YOUR report under the heading 'Where are they'—So CaRT decided on a panel who agreed to add another 25,000,000 (visitors) to its already impossible figure of 360,000,000 millions, writes Bill Ridgeway.
This makes a total of 385,000,000 people visiting its waterways every year, that equates to 527 visitors to every mile every day. I have to ask have you ever seen over 500 passing your boat when you have been moored for the day? I cannot find anything on the CaRT web site on this subject so I will take this quote as being absolutely correct.
False understanding
The statistics seem to be based on a false understanding of the terms 'people' and 'visits' or 'visitors'. If I as a person visit a place once I may be counted as a person or a visitor. If as a person visit a place two or more times I am still only one person but two visits have occurred.
Taking the figure of visits (not people) as 360,000,000 millions and the total distance of canals for which Cart is responsible as 1,956 miles of towing path. (source: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/our-work) that calculate to 539 visits per towing path mile per day.
Is in open countryside
However, assuming 18 hours as being a practical measure of a working day, that figure equates to 719 visits per towing path mile per 'working' day. To give some perspective to this figure the implication is that there are 40 visitors (boaters, cyclists and pedestrians) for every towing path mile for every 'working' hour. I appreciate that some towing paths may be heavily used or even congested, but the vast majority of the 2,000 miles is in open countryside.
Statistical exercises are usually research based using accepted statistical techniques and standards. In contrast the CaRT statistical exercise is nothing more than pure and unadulterated guess-work, and as such, the conclusions are unfounded and thoroughly unreliable. Unfortunately Information from bodies such as CaRT are assumed to be authoritative and it is part of 'politicking' to get information which is skewed to one's own view passed without being checked for authenticity. It would be interesting to learn who sat on this 'panel', their qualifications and the basis on which they came to their conclusions.