On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 17:22:40 +0100, Eric wrote:
On 2013-09-15, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
06:59:25 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Offramp remarked:
At busy times escalators would be more efficient if standing on both
sides were compulsory.

No, walking up both sides would be the most efficient. But the
compromise
is that people stand on one side, and walk up the other side.

Only if everyone was the same distance apart as if they were just
standing (unlikely)

They could be somewhat further apart, and further still on longer
escalators, and still get more people through per unit time than if they
all stand still.

and everyone was moving at the same speed relative to the steps (also
unlikely)

Actually, this is guaranteed at busy times, since there's no overtaking.

I would be surprised if LT hadn't done research on this, as they did to
determine the optimum moving speed.

The "compromise" is a system that reduces throughput in
order to give the energetic able-bodied the ability to
get through a bit faster.

Allowing standing one side allows slower walkers to choose to stand,
therefore increasing the average walking speed compared to expecting
people to walk on both sides.

Colin McKenzie

--
Cycling in the UK is about as safe as walking, and helmets don't make it
safer. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.