Slashdot Mirror


Tokyo Wants People To Stand on Both Sides of the Escalator (citylab.com)

When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone. But transit users around the world just can't be convinced. Linda Poon, writing for CityLab: I'm one of those people who speed past everyone on the escalator. As long as the left side isn't blocked, no amount of judgement from fellow riders to the right, or safety warnings, or even falls (two and counting) will stop me -- not yet anyway. I'm certainly not alone; it's a common enough habit that some cities occasionally try to change such behavior for safety's sake. London's tried, so has Hong Kong and Washington, D.C. Now it's Tokyo's turn. East Japan Railway Company (JR East) launched a campaign this month calling on riders to stand on both sides of the escalators inside some of the city's busiest transit hubs.

Signs are posted on walls and above escalators, reading, in both Japanese and English, "Walking on escalators may lead to accidents caused by collisions or luggage." Bright pink handrails carry similar messages. And in some stations, security staff with neon-colored vests stand watch and guide people. If people are really in a hurry, JR East suggests, they should take the stairs. So far, the effort has had mixed results: According to the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), railway officials say that some people did stop but many commuters were still hustling up and down the escalator on Monday. The campaign is set to run until February 1.

161 comments

  1. Overall speed by BeTeK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think I saw some research that actually when using both sides of escalator it actually increases the amount of people goes though. But the argument leaving other side free is to let those who are in the hurry walk and rest who are not that in a hurry just stand.

    1. Re: Overall speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      This is the trick. Sure, when you account for movement speed, needed space gaps, and traffic flow on the walking side vs. the constant set rate of the escalator and including queuing time to enter the escalator on both sides, it makes sense that its probably more efficient on average for everyone. It's certainly more safe.

      The neglected information OP points out is that the world doesn't operate on average time demands. Sometimes your in a hurry, sometimes you're not, so we split the distributions and allow those who are late, absolutely need to be somewhere, or are simply in a hurry to move at a faster pace. When I'm on vacation, you'll frequently see me hugging the escalator sides, casually relaxing as the escalator does the work. I have no where I have to be and no need to exhaust or stress myself. On the other hand, when I'm running late for something important, you can bet your ass I'm scurrying up the other side of the escalator because that extra 30 seconds can add up or be the difference between another queue or passing a queue.

      Now, this doesn't always necessarily save you time. Often you're delayed by something constant that's out of your hands (an incoming train for example) but it certainly increases your chances of the opportunity of pushing forward quicker which when you're in a hurry, is typically a cost worth eating (at mild risks of tripping, etc.).

    2. Re: Overall speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      If everyone walks up the escalator throughput doubles. It works fantastic in Washington DC during rush hours when no amerifat tourist bastards muck up the show.

    3. Re:Overall speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think I saw some research that actually when using both sides of escalator it actually increases the amount of people goes though. But the argument leaving other side free is to let those who are in the hurry walk and rest who are not that in a hurry just stand.

      That research concluded that long escalators, where people were highly unlikely to ever walk, benefited from not having a "walking lane". To this I say: congratulation "igNoble prize candidate". Way to go to prove something obvious from a biased premise.

      This research has gotten way too much attention and too little scrutiny. If done properly they should have checked different lengths of escalators, tried to find if there is a cut-off point where no-walking is beneficial and when it makes no difference and also repeated in different cultures. In some cultures you never walk up an escalator, in others it is perfectly normal to do so. Even in my home country you would get very different results as you have a walk lane that is used in my home city, but in a neighboring city no-one walks in an escalator.

      So this research is poorly conducted and you should refrain from drawing too big conclusions from it.

      Where I live, the metro has quite long escalators and this unwritten "stand to the right, walk on the left"-rule, and those stations where a lot of people switch trains or to busses, the "walking lane" is full at peak hour. Simple math tells us that the research made is invalid then, because if the "walking lane" is just as full as if the people were standing, and they are walking, more people per time unit can be transported with the escalator (given that they are moving the same way the escalator is moving). And off-peak hours? Well, then the escalators aren't full anyway, so it is a moot point, there are no "queues" to the escalators anyway and there are no capacity problems.

      The take away from this? Don't build too long escalators. Don't build so narrow escalators that people cannot pass.

      And those two should be dead giveaways anyway. If the escalators stop working, they will still serve as stairs (albeit with too high steps to be really comfortable). But if they are too long, many people will find it tiresome to walk the entire length. Better to put landings and have several shorter escalators. That also prevents a long escalator from overloading when the load becomes too high.

      As for too narrow escalators? The same, if it stops and people need to walk, someone should be able to walk a bit slower and people should be able to pass.

    4. Re:Overall speed by arth1 · · Score: 2

      I think I saw some research that actually when using both sides of escalator it actually increases the amount of people goes though. But the argument leaving other side free is to let those who are in the hurry walk and rest who are not that in a hurry just stand.

      It's problematic looking at just the throughput of the escalator itself. It's part of a longer pedestrian journey. By reducing the clogging on the escalator itself, you just shift it to occur on either side, so while the overall throughput figures for the escalator might be better, it's not better for the walkers.

      Or think of it another way: The slower people are going to be slower no matter what - they are not held back. So it's no improvement for them. On the other hand (or foot), if they occupy both sides of an elevator, they create bottlenecks, both on the elevator itself and after getting off the elevator until they can file over to the right again.

    5. Re:Overall speed by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Errata: s/lev/scal/g;

    6. Re:Overall speed by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      OTOH, the escalators are usually the bottleneck, because the various corridors and tunnels are usually much wider. So if you increase their throughput, you also increase the overall throughput of the system.

    7. Re:Overall speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When using the stairs you don't get the speed boost of a moving escalator. You can move up an escalator with slightly less energy for the speed speed on the stairs (therefore safer).

    8. Re:Overall speed by Scarletdown · · Score: 3, Funny

      if it stops and people need to walk, someone should be able to walk a bit slower and people should be able to pass.

      Might just be that I am still on my first cup of coffee of the morning, but I just pictured an escalator shutting down due to a power outage, and everyone that was riding on the right side taking a step to the left side and all politely walking up single file, leaving the right side as empty as the left was when power was still on.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    9. Re:Overall speed by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think I saw some research that actually when using both sides of escalator it actually increases the amount of people goes though.

      It really depends on how many people want to walk, and how many people want to stand.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Overall speed by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      TFL did a few pilots

      https://www.intelligenttranspo...

      "London Underground undertook a similar pilot in November and December 2015, which showed 30 percent more customers could use an escalator in the busiest parts of the day if they stood on both sides."

    11. Re:Overall speed by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The reason to leave the other side open is simply that the kind of person who walks or runs up an escalator will do so regardless. They're already knowingly doing something unsafe, so they're not going to try to be safe about it. It's safer for you if they do it without you in their way so that you don't get knocked down. Essentially the rule is safe people on the right, and that makes the hurrying types end up on the left automatically because they see a quicker route there when it's empty.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    12. Re:Overall speed by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The take away from this? Don't build too long escalators.

      So, only build escalators where stairs would've done just fine for anyone not disabled? Why not just stairs for the healthy and elevators for the disabled since some of them will need them anyway? Escalators can only be useful if they're long enough that taking the stairs would be too exhausting.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    13. Re: Overall speed by loufoque · · Score: 1

      The correct terms are bandwidth and latency.
      Making people stand on both sides increases bandwidth but increases latency.

      Since what people want is low latency, this is a problem.

      Optimizing for bandwidth at the cost of latency is a frequent annoyance that people in charge of transport and infrastructure do. That's also how they justify that lowering speed limits make travel "faster", when clearly it doesn't.

    14. Re:Overall speed by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      When did walking up an escalator become unsafe?

      I've never heard this before in 40 years, done it all my life and I've never fallen.

      Wtf

    15. Re:Overall speed by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      I think I saw some research that actually when using both sides of escalator it actually increases the amount of people goes though.

      I would dispute this. I've never seen anyone willingly stand to the left of a complete stranger. They only do it when some idiot in front of them has forgotten how to climb stairs.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    16. Re:Overall speed by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Escalators are for walking, they are most efficient when everyone walks on them, which fortunately is not that uncommon in Scandinavia. Cows that doesn't walk keep to right, so they can be passed.

    17. Re: Overall speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can bet your ass I'm scurrying up the other side of the escalator because that extra 30 seconds can add up or be the difference between another queue or passing a queue.

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that 30 seconds is a perceived time saving and not a measured one.

      Now, I am usually not in you situation. I like to have a couple of minutes to spare so I seldom need to rush, but in my experience I tend to recognize the people who ran past me later on the subway/plane/whatever.
      But then again, maybe there are a lot of people who actually saved some time by hurrying in the escalators.

      Either way I wouldn't trust anecdotes on this one. Humans are very bad at judging the benefit of their own actions.

      There are also other behavioral things going on here.
      People might be a bit optimistic about how long it takes them to pass through and only reserve time for the best case scenario.
      This means that they will only catch their ride if they actually can walk past everyone in the escalator and miss it if there is some problem.
      If that is the case they would benefit from having a more stable throughput even if the average time is longer simply because it helps them manage their time better.

    18. Re: Overall speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another fallacy is thinking that you get to enjoy the low latency.

      You reasoning assumes that you can't have both and I am willing to agree with this assessment.
      Now, consider what the consequence of optimizing for latency would be.
      That would mean that you don't have the bandwidth for everyone. Instead of getting to travel with a high latency you instead have to wait until there is room for you. (Well, there is the option of "dropping packets" but given the context that sounds a bit morbid.)

      If people were willing to wait until a time of the day when traffic usually is low then we could all enjoy the low latency.
      Are you willing to travel at a time that is inconvenient for you if the time spend traveling is a bit shorter?
      If you knew that you travel time would be ten minutes shorter if you waited an hour before traveling, what would you do?
      I know that some people who work flexible hours make that choice because they can make sure they use their time efficiently anyway.

      During holidays when there is a lot of traveling going on overall it is a bit different. People aren't willing to wait until the holidays are over before traveling to their family.

      People in charge of transport and infrastructure haven't really optimized away latency. You still get low latency if you wait for when the transport channels have cleared up.

    19. Re: Overall speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no. I've had multiple instances where a 30s delay by slack-jawed yokels that can't get the hell out of people's way have made me miss a train by a few seconds which means a 30 minute wait for the next one.

      The leaving time from work just happens to align with a 10 min window to do a 5 minute brisk walk to the train, but taking into account the traffic light delay and "durrr I have to walk arm in arm with my 5 friends across the street" assholes that delay movement, I can often miss the train.

  2. Full cost/benefit analysis please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reducing speed limits to 5 mph everywhere would also reduce accidents, yet we don't do it. Maximizing safety is not always the right thing to do.

    1. Re:Full cost/benefit analysis please by omnichad · · Score: 2

      This isn't for safety. It's to reduce lines of people waiting on the escalator. Maybe you've never been somewhere that busy before?

    2. Re:Full cost/benefit analysis please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lowering the speed limits doesn't increase safety if drivers perceive the change to be arbitrary and ignore it. The speed limit in most areas is supposed to be based upon the speed that drivers drive on a section of road. Around here it's roughly the 80th percentile of drivers rounded down to the nearest 5mph.

      Yes, lowering the speed limit does reduce the energy and momentum of the vehicle as well as increasing the time available to react. However, when you lower speeds arbitrarily, you get an increased in the number or drivers that just ignore the speed limit which increases the variability in the speeds that the drivers are driving which is worse for safety.

      To make matters worse, when the speed limits are changed like that, it doesn't necessarily mean that the government is addressing bigger factors like distracted driving or DUI.

      As far as the escalators go, I don't personally buy the notion that it speeds things up for everybody. Perhaps for the lardasses and lollygaggers that are just standing there, but not for the folks walking up the side.

    3. Re:Full cost/benefit analysis please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the summary:

      Signs are posted on walls and above escalators, reading, in both Japanese and English, "Walking on escalators may lead to accidents caused by collisions or luggage."

      Are you saying that the signs are lying?

      I've been somewhere busy where the right side of the escalator is packed with people standing, and the left side is packed with people walking. Throughput obviously decreases when someone decides to stand on the left side. How the hell did you reach the opposite conclusion?

    4. Re:Full cost/benefit analysis please by omnichad · · Score: 1

      No, the signs aren't lying. But if being accurate about the motivation leads to lower compliance then they'll change the story to engage people's social imperatives.

    5. Re:Full cost/benefit analysis please by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Throughput obviously decreases when someone decides to stand on the left side. How the hell did you reach the opposite conclusion?

      Only if you put a higher priority on walkers. If there's still a love on the non-walker side, then it's not optimal for the general case. All it takes it one walker to prevent the side from being used by lots of non walkers.

    6. Re:Full cost/benefit analysis please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which increases the variability in the speeds that the drivers are driving which is worse for safety

      Amen.

      Being an old fart living in the US, I remember the ridiculous 55 MPH speed limit we had for years. Immediately after the 55 MPH limit was lifted and returned to (mostly) prior limits, traffic became a lot more sane. There seemed to be three main groups of drivers back in the 55 MPH days:

      1. The few sanctimonious people who drove 55 MPH, even in the left lane. These people sometimes got pleasure out of mucking up traffic because they got to "enforce the law". These people really screwed up traffic flow and caused hundreds of cars per hour to change lanes to get around them.

      2. Most people who pretty much ignored the 55 MPH limit and drove the safe speed -- which was pretty much what the speed limits were returned to eventually.

      3. A few people who drove faster because of the 55 MPH limit (I was one of those). Since I ran a substantial risk of a ticket when driving at 70 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, I had to keep my eyes open 360 degrees around me - checking onramps for CHP, watching for odd traffic patterns which suggested a CHP car was in the group of traffic, watching the traffic coming the other way looking out for CHP (on HWY 5 they would sometimes flip a U-Turn across the open median and sneak up behind), and looking in the rear view mirror regularly. Since I had to go to all that effort, I usually drove another 10 to 25 MPH faster since it didn't take any more effort to do so.

      Suddenly when the limits were returned to a rational value, there were far fewer drivers in group 1 and a number of the group 3 drivers (included me) largely joined group 2. This made for much smoother flow of traffic.

    7. Re:Full cost/benefit analysis please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around here it's particularly pernicious because they're all about the traffic calming and the city engineer in charge of designing the roadways has stated on video that his job isn't to make traffic flow more smoothly and safely. So, you get all sorts of asinine changes being made to force people to drive slower or give up entirely. There's this one particularly bad stretch of road by my parents that has drivers divert around a left turn lane if they want to go straight or turn right. But, the distance you have to make the lane change is about 2 car lengths long. Meaning that you have to pretty much stomp on the brakes in order to make the lane change and probably get rear ended if you're turning right.

      I know that when I used to visit WI, the status quo there was more or less to constantly speed, that the posted limit was just for snow. Going over the speed limit wasn't likely to result in a ticket as long as you didn't pass a cop while speeding.

      But really, speed limits and traffic regulations are largely about making traffic as predictable and efficient as possible. Trying to force people to drive at a speed they don't want to drive at can cause as much harm as good. If you need drivers to drive more slowly, you have to change their sense of speed. Make the roadway more narrow and chances are they'll slow down somewhat naturally.

    8. Re:Full cost/benefit analysis please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your explanation for the signs is that Tokyo is "changing the story to engage people's social imperatives"? Their real reason is reducing lines based on a thought experiment where we assume that the population is so unhealthy that there are almost no walkers? What's wrong with you to imagine such convoluted theories?

      Sorry but I'll stick with the explanation that they're putting safety first without any sort of cost/benefit analysis.

    9. Re:Full cost/benefit analysis please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will never forget the day when the speed limit returned to normal around here. On the day before, I counted three highway patrol cars on the commute home right at the very edge of the zone where the change was supposed to be raised. The signs were up but covered. They were ticketing people left and right knowing the new speed would be legal in less than 24 hours. The next day, there was not a cop to be found anywhere. Fucking assholes!

      Without a doubt, speeding fines mean jack shit about safety and are only about the money.

  3. Re:Idoits by Shaiku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess you've never been the Japan. It's not universal but it is a very frequent habit for standers to stay to one side and walkers to freely use the other. They're not particularly wide and I'm an Amerifat but still manage not to clog up the escalator like a double-handrail-holding can't-fucking-balance jackass.

    What are you doing touching the rails anyway--you want to pick up the latest cold or flu going around?

  4. Re:Idoits by omnichad · · Score: 2

    These are probably up/down escalator sets both going the same direction. One side is just standing and the other is used by walkers. I think they could just make it so that walking is only permitted when there's no congestion and everyone is happy.

  5. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not really sure what that means but our town has a very small airport and no escalators. I have seen people walking up escalators but that is usually because they are in a hurry and they walk up either side without anybody getting their panties in a wad. I am also not sure what BSD has to do with anything.

  6. got it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, So that's why folks in US always make sure to take up all lanes on the escalators ... it's for my safety!

  7. Sure do. Both sides, at the same time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, my fat ass physically isn't compatible with that requirement. Two of me do not fit on a normal escalator stair at the same time

    1. Re:Sure do. Both sides, at the same time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, my fat ass physically isn't compatible with that requirement. Two of me do not fit on a normal escalator stair at the same time

      Then take the stairs, you obviously need the exercise.

  8. Stairs by alvinrod · · Score: 2

    Maybe this is a stupid question, but why not just take the stairs if you're in a hurry? Maybe it's different in Japan or there are a few locations where this doesn't hold true, but I'm assuming that there's a perfectly good set of stairs that can be used instead of escalators. If I'm in a hurry in an airport, I'll almost always take the stairs because they get a lot less traffic and they're often more than wide enough to allow plenty of space to go around people.

    1. Re:Stairs by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe this is a stupid question, but why not just take the stairs if you're in a hurry?

      Because people are lazy. They think running up a crowded escalator is faster than taking open stairs. I have tried this on several occasions. Pick someone on the escalator and walk up the stairs. Without exception I always arrive ahead of them. If I take the stairs faster, I'm already on my way while they're still stuck.

      The same with parking lots. People will slowly drive around, looking for a close spot while I park further away. While I'm on my way into the building, they're just pulling into a spot or getting out of their car.

      Laziness short circuits common sense in some situations. Going up a crowded escalator rather than using open stairs is one of those.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Stairs by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      It feels like you can hit about 30 mph walking on the moving sidewalk in DIA. My knees got marginally fucked over in a car accident a couple years back (Doesn't really seem like a fair trade for financially ruining some texting-and-driving cockmonkey, but it's the trade I got,) so I'll usually hop on the escalator at the bus station on my commute to work, hobble up a few steps until I'm behind someone, and then stop. I get there as fast as the guys going up the stairs doing that anyway.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:Stairs by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To be fair in Tokyo they have turbo escalators that run faster than the normal ones, and I think you would have to be pretty fit to keep up with them.

      Of course they only use them where there is also a normal speed escalator for people who can't cope with life in the fast lane.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I promise you, you running up the stairs and me running up the escalator, I'll beat you so long as I'm not blocked. This isn't exactly advanced physics here.

    5. Re:Stairs by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You take the stairs because people are blocking the escalators, it's the only scenario where it may be faster. You know what's faster than running up stairs? Running up an escalator.

    6. Re:Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the whole point. Escalators are narrow and often crowded. Stairs are wide and often very sparsely used when an escalator is available. More the point, escalators being so narrow and with so many people even if one side were left clear to run up, it'd still be a lot more hazardous and just having to deal with the clean up of people tripping would be reason enough to avoid it as a rule. A race in the middle of the night when no one is around misses the point when 12+ hours of the day it's incredibly busy.

    7. Re:Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this is a stupid question, but why not just take the stairs if you're in a hurry?

      You're right, it is a stupid question.

      If I can walk up the up escalator, then I have my own speed PLUS the speed of the escalator getting me where I'm going. Walking on the moving sidewalks really gives a jump a speed.

      And yes, in both cases I've watched people taking the stairs or the regular floor - I'm much faster even at a normal walking pace.

      --XYZZY--

    8. Re:Stairs by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trotting up an escalator is slower than doing the same up the stairs? The escalator is moving. It's faster. Duh.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:Stairs by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that there's a perfectly good set of stairs that can be used instead of escalators.

      Welcome to University of Washington station, where they didn’t design in stairways in order to keep the footprint of the station as small as possible! Oh, and the reason they had to keep the footprint small was because of limited construction space between a football stadium and one of the busiest roads in the US.

      Oh, and the reason it’s near the football stadium is because boosters thought it made more sense to have it there for six games a year rather than in the middle of campus where the university’s 40000 students would have the quickest access from train to classroom 260 days a year. .

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    10. Re:Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take the speed at which you hustle up the stairs, and ADD TO IT the speed at which the escalator moves you, you wind up with a speed that is GREATER THAN the speed at which you hustle up the stairs.

      See how that works? If you are in a hurry, taking the escalator is faster if you can also hustle up it. If people are standing there blocking you, then it is not faster.

      That is why people who are in a hurry sometimes develop a deep hatred for people who stand on escalators and block a path to hustle up them. Such behavior eliminates the optimally speedy route for getting there.

    11. Re:Stairs by Tom · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is a stupid question, but why not just take the stairs if you're in a hurry? Maybe it's different in Japan or there are a few locations where this doesn't hold true, but I'm assuming that there's a perfectly good set of stairs that can be used instead of escalators.

      That assumption is the problem. I usually take the stairs (faster plus excercise) but especially in deep subway systems there very often aren't open stairs available. For example, St. Petersburg (Russia) has a deep subway system, and rarely are there open stairs. The typical exit looks like this: http://www.saint-petersburg.co...

      I don't remember Tokyo, it's been over 10 years. But their subway system was excellent back then and very well thought out. And japanese people are very disciplined on public transport, so if this can work anywhere, it's there.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    12. Re:Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I work there is a 4 story escalator system.

      Going up sometimes I can beat everyone. If no one is on them I can walk up the escalator too.

      Down I usually can beat them.

      Now the actual stairs are not 'great'. I have slipped on them several times when it is raining out as they are made of marble. So be careful!

      The actual difference between running the stairs and just waiting on the escalator is fairly minimal. You are talking 10-20 seconds faster either direction. Really just depends on the escalators and how fast they go.

    13. Re: Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stairs are wide? Not often. Quite a lot are spiral as well.

    14. Re: Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running up an empty escalator. Which is seldom the case.

    15. Re:Stairs by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Really depends. Especially in Tokyo. (Although my experience is mostly from some time spent in Yokohama).

      There you have basically three different situations during the day:
      - "Off Hours": Not much people around. Trotting up the escalator is fastest.
      - "Medium" Rush-Hour: Slight queues in front of the escalator, both on the standing and walking side. You are faster most of the time when you take the (usually wider) stairs where there is no queue.
      - "Packed" Rush-Hour: Walking on the escalator becomes quite impossible anyway, and the throngs of people move up the escalator and the stairs at about the same speed.

    16. Re:Stairs by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      Escalators are stairs, not elevators. They're moving stairs. Everybody should be climbing it up.

      It's purpose is the exact same as the flat moving walkways in airports. They get you where you want to go quicker.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    17. Re:Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do peoples legs stop functioning once they step onto a moving surface? My legs function just as well regardless. It seems like the lazy among us are all too intent on pulling everyone down to their level just so they can avoid all of those feelings about being lazy and blocking those that know how to move their legs.

    18. Re:Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DFW does not provide stairs for all escalators.

    19. Re:Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in your alternate universe, walking up stationary stairs is faster than walking up moving stairs. I guess vector addition doesn't work over there. Sounds like an interesting place.

    20. Re:Stairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, its obvious. no one suggested that the comparison is stairs vs elevator when both are empty. Its stairs vs elevator when its busy and even the walkers on the escalator cant get on the esclator and move on it as quickly as when its empty.

  9. Broken legs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I find it surprising that people can operate their legs on normal stairways, yet their legs stop operation when on stairs that move.
    Same goes with moving pathways at airports.

    How lazy.

    1. Re:Broken legs by PPH · · Score: 1

      It's the basis of some of the funniest videos on the 'Net.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Broken legs by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      most the people here will have trouble with flights of stairs in middle age. if you're eating well and exercising what you are saying is fine...

  10. trivially proven not true by dfghjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone."

    This is an absurd claim that doesn't pass the most basic smell test.

    If everyone is a stander, then the latency for everyone is fixed once they are on the device. Therefore, the only way to "save time for everyone" is for everyone to literally have to wait extra time to get on otherwise. That is clearly NEVER the case for everyone and is, in most instances, never the case for ANYONE.

    If the most important thing is absolute throughput, then you need to pack like sardines to minimize wait on entry. This is likely never true except in an exceptional place during exceptional demand. Otherwise, it will always be best to yield space to those who need to minimize transit time since your latency will be unaffected. This is so trivially easy to understand it's a joke.

    It's not wonder "transit users around the world just can't be convinced", it's because it's wrong. Laughably wrong.

    1. Re:trivially proven not true by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Yup. London has "tried" it for more than 50 years on the Underground, so if it didn't work, we'd have known by now. Oddly enough, the directive to "stand on the right" (with signs every 15 feet reiterating that) is still around.

      Try standing on the left on an escalator at Oxford Circus (busiest) or Victoria (second busiest), I dare anyone who thinks it is better. I double dare them. Then try it at rush hour. They'll be told off by staff (not just sworn at by commuters) for causing congestion and slowing everybody down.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    2. Re:trivially proven not true by bobbied · · Score: 1, Troll

      "When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone."

      This is an absurd claim that doesn't pass the most basic smell test.

      If everyone is a stander, then the latency for everyone is fixed once they are on the device.

      Think of it as Net Neutrality for escalators.. ;) No preferential treatment for the walking packets over the riding ones.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:trivially proven not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It improves capacity. If half the escalator is being used by a small number of rushers, the total capacity of the system is reduced. Only if the number of users using the walker side >= the number on the standing side will capacity still be maintained. If capacity drops because the walker side is used by less users, and demand is greater than capacity, latency increases for the ones on the standing side.

    4. Re:trivially proven not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


      This is likely never true except in an exceptional place during exceptional demand.

      Like, say during rush hour when everyone is getting on/off the subway, and people are waiting for the escalator? Or at an airport when a fully loaded 777 arrives?

      This kind of exceptional demand happens all the time. It's not are rare as you're making it out to be.

    5. Re:trivially proven not true by chispito · · Score: 2
      Have you ever been in, or at least seen pictures of, a busy Japanese station in rush hour? If you have, I am not sure why you would say

      If the most important thing is absolute throughput, then you need to pack like sardines to minimize wait on entry. This is likely never true except in an exceptional place during exceptional demand.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    6. Re:trivially proven not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It improves capacity only in the particular condition you've described. If traffic increases and the walking side fills up, then asking those fine folks to stop walking will decrease capacity. The policy should be optimized for the busiest time, not optimized for some mid-range traffic level.

    7. Re:trivially proven not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who walk up the escalator later get pummeled by those not raised by wolves -- it will save both of our time.

    8. Re:trivially proven not true by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      At very best times, the cumulative effect of greater throughput seems to overwhelm social programming. In that the throughput is highest when both sides stand. People keep piling on until the people behind have to pause since they're too close to someone in front. Then the person behind had to stop and it propagates all the way up leaving a standing only escalator.

      It doesn't recover until the traffic volume drops below some threshold and people can move again.

      It happens regularly at busy stations at busy times (e.g. Brixton which isn't the biggest but is unreserved with escalator capacity).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:trivially proven not true by kencurry · · Score: 1

      Yup. ... I dare anyone who thinks it is better. I double dare them. ...

      I triple DOG dare them!

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    10. Re:trivially proven not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Therefore, the only way to "save time for everyone" is for everyone to literally have to wait extra time to get on otherwise. That is clearly NEVER the case for everyone and is, in most instances, never the case for ANYONE.

      If the most important thing is absolute throughput, then you need to pack like sardines to minimize wait on entry. This is likely never true except in an exceptional place during exceptional demand.

      I'm not sure why you're starting off with the assumption escalators are not congested.. at all ever or at least in Tokyo FFS. This discussion would not be taking place if there weren't people waiting at the top of it to get on. Did you really need that part explained to you? It's like you went straight into reactionary defense mode because you like to walk on the left and got offended by this. I halfway expected another stupid "anti-SJW" rant to form from this, because it's the same ridiculous line of thought.

      If the stand on right signs (if you even have them) get taken down or either way someone is standing on the left side and the thing isn't at capacity
      you can complain about it. But if you do so openly, I will step to the left or stop walking and just stare at your dumb ass.

      Seriously, this is over saving seconds walking, the only thing that even maters is how it works at capacity or in an emergency, it's not about your average 10s ride vs. everyone else 20s ride time.

    11. Re:trivially proven not true by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 2

      ... minimize wait on entry. This is likely never true ...

      You have the insight to see the exact problem and you are wrong. The big clod of people waiting to step on the escalator is exactly the place where the problem is solved.

      This was done really poorly in London by the way. They painted footsteps on the treads, and they showed a lame hologram poster of a person gesturing silently to the escalator. WTF! And then they called it a failure because nobody stood on the left.

      There is one and only one excellent way to enforce this. Staff in purple suits stand on the left, riding up and down the escalators in shifts. You only need one standee to block the entire escalator! So, three per escalator hall is plenty, plus one person with a can of pepper spray at the top/bottom to explain to angry people to take the stairs. The thing about this temp job is it doesn't take any skills. Perhaps you only need to be pretty, or big and muscular, and the uniforms can have an informative sign on the back.

      Note, the solution would only bring us to the next problem, which is can these escalators actually carry two full people-columns worth of load? In the 2018 Black Hat conference in Las Vegas, we witnessed that most of the escalators were overtaxed and the friction drives slipped (fat Americans don't walk up the escalator).

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    12. Re:trivially proven not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It improves capacity only in the particular condition you've described. If traffic increases and the walking side fills up, then asking those fine folks to stop walking will decrease capacity. The policy should be optimized for the busiest time, not optimized for some mid-range traffic level.

      You're in some fantasy land where there are no small children or luggage, or the ratio of walkers is so much higher that both sides can be at capacity.

      Absent those, you could just put up a "must always walk on escalator" sign. Again, this is fantasy.

      As soon as there is a pool of people waiting at the top to get on, the whole thing needs to be filled with the lowest common denominator - stander. It really doesn't matter if the standing side is half full or the walking side, or what the composition of the pool at the top is, the empty space must be filled to be efficient, and the entire column will move as fast as the slowest part - at capacity.

    13. Re:trivially proven not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small children and luggage belong the step in front of you, so that you can prevent them from falling, not beside you.

    14. Re: trivially proven not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends how fast theyâ(TM)re going. If there are two steps per person but they get to the end in a third the time, more people go through over time.

    15. Re:trivially proven not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but those faster people surely have some sort of privilege to which I believe they are not entitled. It follows, then, that we should force them to slow down so that they aren't improperly privileged.

      Did you know that over 90% of escalator "walkers" have a lower BMI than standers, and that 100% of them arrive at a given destination before standers. It's proof of the institutionalized discrimination standers must face every day.

    16. Re:trivially proven not true by trawg · · Score: 1

      Here's the article that describes the original 'trial' that they did at Holburn station in London.

      Having caught the tube there many times I find it pretty easy to believe that making them standing only would save some time for some people - what you refer to as 'exceptional demand' is pretty much normal there in peak hour where the wait on entry is a problem.

      It would however make it worse for /me/ because I'm one of the few people that actually does walk up that long steep escalator!

  11. Re: Idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Miami vice the cops used to run up the escalators jumping over people

  12. Give me a break, Poon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do you have to be that an extra ten seconds is going to make or break you? The lack of consideration for other people justifying this is appalling, and that's aimed at the author, not Japan.

    1. Re:Give me a break, Poon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not your issue to concern yourself with. If I have somewhere to be and you're standing on the left side of an escalator, you're going to be moved.

    2. Re:Give me a break, Poon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes i'll be moved. That's what an escalator does. You'll be moved too, at the same speed as me.

    3. Re: Give me a break, Poon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You'll be moved, by me, as I shove your dumb ass out of the way like the beta fag you are.

    4. Re: Give me a break, Poon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be moved to the morgue after I crack your retaded skull on the escalator steps with by boot

    5. Re: Give me a break, Poon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you'll really do is pout and whimper all the way up the escalator, after which you'll spend the next hour weeping softly into your Cinnabon.

  13. warning: life is dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the little man with flags for my house to warn me of the many dangers?

  14. Re: Idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot. I've been to countless places with escalators and very rarely is it too small to have left/right lane of traffic. You stand right, walk left. Dont like it then take the elevator or stairs.

  15. Sorry my balance sucks. [not OP here] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't knoe why, but my body just sucks at balancing, and I tried everything.

    Also, I'm usually walking a *lot* (Germany here, most people my age in my city have no car.), even though I'm an "Eurofat", so the escalator always is a nice little pause to rest my legs.

    So I simply grab the rails to make both of the above easier. And I also fill out 2/3 of the space.

    I don't see why I can't just make some space, if somebody wants to pass me anyway. Because it's not *that* hard, and unlike OP, I'm not an asshole.

    There are escalators of different widths, by the way. They are deliberately installed for different usage scenarios.

    1. Re:Sorry my balance sucks. [not OP here] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't knoe why, but my body just sucks at balancing, and I tried everything.

      and

      (Germany here, most people my age in my city have no car.)

      makes me think you haven't tried skipping the breakfast beer.

  16. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    When in a hurry, I often find the stairs are faster than the crowded escalator.

  17. Is CityLab a Porno Mag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linda Poon is an obvious porn name. Was that article co-written by Buck Naked?

  18. Go! Go! Mozilla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch! Vanquish! Surrender! It all makes sense in the Trump world, as Karla 'Danny' Devito likes to say. Oh, and by the way, YOU'RE FIRED!

  19. Social Credit System by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    That man with flags is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    And "little" is racist.

  20. Re: Idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I follow the posted signage. Some places specifically say walk on left, stand on right. Some say not to walk.

  21. Not throughput nor latency but safety by tepples · · Score: 1

    If the most important thing is absolute throughput, then you need to pack like sardines to minimize wait on entry. This is likely never true except in an exceptional place during exceptional demand.

    What the featured article refers to as "the city’s busiest transit hubs" you might indeed call "an exceptional place". Besides, the article appears to imply that in JR East's opinion, the most important thing might be neither throughput nor latency but collision safety, particularly for people carrying bulky and/or heavy luggage.

    1. Re:Not throughput nor latency but safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. If safety is the actual motivation there wouldn't be a selectivity for only certain kinds of safety. How many standers suffer from heart disease compared to walkers? How do the BMIs of the two groups compare? How is contributing to obesity increasing safety? Someone has to demonstrate that the NET effect is an increase in safety.

  22. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    When in a hurry, I often find the stairs are faster than the crowded escalator.

    This is frequently the case even when only a small number of people are using an escalator. If you're in a hurry and physically capable, the stairs are almost always a better option.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  23. why elevators break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are studies that show one of the reasons for frequent elevator failure is the imbalance caused by people standing to one side and a few walking on the other.

    1. Re:why elevators break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An alternative solution to this problem would be to place ads encouraging more people to walk on the escalator. That solution would actually align with the health department who is trying to get people to exercise, instead of going against it.

    2. Re:why elevators break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you often run into people walking on one side of an elevator while other stand on the other? I've always found the only walking involved with elevators is walking into them and walking out of them.

  24. Re:Idoits by bobbied · · Score: 1

    These are probably up/down escalator sets both going the same direction. One side is just standing and the other is used by walkers. I think they could just make it so that walking is only permitted when there's no congestion and everyone is happy.

    And that would be a "social contract" kind of thing, where society's social norms would need to be adjusted. That's hard to do.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  25. what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who stand on escalators are slovenly vermin who must be destroyed.

  26. Hard hitting news on Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad Slashdot has the guts to print this kind of stuff. Nowhere else have I seen such important articles on such important topics.

    I look forward to other articles like this. Like which side of the hard boiled egg should you crack first? The big end of the little end? Or should you hang the toilet paper facing front, or facing back?

  27. Makes sense some places, not others. by onkelonkel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two at a time standing maybe makes sense if there are enough people at the bottom of the escalator to saturate it - i.e. a big enough crowd at the bottom that there are always two more people to step on each step as it appears.That is logically the maximum throughput, if you assume that people walking up leave spaces between them. If you had a pool of fit people who all wanted to get up the escalator as fast as possible, then they could all walk, or, god forbid, run up the escalator and the increased velocity would likely offset the effect of the spaces and you would achieve even greater throughput.
     
    Around here the transit stations are busy, but seldom at saturation levels. People stand on the right and walk on the left. Seems to work well enough. Most people walk up, the ones who stand are usually pulling a suitcase, or elderly, or obese, or heads down reading a book or a screen.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Makes sense some places, not others. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Two at a time standing maybe makes sense if there are enough people at the bottom of the escalator to saturate it - i.e. a big enough crowd at the bottom that there are always two more people to step on each step as it appears.That is logically the maximum throughput, if you assume that people walking up leave spaces between them

      You would also need to know how fast the walkers are going.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  28. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why the stairs are always hidden from public view

  29. Re:Which is the worst BSD of all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHY DID BSD DIE?

    Sure, we all know that *BSD is a failure, but why? Why did *BSD die? Once you get past the fact that *BSD is fragmented between a myriad of incompatible kernels, there is the historical record of failure and of failed operating systems. *BSD experienced moderate success about 20 years ago in academic circles. Since then it has been in steady decline. We all know *BSD effectively lost all of its market share but why? Is it the problematic personalities of many of the key players? Or is it larger than their troubled personas? The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.

  30. It is absurd to think it saves time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trains come and go in every 5 minutes, how does shaving off maybe 30 seconds can increase the chance of getting on an earlier train? 1 out of 10?

    1. Re:It is absurd to think it saves time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about what you're saying: it's not shaving off 30 seconds if you make an earlier train but 5 minutes. If you don't it's obviously pointless, if you love waiting around then don't walk up the escalator, but why deny people who want to?

    2. Re: It is absurd to think it saves time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can gain these 5 minutes at three stations- say DLR to Jubilee, Jubilee to Picadilly, to Heathrow, then the value of 30 seconds is clearly seen.

  31. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you do not want people to go down them like stair, stop making them stairs. Make them metal platforms that hold 4-6 people; instead of having them return underneath each other, have the platforms go in a oval motion where they are going clockwise and down (or up) at the same time - kinda like a merry-go-round. The platforms should be big enough for a stroller to get on and off easily too. For a building with more than two floors, another idea is to make the platforms rotate around a pole, like a spiral stairs, but you have one set going up constantly and one set going down constantly with a platform transition at the top and bottom. These platforms would have a circular like shape to them to maximize loading and unloading times.

    Bottom line is if you don't want people walking down them like stairs, don't make them stairs.

    -Adam S.

  32. eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're misunderstanding "it saves time for everyone". I think what is meant that the average or typical latency is reduced (under high load).

    It's pretty easy to see that this is true. If both sides are fully utilized, two people will exit at a regular clip. If only one side is fully utilized, and the other reserved for those who walk, the rate or people exiting will be slower. The only exception would be if the walking side were fully utilized by walkers. I've spent a lot of time in tube stations, and have virtually never seen this.

  33. Yeah by argStyopa · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm 6'4", 360 lbs, former defensive lineman...you want to try to sprint past me on some 24" wide escalator, you go right ahead and try...but if you try to shove me, slam me, or crank your bag into my leg to get past because you can't wait the 4 minutes to get to the top, that may not work out well for you.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sprint past you, then drop a plastic bag full of olive oil as they pass... olive oil vs roid-addled washed-up old ex-football player.

    2. Re: Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just repeatedly taze your ass and let gravity educate you as your bones snap under the weight of your body tumbling down pointy metal stairs.

    3. Re: Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then, while you play with your toy, people in a hurry going up the escalator will trample you. Stand aside old fart!

  34. Use both sides to reduce maintenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right side for standing makes that side wear out faster. Of course the transit authority wants to save costs by increasing the maintenance interval. Surely you don't think they're concerned about reducing passenger's trip time?

  35. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't be retarded: stairs are behind fire doors so the stairwells don't fill with smoke in an emergency.

  36. Big Brother the Bureaucrat by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    It's bad enough when some bureaucrat wants to protect us from ourselves, even when they have their facts right. Doing it when they are wrong is just adding insult.

  37. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    And unlike those sillies on the escalator, you won't be stuck on the stairs in the event of a power outage. :D

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  38. Grammar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iâ(TM)m one...who speeds...(not speed)

  39. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    are you retarded? if an escalator is void of people, running up or down the escalator is significantly faster than stairs.

  40. Re: Idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real problem with escalators is the idiots who step off at the end and stand there scratching their asses trying to remember how to walk. The people behind them don't have the option to stop so shit happens.

  41. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    What stairs? Plenty of London stations only have escalators.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  42. Meanwhile in Wyoming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody much cares for escalators.

    1. Re:Meanwhile in Wyoming... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      People in Wyoming get stranded on escalators for hours when they lose power!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  43. Conditional signs by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It's only when traffic volume exceeds a certain level that double-standing makes sense. But if it's not clear when "double time" is, the confusion can cause problems and injuries.

    You need explicit and standardized timed signs.

  44. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you're running up/down the down/up escalator.

  45. Re: Idoits by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    I ignore the posted signage unless there's someone in authority to give me a hard time about it.

  46. Left side abandoned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This only works if the left side is constantly full and moving, but often it is left abandoned by courteous right-side standers. If it were always full then overall more would get through. People in a rush can leave 2 minutes earlier, the ~20 seconds saved from walking up is negligible overall anyway.

  47. frankfurt airport reserve left side for walker by aepervius · · Score: 2

    It even has symbol painted on the ground showing right side as immobile and left side as walking. Frankly most people also stick to right side even when not prescribed e.g. frankfurt hbf people stick to the right side or go to the right side when they hear you climbing.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  48. Really?!? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I'm an American... people should GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WAY! ;-)

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  49. stand on the right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who stand on the left of an escalator are like slinkies, basically useless but you do get a good laugh as you push them down.

  50. Why not just build more escalators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Escalators are really, really cheap compared to the metro infrastructure they serve. Just build more escalators when your trains are always packed. It's unsafe to have a full escalator, because a small accident can have a literally domino effect all the way down.

  51. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhhh I always wondered why that was the case. You learn something new.

  52. Re: Idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This.

    "No skating/biking/Blading allowed"

    Me: pshhh, says who? *kickflip*

  53. Re:Idoits by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    These are probably up/down escalator sets both going the same direction.

    No, in Japan the escalators in the subways are mostly wide enough for a double-file line on the same escalator.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  54. They tried in London by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

    Complete failure. Possibly because of the nightmarish idiotic posters that they had to promote this. Made me want to throw up.

  55. So build another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they're getting congested then there aren't enough of them anyway

  56. Re: Idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once had a ff /sit/ in front of me on the escalator steps for the ride -- the ff couldn't stand up at the end of the ride so the steps commenced grinding his ass. People were also falling over him as he was in the way - it took 2 people and some effort from him to get him standing again

  57. Re:Idoits by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 2

    Not just in Japan. I've been to quite a few countries in Asia, and the escalators are all "double-wide". In most places I've been, there are actually signs that say some version of "stand on the right, walk on the left".

  58. Re:Idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No I am not an amerifat.

    You are, without any possibility of doubt, comically fat compared to the average American.

  59. There may be a different reason by foksoft · · Score: 1

    A few years back Prague public transport tried something similar. They attempted to convince people to stop standing only on one side of the escalators. The reason was completely different. When people stand on one side, then this side is being worn out more than the other one. This was causing some troubles with servicing escalators. Apart from that I don't see any problems with allowing people in a hurry to walk/run the escalators. Especially when there are no stairs to run around the problem. BTW: if you walk on escalator, then you are always faster than someone on stairs :). If it comes to question of capacity, then it surly will win standing on both sides. But life is not always about maximum capacity.

  60. Count Me Among the "Not Convinced" by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 1

    When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone.

    Let's call the escalator speed "1". If you have an escalator capable of holding two persons per step, the output would be 2/step-arrival if everyone stands still.

    If 25% of the users are walkers, and ascend twice as fast as the escalator, that would result in a 2/sa metric. If more than 25% use the "walk" lane, throughput increases. If fewer use it, throughput decreases.

    The critical factor is not "have a walk lane or not", it's "how do people use the escalator". And that is completely ignoring the "perception factor". A certain setup may be less efficient than the optimum, but if people like it better, it should be used. The amount of time and money spent dealing with complaints about the "better" system almost always outweigh the efficiency benefits.

  61. Not about safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any time government wants you to change your behavior "for your own safety," when there is not a single piece of supporting evidence to be found to support it, it's not about safety at all. It's about control.

    That's all there is too it. Government wants to test the boundaries of control.

  62. Common sense by spinitch · · Score: 1

    Wreck less people ruin it for the considerate. Where stairs are an option fine hog the escalator. But Most people can stand to the right and let those in a hurry move faster. The point should be made if you have luggage use left side, no passing. Otherwise if space permits stand to the left. There are times where folks with luggage need to use right side since crowded in which case tough luck for those who want to go fast. Likewise for less mobile people old / handicap , babies etc have right to stay on right. Able body people should be considerate and step to the left to allow those non right to pass. This will continue with a few jerks making life difficult unnecessarily for others.

  63. Re:Idoits by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    It's known as a general courtesy around the globe that this is how it's done and if you block the left you're a bloody cunt.

    City governments may be looking at uneven wear patterns on bearings, rollers or belts that an escalator uses. I am guessing that keeping maintenance cycles down they would be saving money. I think it's in the cities best interest to let the faster people out front instead of forcing 300+ people cross the intersection at the same time.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  64. They Need Some Fat Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To ride their escalators. We could park our wide asses right in the middle, completely blocking upward or downward progress, while breaking wind continuously to discourage tailgaters.

  65. Re: Which is the worst BSD of all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fire doors are then locked to ensure no one can block them open for easy access, thereby also allowing in the smoke.

  66. Which side? by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

    The correct side to stand on depends on where you are. In Osaka and the surrounding region we stand on the right side. Only clueless out-of-towners from Tokyo would be dumb enough to stand on the left blocking busy commuters.

    I would personally find it frustrating to be blocked when there is clear space beyond the blockage that I could be walking up. I have a train to catch.

  67. Re:Idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are narrow escalators and wide escalators. If you only see the narrow escalators you need to get outside of your small town. Those wide escalators are more of the standard than the narrow ones that only feet one person across.

    BTW, fuck you - you self-centered dimwit.

  68. Re:Idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're just a fatass.

  69. Same in Osaka by exxaminer · · Score: 1

    I'm in Osaka right now and they already have floor signs making people to stand in 2 queues for each escalator.. well, as I saw the traffic in subway hubs, I do understand.

  70. Average don't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone

    No, it doubles or triples the time for people who walk and saves time for people who don't. It's literally forcing a minority to suffer for the convenience of a majority.

    And knock it off with your collectivist bullshit. Just because the MEAN travel time decreases doesn't mean everybody benefits. When Bill Gates walks into a bar, the mean net wealth of everyone in that bar increases substantially, and yet somehow they're not actually better off because of it.

  71. If you have to walk or un up an escalator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously didn't give yourself enough time. Stop being in such a rush, plan ahead. Then, step on to the escalator and stand still.

  72. Re:Idoits by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 1

    City governments may be looking at uneven wear patterns on bearings, rollers or belts that an escalator uses. I am guessing that keeping maintenance cycles down they would be saving money.

    That's a valid point. But there's an easy solution to that: Alternate the sides. A lot of highways in the US have signs that say "Trucks use X lane". That lane changes to move the heavy vehicles to different lanes (and, thereby, extending the life of the road). It would be a simple (and cheap) solution to have digital signs that say "Stand on X side, Walk on Y side".

    And... now you've tweaked my "inner engineer" to wonder which side puts more stress on the system. The "standing" lane is a constant, static load. The "walking" lane is an intermittent, dynamic load (of higher frequency).

    Are there any mechanical engineers (or maintenance workers) who can chime in?

  73. Freeze by anddna · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one finding it weird that most of people stop as soon as they get on the escalator? Why wouldn't you keep going?

  74. Justified by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    This is why I don't like big cities and mass transit. At the end of the day, all humanity gets reduced to automata. You are not a person with your own goals and desires. We much force you into a box that exactly matches all the other boxes so that we can increase efficiency. Step on the escalator, ignore your personal space and sidle up next to the other person that you have never met as if you're best friends.

    No, thank you.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  75. Title had me imagine everyone twisting to one side by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    awkwardly, as one foot went up, and the other down.