British Toilet Association: Archived News from the British Toilet Association 

Charging for Toilets

All Councils are looking at a variety of options as to how to approach the delivery of their non statutory services over the next few years. This note investigates the charging option, and looks at the effects of charging on usage and costs.

The concept of introducing charging for toilets needs to be approached with a certain amount of care, but also determination. There are plenty of hurdles, as with introducing any new concepts through a Council. But the potential upside of continuing the Toilet Service, reducing costs and increasing income often makes the mission worthwhile.

Charging Options

There are three common approaches to charging:

1. Paddle Gate at the Toilet entrance.

• This is a gate similar to what is found at the entrance to railway platforms.
• These have generally replaced turnstiles at the entrance to public areas as they are more accessible and
• Turnstiles are actually illegal for Council Public Toilets (Turnstile Act), although not for those privately run.

2. Cubicle Door based system

• Direct access toilets (entered direct from the Street)
• More traditional toilet - on the cubicle door.

3. Hopeful Plate/Honesty Box, as used extensively in Continental Europe.

Paddlegates are more suited to higher volume locations, with cubicle door based systems managing the mid to lower volumes. In a paddlegate type toilet, the cubicles and urinals would be set out in a more traditional way, with the toilet often attended or partially attended.

Number of users before Charging	Preferred Charge System	No. PaddleGates	No. Direct Access Cubicles
1000000	Paddlegate	6
500000	Paddlegate	4
250000	Paddlegate	3
100000	Direct Access Cubicles		4
50000	Direct Access Cubicles		3
30000	Automatic Public Convenience		1

The number of people after charging will be affected by the level of the charge as well as
the makeup of the users.

Affects of Charging on Usage

Different groups are affected by charging in different ways

Tourists/Visitors

Tourists are less price sensitive to toilet charging than local people as they have little knowledge of the alternative provision. Therefore the reduction on volumes of users from charging will be lower in those areas more tourist orientated. In addition the users are less price elastic meaning they are less sensitive to the actual level of the charge. Again, this reflects the lack of obvious alternative.

The combination of low impact on volumes and low sensitivity to charging in more visitor orientated areas, combines to mean that charging will earn an area revenues without dramatically affecting the number of people seeking and using the toilet.

We have a number of guides as to the price impact on numbers at different locations. At the Tower of London, where we have all the figures before and after charging, the impact of the 50p charge has resulted in a 50% reduction in usage. In the Cotswolds, where there was also an associated upgrade in the quality of the toilets, usage again dropped 50%, but with a charge of 20p.

This demonstrates that London (and other major cities) will have less price sensitivity than the rural areas. It also reflects the captured nature of a user at an “attraction” like the Tower, where there is little alternative.

Local People

For Locals, the impact of imposing any price mechanism will depend on the quality of the toilets. Time and again, in research carried out by Local Authorities, people will tell us that they would pay for toilets if they were clean, tidy and safe.

In reality, the impact of a 20p charge will halve the usage for a quality toilet, and will reduce by up to 65% for a less clean toilet. We have seen this impact at different toilets around the country.

At 50p this will rise to 60%-70% reduction, again depending on quality, with similar increase in impact at higher price points.

Sometimes the question will arise about whether locals “pay twice” for toilets, once through their rates, and secondly at the door. The answer lies in improving the quality of the toilets in combination with the introduction of charging.

Taxi Drivers/Market Stall Holders

Taxi Drivers are a special case as they generally consider it their constitutional right to have access to a free toilet. Given that this has been the situation for over 100 years, it is not going to be an easy, nor perhaps desirable, attitude to change.

The impact of charging on this group will have two consequences. Firstly, usage will drop at 20p by 90%. Secondly the incidence of vandalism will increase markedly from the minority of drivers prepared to use a physical approach to grievance.

Drivers for Usage

It is clear from this brief analysis that price is just one of the aspects which effect the usage of the toilet. The other issues which must be considered are:

• Location of toilet
• Type of User
• Quality of Toilet
• Availability of Alternative Provision

Revenue Generation

Successfully generating revenue will depend on all the drivers of usage, including the price. Given a toilet being used by 100,000 people pre charging, with the basic drivers in place, eg Good location, reasonable quality and a mix of users, we can predict the income at different price points.

There are a couple of items to note here:

1. The local’s optimum price is £1, the actual increase in income between 50p and £1 is slight and the additional overhead of PR, vandalism and democratic grief which would be associated with this high charge in a “local” district would not make the charge worthwhile. In most parts of the UK outside of the major cities, we would recommend 20p as the charge.
2. Tourists, with their low price sensitivity will earn the most money for the Council at the higher prices. However, as most toilets are mixed use between visitors and locals, it is rudent to consider the ratio of users and the alternatives in the area. In general, a highly visitor orientated area can command 50p, while a mixed use again will look at 20p.

Other considerations:

VAT : Private companies must imply VAT in the charge, meaning 20p is in fact worth only 17p of net revenue.

Collection: Collection money in public space has its difficulties. A plan, which will use existing collection systems should be introduced, to keep costs of collection low. This is often through the parking service.

Other aspects to Consider

Reduction in Costs

One of the benefits of introducing the charge is the positive impact on costs. Some of the costs in a toilet are directly related to the number of users, for instance consumables, water and parts. While they don’t come down in a straightline, we would typically budget these costs on a pence per user basis, and therefore few users directly relates to lower budgeted costs.

It is likely as well that this should be accompanied by a reduction in the costs of labour. Fewer users will result in general in cleaner toilets, which in turn should tramnslate to less cleaning required.

Different Toilets?

When user numbers reduce due to the charge, it can be worth considering a different style of toilet; changing from traditional toilets to Direct Access Cubicles. Whether Semi Automatic or Automatic.

While there is a cost of installing new toilets, the typical payback in terms of lower costs is less than 5 years, and most companies, including Healthmatic, will offer a rental deal on the new units.

The benefit to users is the provision of a modern, clean safe toilet, which can be open 24/7. The benefit to costs is the reduction in oversight, and the comparative ease of cleaning of these units.

Reduced Anti Social Behaviour (ASB)

Charging for toilets will result in lower ASB for the simple reason that vandals and drug takers are less likely to pay to use the toilet than regular users. The toilets will therefore naturally stay in better condition through the charge, thus helping costs and providing a better environment for genuine users.

Other ways of reducing ASB

Toilets are in the front line of public services, and will inevitably, in their long life, be subject to numerous anti-social behavioural issues. These will vary from petty criminality like stealing toilet roll through to sustained malicious damage.

We can effectively reduce problems by:

• Removing all lobby areas in non-attended toilets, which prevents groups from forming within sheltered and hidden areas
• Only use hardened anti-graffiti materials, preferably on both interior and exterior.
• Use Stainless steel in a limited but judicious way, particularly on the toilet pan and washbasin.
• Limit occupancy time to fifteen minutes in each cubicle with automatic door opening
• Have no moving parts within the cubicle itself, instead positioning all parts within the service area.
• Effectively light, both with mains lights and back up battery driven lights, the interior and exterior of the toilet.

In addition we have developed a number of other approaches:

• In our automatic toilets we have a weight plate which prevents the door from shutting in the event that two men enter the toilet together
• We can install a high pressure water jet, which, together with a siren, will be activated by extreme violence within the cubicle
• Our automatics have an automatic floor wash, which will sweep away needles and syringes prior to the next user entering the cubicle

These measures are all designed to increase the comfort and personal safety of the
legitimate majority.

Healthmatic 12 April 2011