
Standing-only escalators can carry up to 30 per cent more people - david90
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/22/the-simulation-that-proves-standing-only-escalators-work-on-the/
======
unwind
This is probably off-topic, but are they using different colors for male and
female escalator users? Does it matter? They already have different graphics,
but for some reason felt the need to make it _really clear_ that there are
different gendered people here, riding escalators? Very strange.

Also, it doesn't seem to address the "total time for the ride", the
minimization of which is of course the reason why people want to walk in
escalators. That's the egoistical reason, to minimize overall throughput is
perhaps somewhat less interesting to each individual.

That said, optimizing the system as a whole for throughput is a good goal so
perhaps it's time to change escalator culture!

~~~
throwawayReply
They could use the colours to indicate walking vs standing preference but
instead chose to indicate gender for seemingly no reason.

There should be three classes:

1\. Wants to stand 2\. Wants to walk 3\. Wants to stand but will walk if lack
of standing space.

These might be in their simulation but it's not well explained.

But the simulation isn't the main point, there was a real life study!

------
OscarCunningham
Even if leaving space for people to walk is slower on average it might still
be better because it allows people in a hurry to go faster.

~~~
SilkRoadie
From the foot of the elevator people walking will reach the top faster.
However, navigating from the back of the queue at peak time to the start of
the escalator is often time consuming.

It would be interesting what the times were between those navigating the queue
and walking up vs during the trial where everyone stands but the queue to the
escalator is shorter.

~~~
4ad
People who stand and queue up do not block the people who want to walk. The
queue leaves access for the people who are willing to walk.

~~~
snowwolf
Apparently you haven't been on the London Underground at rush hour. The
escalator halls aren't long enough for an orderly queue to form on one side
when a tube offloads its passengers.

------
lyschoening
And walking-only escalators can carry even more people, provided people walk
on both sides.

I'm in favor of building enough escalators to give everyone a choice. In an
emergency situation everyone will have to walk anyway.

~~~
notacoward
As the article clearly stated, they did leave people a choice. Some of the
tube stations have more than a dozen escalators, and only some were changed to
standing-only. It makes perfect sense to optimize for throughput generally,
but leave some lanes for those relatively few people who need/want to walk
(TFA also discusses the difference in this willingness for escalators of
different lengths).

------
sooheon
This may be true for TFL, but like they say, the results depend on people's
willingness to walk, and desire for personal space.

At peak hours/stations in the Seoul subway system, standing only would be a
disaster. There are more than enough people willing to walk to completely fill
the left side of the escalator. Everyone keeps up a steady walking pace while
being essentially 1 person per step, so I'd guess it's at least a 30%
improvement in throughput.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
> while being essentially 1 person per step

I think this estimate is incorrect. The article demonstrated otherwise. Also,
people are willing to pack closer together when standing than when walking
(and when walking than running!)

Walking does increase the overall speed, but the study shows it's not enough
for the increased space required. At least for British personal space
requirements.

Similarly, when driving, you need a certain amount of time between each
vehicle. Yes, you can pack in with <1m space between bumpers in a stopped
traffic jam, but you need many vehicle lengths to be safe at speed.

For each mode of transport, there is an optimal speed and packing density. But
you can't change one (speed) without affecting the other!

------
cauterized
They're also assuming people are willing to stand tightly packed, rather than
one on every second stair. I've never seen an escalator, no matter how dense
the crowds, with strangers standing on the same side of adjacent steps.

~~~
andrewaylett
Not quite, because this is based on an actual real-life test.

If people are currently leaving a single spare step when standing, but the
people walking have to leave more than one spare step (or because there aren't
so many, more than one step is left) then there's spare capacity that's not
being used.

------
crdoconnor
The more people willing to walk the lower that % becomes.

You could probably sway a lot more people to walk instead of stand by pointing
out (truthfully) that it's an easy habit to get into to promote fitness.

It would be a good use for spare advertising space not being used to encourage
tourists to go see Wicked or Mamma Mia.

~~~
sundvor
I was just about to comment: And so far, not one mention of the health benefit
of walking (well, actually, ascending stairs) vs standing still. Then saw that
you had it covered. :-)

------
lambdadmitry
I find it interesting that most pieces on the topic consider only the
throughput perspective while game theory seems more appropriate. People aren't
homogenous "units of production/demand" as queueing theory suggests, there is
a mix of incentives at play. Some people are OK with waiting in the queue and
on the standing escalator, while others are in a hurry and really need a way
to go faster. It is surprising that almost no one complains about dedicated
mass transit lines on our roads ("we can increase vehicle throughput by
removing them!"), yet most people (people in charge, too) apply similar
arguments to escalator usage.

------
jbmorgado
In most places it's not a question of throughput, it's a question of allowing
those that are really in a hurry to go faster, so it's not like societal
normals should change due to this study conclusions.

~~~
thaumasiotes
People who are really in a hurry are likely to take the stairs. There's no
line for the stairs.

------
smegel
Don't they turn standing room only when it gets super busy anyway? And when
it's not busy...who cares.

~~~
lmm
At some busy stations (e.g. Canary Wharf during the morning rush hour) you'll
find a big cluster of people at the bottom waiting for the standing side while
there's space on the walking side. Obv. it gets dangerous if a trainload of
people can't leave the station before the next trainload arrives. (Or more
cynically, if they can achieve the same throughput with fewer escalators
they'll save money on escalators).

~~~
swearfu
Yeah, but it's only dangerous because those people choose to stand there
waiting instead of using their legs. It's their choice to be lazy and those
create a danger for everyone else. We need to stop rewarding people who can't
do anything for themselves.

~~~
lmm
True laziness would be not building more escalators were they're needed. Basic
safety isn't "rewarding" people.

------
dade_
Another conclusion, if more people were willing to walk up longer than average
escalators, there would be less congestion at peak hours.

~~~
Tharkun
Indeed. Or just get rid of escalators entirely. Stairs are much cheaper and
can accomodate more people. And maybe it'll dissuade people from running
around with more luggage than they can carry.

Lifts are of course perfectly acceptable for the diagonally challenged
(wheelchairs, prams, whatnot).

~~~
michaelt

      Or just get rid of escalators entirely.
    

I'm guessing you haven't used London's tube much :)

Many of the stations are very deep - the equivalent of a 15 storey building.
Changing to stairs would certainly lower throughput because that's a really
long climb.

~~~
dingo_bat
> Many of the stations are very deep - the equivalent of a 15 storey building

I find that incredibly hard to believe. Assuming 4 meters per storey, you are
saying that the London underground stations are at a depth of 60 meters.

If true, that's really amazing.

~~~
wflynny
From [1], "Hampstead is the deepest station below the surface, at 58.5 metres
(192 ft), as its surface building is near the top of a hill". So the deepest
is about 60m, but from browsing around, it seems many are at least 40m deep.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_infrastruct...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_infrastructure#Stations)

------
gaius
This is an attack on our very way of life and must be resisted with all our
strength.

------
overcast
From the late Mitch Hedberg. "An escalator can never break: it can only become
stairs. You should never see an Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order sign, just
Escalator Temporarily Stairs. Sorry for the convenience."

~~~
rlpb
Until they open it up to fix it, at which point the escalator is temporarily a
death trap.

------
4ad
As a user of the system, I am not interested in throughput, I am interested in
latency. Standing-only might have better throughput, but it reduces latency
for the users _who hurry and are willing to walk_.

~~~
tokenizerrr
What's going to happen to your latency when you have to wait before you're
able to get on the escalator because it is already at max capacity?

~~~
lmm
You can get past onto the walking side - the standing side hits capacity first
and so only people who aren't in a hurry are delayed. (I see this every
morning at Canary Wharf)

~~~
4ad
Exactly. In my life I have never saw a congestion on the escalator. At rush
hour, poeple who stand, queue up, sure, but they never queue up enough in
order to block the passage of people who want to walk.

Even on New Year's Eve, where demand is highest and the trains are overloaded,
I haven't seen congestion _on the stairs_.

~~~
Symbiote
Escalators in some London stations are sufficiently congested _every day_ for
people to be queuing to get onto either side.

------
swearfu
Are they serious? It's faster for who exactly? The people who were already
standing instead of walking? Why should the people who are walking care, they
want to get somewhere faster so they walk, if people want to be lazy and just
stand there then they can wait, that's the choice they made. This entire
article and the time wasted on it is idiotic.

------
zelos
It probably helps congestion at the bottom of the escalator where people
wanting to stand cross from left to right and vice versa as well.

------
dorianm
That's what the Sao Paulo subway is like: only standing escalators and no
stairs. But it's frustrating as hell.

~~~
mastazi
The article, though, is about standing vs. walking on escalators, it doesn't
mention elevators.

~~~
dorianm
Oops, typo, I meant escalators. I like the way that in London there is an
elevator at every station and mostly stairs.

------
throw7
this isn't surprising. most people are lazy and unfit. we should make it all
walking-only escalators. yeah, that'll show'em!

