Down with Escalators

Scott Hardie | January 28, 2016
I came across an article in Slate about surprising escalator research. The clickbaity headline and intro imply that it's faster to stand on the escalator than to walk, which isn't exactly true, but close: A study found that reserving space for walkers on the left side of the escalator reduced efficiency for standers on the right side so much that there was a net loss of travel time across all parties. Thus, the article concludes that we should all stand so that we can collectively travel faster.

Doesn't that ignore context? I, and I presume other lots of people, prefer to stand on escalators most of the time, but to walk or otherwise hurry when we're in a rush to catch a flight or make it to an appointment. If I have only a few minutes to race to my distant gate to get on my plane because the connecting flight was delayed, and you're standing in my way on an escalator, I'm going to be polite but very insistent that you get the hell out of my way. My point is, the article's conclusion is that everyone's time is equally valuable, but it's not, thanks to situational context. Allowing certain people to hurry matters more than a net gain of time for all parties, doesn't it?

Also: Are you a stander or a walker?

Samir Mehta | January 28, 2016
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | January 28, 2016
[hidden by request]