Pay as you Go - An inconvenient truth

Are public conveniences a merit good and should they be made available free at the point of use (or need!) or is a pay as you go scheme more efficient and equitable? In case you are thinking that I am taking the pxxs, it is worth considering whether local and central government should be devoting more resources to the improved provision of public toilets across the UK.

I can see why Network Rail might decide to charge for the use of the conveniences available on the main concourse of Manchester Piccadilly Station (shown in our picture) - for the record it is 30p a go and, as the image shows, there is a handily placed change machine for those who find themselves short of cash just as they are caught short in other ways. Charging for their use should allow the station to maintain a higher level of cleanliness and with it, better customer service. The revenue can be ring-fenced to provide a more thorough maintenance budget, and it is equitable for those who benefit from a service to make some contribution towards its cost.

The absence of good quality toilet and washing facilities can have a negative impact on health and public health, for example an increased incidence of street urination and greater demand for toilet services on trains where toilet facilities are much more stretched on long journeys.

But should users necessarily pay?

Who else benefits from having toilet facilities provided and maintained on the concourses of leading railway stations and other transport inter-changes? The cluster of franchised coffee stores none of whom ever seems to provide toilets for users? The train operating companies?

Are toilets any different from street lighting, rubbish collection and safety barriers - all of which we don’t usually expect to pay for as we go?

Many of the UK’s public toilets are panned by the critics for the stench, the queues, the broken cubicles and the health risks they pose. I am siding on the ground of those who think that a user charge is justified on economic grounds. But why not go further and engage in some price discrimination? If you could find out a way of segmenting the market and finding out those who were most desperate?