Visitor Numbers

[fender]

I read on NBW about the allegations on BW & IWA visitor numbers to the waterways.

 

BW says 88.5 million. IWA says 500 million.

 

I personally dont even think its anywhere near those figures. NBW says possibly 10 million. That is more realistic.

 

It seems to me that BW are counting the visitors, the every day users and cyclists along the Camden to London Zoo towpath and then applying these across the network as a whole. Thats the only way BW could get 88.million.

 

The IWA estimate I personally think is utter hogwash. Five hundred million visitors to the waterways - gosh thats more than the 3.6million visitors London gets in a year! England has a population of somewhere about 70 million so where do 500 million visitors come from?

 

It speak so much for those 'in charge' of the waterways. Their spin is utterly appalling, and these organisatons should be taken to task for their scurrilous lying.

[Naughty Cal]

What counts as a visit?

[Keeping Up]

Do the IWA count "visitor-days" so that everyone who lives on the water (or maybe even in a canalside property) counts as 365 visitors per year?

[gaggle]

I only read the advert for the clothes sale at the chandlers , logged off then as reading the ads is crap.

Edited October 23, 2009 by gaggle

[magpie patrick]

I read on NBW about the allegations on BW & IWA visitor numbers to the waterways.

 

BW says 88.5 million. IWA says 500 million.

 

I personally dont even think its anywhere near those figures. NBW says possibly 10 million. That is more realistic.

 

It seems to me that BW are counting the visitors, the every day users and cyclists along the Camden to London Zoo towpath and then applying these across the network as a whole. Thats the only way BW could get 88.million.

 

The IWA estimate I personally think is utter hogwash. Five hundred million visitors to the waterways - gosh thats more than the 3.6million visitors London gets in a year! England has a population of somewhere about 70 million so where do 500 million visitors come from?

 

It speak so much for those 'in charge' of the waterways. Their spin is utterly appalling, and these organisatons should be taken to task for their scurrilous lying.

 

 

500 million would be 547 visits per mile per day: sounds rather a lot to me given I can think of lengths of canal that get virtually none!

 

The figures are VISITS not vistors though, so if you visit the same length of canal on two different days you are counted twice

 

when writing economic reports we tend to estimate about 5-10,000 per mile per annum, which pitches in at around 12.5 to 25 million for the whole network. Of these, 30% will be "visitors who will spend money who would not have spent money if the canal were not there", making about 4 to 8 million vistors actually parting with dosh.

 

Our figures are based on spot surveys and full length surveys, both have hazards, the K and A for example is heavily influenced by having Bath on it's route.

[fender]

500 million would be 547 visits per mile per day: sounds rather a lot to me given I can think of lengths of canal that get virtually none!

 

The figures are VISITS not vistors though, so if you visit the same length of canal on two different days you are counted twice

 

when writing economic reports we tend to estimate about 5-10,000 per mile per annum, which pitches in at around 12.5 to 25 million for the whole network. Of these, 30% will be "visitors who will spend money who would not have spent money if the canal were not there", making about 4 to 8 million vistors actually parting with dosh.

 

Our figures are based on spot surveys and full length surveys, both have hazards, the K and A for example is heavily influenced by having Bath on it's route.

 

understood, but its not consistent with reality is it??? I mean it can't reflect the real and proper use of the waterways when people think that XX number have visited them or whatever. Your point about the 500 million is a strong one because yes many sections of waterway hardly get large numbers of any sort. But that is the point. What is a true figure and what is the real gross product in terms of earnings, profits etc, estimates dont give a true picture at all.

[Tim Lewis]

I read on NBW about the allegations on BW & IWA visitor numbers to the waterways.

 

BW says 88.5 million. IWA says 500 million.

 

I personally dont even think its anywhere near those figures. NBW says possibly 10 million. That is more realistic.

 

It seems to me that BW are counting the visitors, the every day users and cyclists along the Camden to London Zoo towpath and then applying these across the network as a whole. Thats the only way BW could get 88.million.

 

The IWA estimate I personally think is utter hogwash. Five hundred million visitors to the waterways - gosh thats more than the 3.6million visitors London gets in a year! England has a population of somewhere about 70 million so where do 500 million visitors come from?

 

It speak so much for those 'in charge' of the waterways. Their spin is utterly appalling, and these organisatons should be taken to task for their scurrilous lying.

 

Can you point me in the direction of where the IWA claim that there are 500 million visitors to the waterways.

 

Tim

[denboy]

here s the dirt

about 3 or 4 years a go a was curious as to what use some 6 x 6 steel posts that were being put in at cranfleet lock by BW and was told they were people counters.

they stand about 4 ft high with just a small keyhole in them , ive seen a fair few of them about i queried it with bw at the time as to why they were wasting money on them to count pedestrians and the reply was if they could prove that there was XXX amount of visitors they would get extra funding,

I was also told that they didnt cost anything as they were made in house,,which made me chuckle as i dont know anyone who works for nothing(free steel, free labour installing them, free electronic wizardry inside)

[RLWP]

Can you point me in the direction of where the IWA claim that there are 500 million visitors to the waterways.

 

Tim

 

That's a good question. this IWA doc has BW claiming 260 million...

 

Richard

 

Page 3

[carlt]

Can you point me in the direction of where the IWA claim that there are 500 million visitors to the waterways.

 

Tim

IWA parliamentary briefing:

 

Clicky

 

Page 4

Edited October 23, 2009 by carlt

[Donald Gilchrist]

here s the dirt

about 3 or 4 years a go a was curious as to what use some 6 x 6 steel posts that were being put in at cranfleet lock by BW and was told they were people counters.

they stand about 4 ft high with just a small keyhole in them , ive seen a fair few of them about i queried it with bw at the time as to why they were wasting money on them to count pedestrians and the reply was if they could prove that there was XXX amount of visitors they would get extra funding,

I was also told that they didnt cost anything as they were made in house,,which made me chuckle as i dont know anyone who works for nothing(free steel, free labour installing them, free electronic wizardry inside)

Do these posts only count people? or dogs,cats,rats,gosts,branches mooving in the wind,infact eny movement neer them

[denboy]

Do these posts only count people? or dogs,cats,rats,gosts,branches mooving in the wind,infact eny movement neer them

 

only if they`re 3 ft high

[fender]

IWA parliamentary briefing:

 

Clicky

 

Page 4

 

Thanks Carlt! Thats an interesting document you linked to.

 

I still cant get my head round these figures they seem too good to be true. Wouldnt people see these kind of figures as an attempt to 'cook the books.'

 

The other question is if there are really 500 MILLION using the waterways surely there's an inordinate amount of money flowing into the system, and being invested in it? Why would there be a need to campaign for funding if there's such a good source already available (yes I know only boaters and anglers pay but that doesnt mean that other sources can't be drawn upon.)

 

And finally, yes funding for the waterways is badly needed - but I'm certain that these massively hyperflated visitor numbers wont do the cause any good.

Edited October 23, 2009 by fender

[magpie patrick]

Thanks Carlt! Thats an interesting document you linked to.

 

I still cant get my head round these figures they seem too good to be true. Wouldnt people see these kind of figures as an attempt to 'cook the books.'

 

.

 

Yes we do... we in my case being HLF and other funding bodies

 

As the optimists have put the figures up, we have found ways to get back to the figures that matter

 

Dog walkers don't count unless you are promoting dog walking, commuters don't count unless you are promoting commuting

 

laid bare, my earlier figures are reasonably accurate. BW's people counters count canal users who visit as it's there. On that basis the Swansea Canal gets tens of thousands, as it's a short cut between the supermarket and the town centre

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Here are Robin Evans visitor number targets set in early 2004 -

 

 

Here is achievement against those targets taken from the 2020 vision document -

 

 

 

2005/6 2.9m

2006/7 2.9m

2007/8 3.2m

2008/9 3.4m

 

BW forecast is currently 3.5m by 2012 - the reason for this, they say, is that they can no longer afford to promote the canals.

 

Multiply any of the above by 26 to get yearly visitors.

 

For example, 3.4 x 26 = 88.4 million visitors for 2008/9.

 

The IWA figure is 5 to 6 times higher at 500 million!

 

There is some more to come on this as within the last few days it has become apparent that BW has been misrepresenting its own figures to the board.

 

******* Edited to say 3.5m by 2012 is less than half the target of 7.2m - in case any has not noticed! BW are in big big trouble on visitor numbers *****************

Edited October 23, 2009 by Allan(nb Albert)

[denboy]

Here are Robin Evans visitor number targets set in early 2004 -

 

 

Here is achievement against those targets taken from the 2020 vision document -

 

 

 

2005/6 2.9m

2006/7 2.9m

2007/8 3.2m

2008/9 3.4m

 

BW forecast is currently 3.5m by 2012 - the reason for this, they say, is that they can no longer afford to promote the canals.

 

Multiply any of the above by 26 to get yearly visitors.

 

For example, 3.4 x 26 = 88.4 million visitors for 2008/9.

 

The IWA figure is 5 to 6 times higher at 500 million!

 

There is some more to come on this as within the last few days it has become apparent that BW has been misrepresenting its own figures to the board.

 

******* Edited to say 3.5m by 2012 is less than half the target of 7.2m - in case any has not noticed! BW are in big big trouble on visitor numbers *****************

 

they wouldnt ,would they?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

they wouldnt ,would they?

 

Why not? As we know the board is rather out of touch and they can get away with it.

 

You may like to compare section 2.5.3 of this document with the information published earlier in this thread and make your own mind up. Clue - look at the 2008/9 figure.