parametric testing that can help in such contexts.

 

Just because we cannot be sure of the absolute number of users is no reason to ridicule the methodology. It needs greater knowledge than some seem to display.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

11 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

And also that surveys can be useful even if they approximate to a desired criterion. If used consistently over time, and if carefully designed, they can indicate that change has happened even if we cannot be precise about the quantity either absolute or relative. An important part of statistics is non parametric testing that can help in such contexts.

 

Just because we cannot be sure of the absolute number of users is no reason to ridicule the methodology. It needs greater knowledge than some seem to display.

I agree with this in general and have always maintained that this particular Key Performance Indicator will be used as a crude proxy for public benefit by government.

Put simply, if the figures go up the waterways are providing more public benefit - if they go down then they are providing less.

BW were using this telephone survey for the 10 years 2002 - 2012. The intention was to double the number of visitors over that timeframe. Unfortunately, whilst the numbers went up they came back down again and they finished where they started with 3.6m visitors per average two week period.

CRT's first annual report (2013/14) gave 3.2m. The drop is probably accounted for by losing Scottish waterways. The next year it was up to 3.5m and the following year a massive jump to 4.5m.

However, 2015/16 saw CRT change from "telephone survey" to "online panel" with the annual report suggesting that the new data collection method would produce the same figures as the old but perversely suggesting caution if comparing.

Here are the figures taken from annual reports (for simplicity, I am using the base figure of  "visitors per average two week period" ) -

2012/13 - 3.2

2013/14 - 3.5

2014/15 - 4.5

2015/16 - 4.4

2016/17 - 4.3

2017/18 - 4.3

2018/19 - 4.1

2019/20 - 9.2

The 2019/20 Annual Report was the one used as the "current position" by Defra for CRT's performance review. It was, of course the one that was falsified after it had been approved by CRT's board and filed at Companies House.

The whistle-blower who brought the matter to my attention was adamant that CRT routinely falsified information to be included in annual reports.

 will leave it to others to decide if this is what has happened here ...

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Allan(nb Albert)

[TheBiscuits]

9 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

will leave it to others to decide if this is what has happened here ...

 

When did the year end in 2020?  The towpath near where we were during the lockdowns was the busiest I'd ever seen it - so much so we moved to an offside mooring.

 

I can well believe a huge uptick in towpath visits by people choosing to walk the towpaths from the end of March onwards.  Whether this doubled visits compared to the previous year I don't know.

Edited June 20, 2022 by TheBiscuits
Grammar

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

When did the year end in 2020?  The towpath near where we were during the lockdowns was the busiest I'd ever seen it - so much so we moved to an offside mooring.

 

I can well believe a huge uptick in towpath visits by people choosing to walk the towpaths from the end of March onwards.  Whether this doubled visits compared to the previous year I don't know.

 

The accounts for 2019/20 'closed' at the end of March 2020 just after shutdown came into force.

 

The annual accounts were signed off and published in September 2020

 

Extract :

 

This Finance Review outlines the financial performance of the Trust in the year ended 31 March 2020, including the main financial considerations arising from the coronavirus pandemic. On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organisation declared a global pandemic in relation to coronavirus, with the UK entering so-called “lockdown” on 24 March. Despite the fact that these developments impacted the Trust’s operations for only a brief part of the 2019/20 financial year, they have been considered in preparing the Trust’s financial statements as at 31 March 2020. Where this has a material impact, it has been disclosed in the appropriate note to the financial statements.

 

As at year end, the Trust had begun to reduce activities in line with Government restrictions and to take advantage of the Government’s coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, although due to the timing of this scheme’s introduction it did not impact on the results for the year. More generally, the Trust is unusual in the charity sector in that it generates over half of its income from a broad range of commercial sources, and less than 5% from donations. It is also a recipient of Government grant income from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Income sources are therefore well-diversified. Notwithstanding the potential impact of the pandemic, in view of the significant resources available to the Trust, the Trustees have adopted the going concern basis in preparing the Annual Report & Accounts. Further details are provided in note 1 to the accounts. As a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic, and in common with many organisations with material property valuations at 31 March 2020, the auditors in their report on pages 92 to 94, without qualifying their opinion, have included an emphasis of matter in relation to the uncertainty attaching to the valuation of investment property. Further details are also contained in note 15 to the financial statements

Edited June 20, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

20 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

When did the year end in 2020?  The towpath near where we were during the lockdowns was the busiest I'd ever seen it - so much so we moved to an offside mooring.

 

I can well believe a huge uptick in towpath visits by people choosing to walk the towpaths from the end of March onwards.  Whether this doubled visits compared to the previous year I don't know.

The year ended in March.

[TheBiscuits]

 

Maybe the towpaths were much busier than I thought in the last week of March 2020!

 

[Orwellian]

54 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

When did the year end in 2020?  The towpath near where we were during the lockdowns was the busiest I'd ever seen it - so much so we moved to an offside mooring.

 

I can well believe a huge uptick in towpath visits by people choosing to walk the towpaths from the end of March onwards.  Whether this doubled visits compared to the previous year I don't know.

According to the 2020/21 Annual Report & Accounts the fortnightly figure had actually reduced to 8.3 which seems very odd.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

24 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

According to the 2020/21 Annual Report & Accounts the fortnightly figure had actually reduced to 8.3 which seems very odd.

I would suggest not as odd as the year on year decline in visitors followed by a sudden doubling in 2019/20. 

[Alan de Enfield]

43 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

According to the 2020/21 Annual Report & Accounts the fortnightly figure had actually reduced to 8.3 which seems very odd.

 

Just goes to show how fraudulent the 2019/20 figure was, even with 100,000's not working and everyone not being able to socialise they still 'only' achieved 8,3 million despite 'record numbers' walking the towpaths.

[TheBiscuits]

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Just goes to show how fraudulent the 2019/20 figure was, even with 100,000's not working and everyone not being able to socialise they still 'only' achieved 8,3 million despite 'record numbers' walking the towpaths.

 

That was after 23rd March 2020 Alan, not during 2019.  

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

That was after 23rd March 2020 Alan, not during 2019.  

 

 

My view is that CRT would have told Defra that visitors had improved from  3.2 to 9.2 since 2012 hoping that they would not look at all the yearly figures. Publishing an even better figure for 2020/21 when Defra would naturally expect worse would not be a good move. 

[TheBiscuits]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Publishing an even better figure for 2020/21 when Defra would naturally expect worse would not be a good move. 

 

I would expect the figures to be much higher for 20/21 based on my own observations, but I do accept that anecdote is not the singular of data.

 

Why do you think DEFRA would expect lower figures for this period?  Literally millions of people were told to stay off work and were only supposed to go outside for specific reasons including exercise.  Many of them chose to do this along the canals.

 

I'm still suspicious about the 19/20 figures though!

 

 

[cuthound]

18 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

When did the year end in 2020?  The towpath near where we were during the lockdowns was the busiest I'd ever seen it - so much so we moved to an offside mooring.

 

I can well believe a huge uptick in towpath visits by people choosing to walk the towpaths from the end of March onwards.  Whether this doubled visits compared to the previous year I don't know.

 

I'd agree, during 2020 we noticed a large increase in the number of people walking the towpath opposite our house.

 

The numbers don't appear to have fallen since.

 

There has also been an increase in the number of boats going past too 

[Orwellian]

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

My view is that CRT would have told Defra that visitors had improved from  3.2 to 9.2 since 2012 hoping that they would not look at all the yearly figures. Publishing an even better figure for 2020/21 when Defra would naturally expect worse would not be a good move. 

I don't believe DEFRA officials would be that naive not to check the intervening figures. I have met some of these officials and they are not the sort of people to be hoodwinked in that way.

I also don't undrstand why you think DEFRA would expect worse figures for 2020/21 when the effects of the pandemic meant more people would be visiting their local canal than the year before.

 

Of course the figures could all be accurate but that doesn't sit well with your conspiracy theories does it?

Edited June 21, 2022 by Orwellian
correct spelling

[Allan(nb Albert)]

7 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I would expect the figures to be much higher for 20/21 based on my own observations, but I do accept that anecdote is not the singular of data.

 

Why do you think DEFRA would expect lower figures for this period?  Literally millions of people were told to stay off work and were only supposed to go outside for specific reasons including exercise.  Many of them chose to do this along the canals.

 

I'm still suspicious about the 19/20 figures though!

 

 

I think you answered your own question. Defra would expect lower figures because of the restrictions imposed by the government on work and travel. 

 

You are right to be suspicious of the sudden rise in visitor numbers. The same annual report showed a significant drop in the visitor satisfaction kpi until it was falsified. 

 

Visitor satisfaction down but visitor numbers up?

 

[Orwellian]

Yes is a perfectly valid answer to your last question. Visitors went expecting peace & quiet but were confronted with crowds of people who couldn't go to work, the pub or indoor leisure during the various 'lockdowns'.

This would suggest numbers for 2021/22 should be well down on the two previous years. Let's wait & see.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

You seem rather confused. My second paragraph  was referring to 2019/20 not 2020/21 so nothing to do with Covid. 

 

In the 2019/20 annual report, CRT claimed that visitors more than doubled from the previous year (4.1m to 9.2m). In the same report (prior to Falsification) CRT suggests visitors unsatisfied as having also more than doubled (8% to 19%). 

 

I was agreeing with the view that the visitor figure was suspicious for 2019/20.