Dr. Woollard questions the government's decision not to install toilet facilities at Canning Bridge Train Station, citing hardship for vulnerable groups. The Minister responds that patronage levels don't justify the expense or permanent staffing required to prevent misuse.

AnsweredQoN 2097Legislative Assembly
Asked
27 March 2007
Portfolio
Planning and Infrastructure

QuestionView source ↗

(1) To alleviate the hardship on the elderly, the disabled and parents with young children, will the Government reconsider its decision not to install toilet facilities at the Canning Bridge Train Station?
(a) If not, why not?
(2) Has the Minister considered installing an “envirocycle” type self-contained sewage treating system if the link to mains sewage is not readily available at the train station site?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
15 May 2007
Responded by
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
49 days
(a) Patronage levels of train services are a primary determinant on whether a railway station is to be permanently manned and also dictate whether toilet facilities will be provided. With respect to Canning Bridge station expected patronage levels are not sufficient for permanent manning or at a level that would require provision of toilet facilities. In addition, the PTA experience is that if a station it not permanently manned socially undesirable behaviour results in the abuse of toilet facilities (2) No, because expected patronage levels for the train services are insufficient to warrant the building of any type of toilet facility and because decisions have to be made about what projects will give the community the best public outcome.
(2) No, because expected patronage levels for the train services are insufficient to warrant the building of any type of toilet facility and because decisions have to be made about what projects will give the community the best public outcome.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more