
Tokyo Wants People to Stand on Both Sides of the Escalator - danso
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/12/people-stand-walk-escalator-left-right-save-time-efficient/578479/
======
nothrabannosir
Again and again when this comes up, people look at the wrong metric:
throughput. Walking on the left is not about optimising for throughput: it
optimises for _customer happiness_ . It is like a priority queue: in a hurry?
Walk. Okay with waiting? Stand. To people who are in a rush, the ability to
walk is worth very much. To people who are not, having to wait a few more
seconds matters relatively less.

Standing on the right, walking on the left is a form of "rush discrimination".

If you just look at throughput, you're measuring the wrong thing. Try to
measure how people feel! The fact Londoners would flip experimenters the bird
when asked to stand on the left, should tell you what you need to know.

Of course, my perspective crucially ignores one category: people in a rush,
who can't climb an escalator. They are disadvantaged by this. How many of them
there are, I don't know, so perhaps I'm being incredibly tone-deaf.

~~~
DoreenMichele
From the article:

 _Then there’s the added bonus that it may finally stop people from being
jerks on the escalator—like the London commuter captured in a viral video this
year telling a blind man with a guide dog to let go of the handrail so he can
pass him._

Someone with a guide dog -- a clear signal of special need -- can have their
need for reasonable accommodation utterly ignored. It can be worse for the
many people who are less obviously impaired who lack some clear public signal.

I'm seriously handicapped. Most people cannot tell that by looking at me. I
gave up my car more than a decade ago and I mostly get around by walking, so a
lot of people see me as unusually able-bodied because I walk everywhere.

But I have serious trouble navigating certain situations, such as stairs.
Escalators are hard for me because they are moving and I'm visually impaired
and I walk with a permanent limp and I have joint issues and yadda. It's
stressful for me to deal with the transition to step onto the escalator and
stressful for me to deal with the transition to step off the escalator and I
generally cannot cope with walking on the escalator. I stand on it.

~~~
Flowsion
A person telling off a blind man with a guide dog is not going to stop being a
jerk. They are just inconsiderate and do not care.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I don't really understand why you are chiming in to make that observation, but
I will note that he stated that he didn't think he was being inconsiderate.

There are lots of different types of handicaps in the world. Some people have
social impairments. This often gets labeled Autism Spectrum Disorder.

I have two sons who needed a lot of social stuff explained when they were
little. They didn't readily get it.

I think there is a larger learning curve for social things than is generally
appreciated. I am a big believer that decent adults are made, not born.

Regardless, people like me have the additional issue that people who would
never do something like that to a blind person will still do it to me, not
realizing that I'm in genuine danger of being seriously hurt because of their
behavior because I sometimes really struggle with seemingly small things.

Getting on and off a bus is also kind of a nerve-wracking production for me.
Most other people just step on or off. I cannot do that. I routinely cling to
whatever handholds are available. Yet I don't use a cane, walker or other
device that would signal to other people that I'm seriously impaired. So
sometimes people seem to just find me annoying, presumably not realizing this
is actually difficult for me and thus puts me in real danger of falling and
ending up potentially seriously injured.

------
Tharkun
On very busy or very long escalators, standing is probably faster for
everyone. However, most escalators aren't that long, aren't that busy and are
a fair bit slower than walking. In which case everyone should ideally be
walking. But because lots of people have luggage or aren't comfortable walking
up escalators, the whole walk left/stand right thing feels like a pretty
decent compromise.

What the world really needs is more stairs for those who are able, and more
lifts for those who have difficulties with stairs. Or maybe multi-lane,
variable speed walking escalators, but I guess those are sci-fi...

~~~
darkpuma
> _" On very busy or very long escalators, standing is probably faster for
> everyone. "_

How so? I don't see how an escalator could possibly be slower than everybody
standing (discounting the possibility of somebody actually walking backwards.)

> _" Or maybe multi-lane, variable speed walking escalators, but I guess those
> are sci-fi... "_

I've badly wanted to try that ever since I read _Caves of Steel_. It sounds
terrifying but exhilarating.

~~~
dx87
You can probably safely fit more people on the escalator if everyone stands
still, so while individuals would be going slower, overall throughput on the
escalator would be higher.

~~~
darkpuma
Somebody walking on the elevator does not inhibit the person behind him from
standing still. The person who stands behind a walker is going to get on and
off the elevator at the same times.

~~~
zamadatix
This thought experiment about 2 people makes sense on a short, unfrequented,
escalator. The conversation is on long busy escalators however and someone
will almost always be sandwiched between two people in that scenario. If not
there wouldn't be any concerns about throughput considering one lane is
already used for walkers.

~~~
darkpuma
The article and studies it's discussing are about the scenario where standers
avoid the left side of the escalator because they think it's reserved for
walkers. But what I'm saying is that allowing walkers to walk whenever there
is opportunity while also telling standers to use both sides gives you
identical throughput to everybody standing (while allowing any walker who gets
the opportunity to get off the escalator faster.)

~~~
mac01021
If walkers are allowed to walk on the left whenever noone is standing in front
of them, then I will naturally tend to avoid standing on the left. Unless the
left is already blocked by other standers.

~~~
darkpuma
I'm not sure how to break this to you, but walkers can also walk on the right
when nobody is standing in front of them. I've been doing it my entire life
and not once has anyone stopped me.

------
pgtan
“Walking on escalators may lead to accidents caused by collisions or luggage.”

I'm sensing zero-risk bias, typical for modern western societies. For me,
there is absolutely no reason to stand on the escalator, unless handicapped of
course.

~~~
toyg
Tiredness, luggage, children, trying to make sense of directions, being in
company... so many reasons not to walk. In fact, I bet most people never walk
at all on an escalator.

~~~
__blockcipher__
Wow. I’ve always been so baffled by this mentality.

The number of people who are otherwise healthy but refuse to walk up stairs
just shocks me. I’ve never felt like walking up an escalator carried any
significant risk for the able bodied...

I don’t know how to explain it except that people are shockingly lazy and just
overall have really screwed up risk assessment

~~~
yardstick
Does this mean you always prefer using stairs over escalators?

~~~
meddlepal
Not sure about parent poster, but I try to always use the stairs unless they
are not convenient (e.g. not right next to the escalators).

I've got long enough legs to comfortably ascend two stairs at once and I
prefer the exercise as well as the speed of ascent and descent.

------
jreastlies
What this article misses, and what JR East won't tell you, is that having
people walking on escalators reduces their operable life span without
maintenance; and thus increases the costs of running a train station. (JR East
posts profits every quarter despite their escalator maintenance)

This is napkin math, but: Wikipedia says Japan's train ridership was 7.58
billion in 2014. Compared to 880 injuries, that's roughly a 1 in 1 million
chance.

~~~
darkpuma
It wouldn't surprise me if unbalanced load on the left and right also causes
additional wear and tear.

~~~
acheron
This is WMATA’s stated reason for not suggesting or enforcing “stand right,
walk left” on the Washington Metro. They ostensibly want no one walking on
either side.

------
bobthepanda
It is worth noting that the Holborn London Underground experiment described in
the article only took place on one of the systems longest escalators, where
it's unlikely that many people were walking up the full length anyways so
there was wasted capacity.

I feel like it would hold less true for a 3m or 4m escalator that most people
would feel comfortable walking up.

~~~
lostlogin
It does acknowledge that. “A 2002 theoretical study suggested that when
escalators reach more than 60 feet high, fewer people will climb them, leaving
ample space to carry standing passengers.”

Not quite sure what a ‘theoretical study’ means in this context though. They
link to their previous reporting on the study, but the link provided there to
the actual study is dead.

~~~
bobthepanda
I would assume that a 'theoretical study' would involve some type of passenger
flow modeling, which TfL often use to measure expected passenger flows in
projects like the Bank upgrade, layout of Crossrail stations, future upgrades
like Camden Town, etc. The problem with modeling is that it assumes all your
inputs are correct, and there are so many confounding factors in the operation
of a Tube station that there's no real replacement for a real study.

I only put in the disclaimer about height because while it's mentioned with
the theoretical study, it's not mentioned with one of the only actual
experiments, and Holborn is a 23m long escalator, which you wouldn't know
unless you use Holborn. These findings wouldn't be very helpful in New York,
for example, where most stations are so close to the surface that you're only
traveling one or two stories.

------
jackschultz
I was in Tokyo a couple years ago and was incredibly impressed with how
everyone acted on their subway and the escalators there. Incredible amount of
people being in sync. No way that's comparable to London which is what half
the article talks about.

I really dislike these types of articles that try to use stats for reasoning.
They claim that between 2013 and 2014, so over 365 days, there were 1475 total
accidents, 880 from being "improper"? What qualifies as an accident? And
what's improper? If there are that many issues? Why not only make stairs?
(They have those too). Another "study" is listed saying that in London,
"reduced congestion by 30 percent" whatever that means. And another reasoning
I disagree wit (one that can't be proven let's be honest) is that this will
stop people from being jerks on the escalators. I'm pretty sure that this
would annoy more people if they're unable to get by.

The only possibly reasoning is that for super long escalators, very few people
walk, so half the capacity is being used.

I'll give JR East credit. If they think double side standing should be the way
to go, trying it out for a month and seeing how it goes is a great way of
handling it, instead of forcing it from now on and having too much confidence
in success as is mostly the case in these social change campaigns.

One more thing, why is the url's slug pretty much completely different? What
was the article about before? And by the way, in Tokyo, walkers go up the
right side, standers are on the left. You can even see that in the picture at
the top of the page. Pretty sure if you're writing about escalators in Tokyo
you should mention that.

------
ErikVandeWater
The psychological reason it is difficult to get people to stand on both sides
of the escalator is that when the station is not busy, it's obvious that it is
not saving _anyone_ time to stand on the escalator, so people walk. At some
point during the day it makes sense to change the rule so people just stand on
the escalator, but people are already walking down one side and it isn't
obvious that they are wrong.

> As reported by Japan Times, a study by the Japan Elevator Association in
> Tokyo found that of the 1,475 escalator accidents in the city between 2013
> and 2014, more than 880 were a result of people riding improperly (that
> includes walking or running on an escalator).

This is written poorly. Just because someone was walking does not mean it
caused the accident. At the very least it could be only partially
contributory. Also, how many percent of the time are people walking on the
escalator there?

You could also flip the logic on its head in circumstances in which someone
was not walking and was bumped from behind. Had they been walking, they likely
would not have been bumped from behind.

~~~
darkpuma
> _" At some point during the day it makes sense to change the rule so people
> just stand on the escalator, but people are already walking down one side
> and it isn't obvious that they are wrong."_

They aren't wrong. The people who intend on standing and therefore avoid the
left side are wrong. Standers should use both sides. Walkers should be free to
walk on either side when the opportunity permits. This scheme gives you an
identical throughput to everybody standing, and a greater mean speed.

~~~
nazgul17
If people cared about throughout, no one would be standing. People are lazy
except when in a hurry, and giving both groups the chance to commute the
escalator how they want is what you should care about.

------
crazygringo
Fascinating, but wouldn't it be a healthier norm to want everyone (who is
physically capable) to _walk_ on the escalator?

It baffles me how many people automatically stop being active just because
there's an escalator. Surely a better social norm is to encourage even mild
activity and exercise?

Of course if you're exhausted or have luggage or are in tall heels or are
holding a baby then by all means stand -- but stand to the side. Most of the
time that won't be the case, so everyone walking will be a better overall
optimization, and _especially_ the fact that there are usually elevators in
modern buildings as well that are better accomodating for luggage and babies
and the disabled as well.

~~~
BillinghamJ
The overall throughout/bandwidth of people is higher if the people aren't
moving and can be closer bunched together.

Each person gets to the top slightly slower individually, but more people get
though in total.

Same thing has been happening in London. They've been trying to convince
people to stand on both sides in some stations.

~~~
perl4ever
If people aren't moving, how do they _get_ bunched together? My theory is that
if people who are spread apart stand still, even on an escalator, they will
remain spread apart.

After RTFA, I still don't see what the explanation is supposed to be for the
claimed increase in throughput.

~~~
perl4ever
Oh, I get it now. In the limit, say 99.9% of people want to stand, so if they
are all on one side, then half of the capacity is lost to the few walkers, in
theory. But this is an absurd way to define efficiency, because the standers
_by definition_ aren't in a hurry. How often is there a backup at the entrance
to an escalator anyway?

~~~
mikekchar
In Tokyo when a train arrives, there is always a fairly long queue at the
bottom of the escalator. In fact, the queue is so long that it is often
impossible to get to the stairs to avoid the escalator. It usually interferes
with the queuing of the trains on the platform as well. I can definitely see
why they want to do this and it's probably a good idea. I very highly doubt
that it will work. Even _I_ will feel too weird to do it unless everybody else
does it. They may have to seed the crowd with fake travelers just to get
people to start.

~~~
Atheros
As a New Yorker, hearing that people purposely queue and wait just to ride on
the _right_ side of the escalator when the left side is unused blows my mind.

------
cronix
Another similar topic is the "moving walkways" at airports that give you a big
speed boost if you actually walk on them, but are slower than walking if you
just stand on them. There seems to always be a group of people standing side-
by-side on those just chatting away, making it so others can't walk past them.
Those are wide enough to stand on one side and let others pass, but they
rarely do.

------
ximeng
“And in some stations, security staff with neon-colored vests stand watch and
guide people.“ if they really want to prevent people walking, just get a staff
member to stand still on the escalator. It will cause traffic and normalise
standing. They can ride up and down for an hour at rush hour. It prevents the
natural segregation into people who are rushing and people who are not, but is
probably still worth it at busy times particularly if not many people want to
walk up a long escalator.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> It prevents the natural segregation into people who are rushing and people
> who are not, but is probably still worth it

People who are really rushing can always take the stairs.

~~~
yardstick
People who are rushing may need the speed advantage of walking up escalators,
which is faster than walking up stairs.

I’ve caught a long distance train with less than a minute to spare, which had
I missed it, would have delayed my journey by an hour before the next train.
It shouldn’t have been that close, I left with plenty of time to get to the
main railway station via the Underground, but sometimes multiple subway lines
have issues and you get cascading failures that leave you with no other choice
but to run up escalators or miss your transport (especially if it avoids
having to buy another train/plane ticket)

------
kevcampb
At peak times in Hong Kong's subway, it pains me to see one side of the
escalator basically empty. Normally I walk up, so that should make things
faster for me, except it's impossible to get to the escalator for the queue of
people. If people just used both sides it would be faster - for everyone.

~~~
thaumasiotes
In the Shanghai subway system, the normal case is that one half of the
escalator walks and the other stands still. But when the crowd is large,
population pressure forces both halves to stand still.

This experience made me surprised that Tokyo would need to implement such a
system top-down; I figured their crowds would be large enough that it was
happening anyway.

Looks like "better" queueing behavior may be responsible for the failure.

~~~
throw1r65
You often need that first person to stand still.

I now take it upon myself to be the first person” sometimes. If I see a long
line forming to stand, and no one is walking at all, I will stand in the
“walking” lane.

After that I see a lot of people with relief on their faces when they stand
behind me.

I guess it also helps that I’m bald, Asian guy with a long beard. so maybe
they think I’m a bum. Otherwise there were times I’ve seen people admonish the
standers.

------
orangeeater
I get to the subway via one of the long and steep escalators mentioned in the
article. I'd say about 30-35% of people walk down and 10-15% walk up. I walk
up and down.

Few general remarks:

1\. If people have lots of luggage or aren't comfortable using the escalator,
they can take the elevator (and they do).

2\. Saying that standing would prevent accidents is like saying banning cars
would prevent accidents - not a particularly helpful observation. Humans are
only willing to minimize risk up to a point.

3\. The more complicated argument in the article is that standing would
increase capacity. I don't know - I avoid rush hour, but the escalators seem
empty enough so that I can walk up/down unobstructed. It's hard for me to see
how I'm negatively affecting capacity. In cases where the escalator is packed,
I'll stand rather than being pushy, but that never happens during the week.

------
scarejunba
To be honest, I do the same all the time, and it only saves 30 s but if that’s
the difference between catching a connection in SF or not then that’s a 20
minute savings it could be.

In London this is less true, but I admit to still walking up.

~~~
repsilat
> _if that’s the difference between catching a connection in SF or not then
> that’s a 20 minute savings it could be_

Here's a heuristic you should try applying: under some reasonable assumptions,
getting to the platform X seconds earlier should shave X seconds off your
commute in expectation and not affect the variance. (Those assumptions are
basically "you're not trying to catch a particular train.")

Of course, you may have a nonlinear objective function in terms of time/delay,
or you may be optimising for regret instead of arrival time, and in those
cases the analysis may turn out differently.

~~~
DominikPeters
A related puzzle: Should you recharge your transport card before or after
riding? [https://trefethen.net/2018/03/25/metro-mean-and-
variance/](https://trefethen.net/2018/03/25/metro-mean-and-variance/)

~~~
scarejunba
The right answer (in practice, though I admit the question is fun) is to "use
your debit/credit card" (on the Tube, for instance) for the train or "set up
auto-load if your transit system doesn't accept credit/debit cards" (on BART,
for instance).

------
kzrdude
I prefer walking up not because I'm in a hurry, but because it's uncomfortable
and boring to be standing still.

------
yardstick
One other thought: In times of congestion, it’s not uncommon for tube stations
to limit access to prevent overcrowding. I always hate entering a very busy
station (or shopping mall) where both sides of the escalator are completely
full, as there’s a big risk of injury when there’s no space at the escalator
exit, and you have a pile of people being rammed into one spot.

It’s not an issue specific to stand-only escalators, just exacerbated by it.
With half the escalator reserved for walking, this issue should happen less.

Incidentally in these same overcrowded stations it’s not uncommon for the
escalator to be turned off intentionally to prevent such problems. So both
sides have to walk!

------
johnchristopher
> When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone. But
> transit users around the world just can’t be convinced.

Just spend some time in Belgium. We are unable to form orderly queues.
Elevators are like moving grapes of humans, lines in fast food are flocks of
people going back and forth between the end of the line, the cash register and
the spot for food delivery and people are piling on top of each other at bus
stops.

It drives me mad.

------
jstanley
Non-GDPR-walled:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20181223193027/https://www.cityl...](https://web.archive.org/web/20181223193027/https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/12/people-
stand-walk-escalator-left-right-save-time-efficient/578479/)

------
xte
Mh, I comprehend if they say "escalators dislike asymmetrical charges" but not
the argument of going all at same speed. Sometimes we can be in hurry while
others can be absolutely calm.

We are HUMANS, we are all similar and all different, we can't be considered as
"packet on a network". These kind of homogenization it typical of modern
society, mostly derived from Ford model and it's harmful and dangerous for our
freedom and our social evolution.

BTW not anybody walk to going from A to B in a certain amount of time, we do
not exists as a work-machine, we exists as human being that work to live, not
the contrary.

------
karmakaze
The most dangerous situations I've experienced on an escalator are when it's
densely populated and someone has some difficultly getting off and takes just
long enough for the next rows to push them over causing a domino effect like a
slow motion trampelling. I always ensure that I have some personal space on
escalators, especially very long ones.

------
midnitewarrior
The "it's only a few seconds of waiting" argument fails when the person is
trying to get to a scheduled departure of a bus or train.

If the next train is in 20 minutes and the train is leaving in the next
minute, walking down the escalator to make this train just saved me 20
minutes.

------
clairity
the reasoning in the article and the exhortation to stand are both a bit
dubious. injuries are more likely due to differential attentiveness between
walkers and standers, rather than the walking itself. standers tend to be less
attentive to others because standing allows you to let your collision
detection guard down.

you could also have fewer injuries hy getting everyone (except those who
can't) to walk, which would also result in a lower overall difference in
attentiveness.

~~~
zamadatix
I think it's even less likely to get everyone to walk than to stand though and
I think everyone could agree all standing as proposed is likely safer than all
walking anyways.

~~~
clairity
my point was that the safety argument is specious, not to argue about what was
more likely to be implemented. getting hurt on an escalator is just not a real
problem, and the safety bugaboo is used as a way to regulate other people's
behavior needlessly.

we don't need more silly regulations like this when things like distracted
driving and air pollution are real problems that _kill_ thousands of people.

~~~
zamadatix
Your original comment actually said nothing about over-regulation or escalator
safety not being a real problem. It did however claim to have a better
solution to safety concerns that were contradictory to the claims of the
article(s).

------
sigi45
Yada yada. I walk because I hate standing.

------
anticensor
I just run the stairs as fast as I can.

------
blattimwind
Links gehen, rechts stehen! Stakenblochenckeit ja ja!

~~~
pgtan
Not exactly my observations, to put it politely, here in East Germany,
Leipzig.

------
benatkin
This is a problem that's solvable with computer vision and face recognition.
Just fine everybody. Somebody's face can't be recognized or linked to an
account? Pay them a visit. With time it should be rare enough.

------
cgag
People who aren't willing to walk deserve to lose that time.

