6 ms·
Tokyo Wants People to Stand on Both Sides of the Escalator
- jstanley 8y agoNon-GDPR-walled: https://web.archive.org/web/20181223193027/https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/12/people-stand-walk-escalator-left-right-save-time-efficient/578479/ https://web.archive.org/web/20181223193027/https://www.cityl...
- scarejunba 8y agoTo 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.
- nicoburns 8y agoYou can definitely save quite a bit of time walking (or even running) through changes in London if you have a few changes to make on your route.
- repsilat 8y ago> 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 8y agoA 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 8y agoThe 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).
- scarejunba 8y agoThat's old-school thinking from a time where you only have a wide probability distribution. Modern commuters have BART timings on an app. The distribution is pretty tight: the train is arriving between 0 and 90 s from now and you're at the top of the stairs. Naturally, everyone's worked out that heuristic while waiting for the college bus. It's the problem that's changed.
- bobthepanda 8y agoIt 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 8y agoIt 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 8y agoI 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.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y agoI’ve definitely seen this dynamic at long and steep escalators at airports — people won’t walk it. But it completely changes on the normal sized ones, which are a lot more common.
- ximeng 8y ago“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.
- PopeDotNinja 8y agoIf my city recruited standing escalator riders to volunteer, I'd probably sign up for at least one shift. Escalators are sweet! Fun fact for readers in the Washington DC area... At 230ft (70m), the DC Metro Wheaton station escalator is thd longest escalator in the western hemisphere! [1] [1] https://ggwash.org/view/34875/what-are-the-10-longest-metro-escalators https://ggwash.org/view/34875/what-are-the-10-longest-metro-...
- anticensor 8y agoNo staffing needed. Add a wide staircase and a faster (3x as fast preferred) escalator.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago> 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.
- naavis 8y agoAt least in Helsinki most subway stations have an escalator, and an elevator for wheelchairs and trolleys, but no stairs (apart perhaps from a separate staircase somewhere for emergencies).
- darkpuma 8y agoPeople who climb the stairs one step at the time should kindly stay to the right. Leave the left side open for those of us who climb two steps at a time.
- blattimwind 8y agoLinks gehen, rechts stehen! Stakenblochenckeit ja ja!
- pgtan 8y agoNot exactly my observations, to put it politely, here in East Germany, Leipzig.
- pgtan 8y ago“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.
- nambit 8y agoWhat if I'm tired? Fuck you
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dang 8y agoCould you please not post uncivil or unsubstantive comments to HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- toyg 8y agoTiredness, 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.
- eMSF 8y agoYou forgot laziness... even though it's probably the most common one. Still not sure it should be encouraged, though.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoDo those people get stuck in place when walking into a staircase, until paramedics come to rescue them? Escalators are just stairs, except you get to the other end faster. Being tired is a fair point, but that's why there was left/right side compromise.
- __blockcipher__ 8y ago
- cgag 8y agoPeople who aren't willing to walk deserve to lose that time.
- Tharkun 8y agoOn 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 8y ago> "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 8y agoYou 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 8y agoSomebody 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 8y agoThis 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.
- kzrdude 8y agoI prefer walking up not because I'm in a hurry, but because it's uncomfortable and boring to be standing still.
- clairity 8y agothe 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 8y agoI 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 8y agomy 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 8y agoYour 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).
- crazygringo 8y agoFascinating, 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 8y agoThe 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 8y agoIf 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 8y agoOh, 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?
- silveroriole 8y ago
- johnchristopher 8y ago> 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.
- kevcampb 8y agoAt 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 8y agoIn 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 8y agoYou 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 8y agoI 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.
- jackschultz 8y agoI 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.
- jreastlies 8y agoWhat 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.
- anticensor 8y agoI just run the stairs as fast as I can.
- benatkin 8y agoThis 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.
- aaron695 8y agoDo we also take down all the signs telling people to take the stairs instead of the lift because it's healthier? And do we force people to allow machines to do all the walking? How about it's a bad idea to force people to be lazy in their daily routine if they don't want to?
- cronix 8y agoAnother 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.
- nothrabannosir 8y agoAgain 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.
- golemiprague 8y agoIt is "only a minute of your life" start to become critical when the next train leave one hour later. It does improve throughput a lot in public transportation situations, not so much in shopping malls.
- notimetorelax 8y agoTo play the devil’s advocate, might this incentivize people to arrive earlier? Admittedly some train schedules might need to be adapted to make connections possible.
- ajhurliman 8y agoI doubt people are going to start planning their day around escalator policies. Can you imagine the conversation? "It's a domestic flight? You should still leave early, you're not allowed to walk up the escalators anymore!"
- karthikb 8y agoSure, if the inbound bus wasn’t late, or there wasn’t traffic, or...
- ErikVandeWater 8y agoThe 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 8y ago> "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 8y agoIf 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.
- yardstick 8y agoOne 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!
- sigi45 8y agoYada yada. I walk because I hate standing.
- xte 8y agoMh, 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.
- midnitewarrior 8y agoThe "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.
- karmakaze 8y agoThe 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.