This seems to rely on assuming that the average time taken is the metric to optimize.<p>Imagine that you have 100 passengers, 25 of which aren't concerned with time taken, 50 of which are indifferent, and 25 of which are concerned with time taken.<p>With a 'walking lane', it seems to me that everyone is satisfied.<p>Without a walking lane, average speed improves, but those that would prefer to walk are slowed down.<p>I can't speak for others but I personally find the system excellent. If I'm in a rush, I can run up the stairs. If I'm not, I can chill.<p>I would generally be in favour of asking everyone to walk (as the below poster mentions), but that can't be expected of everyone - the disabled, elderly, children, those with suitcases, and likely other groups can't do that.
Actually, they should have done the opposite: get <i>everyone</i> to start walking up and stop treating escalators as rides. (Especially horizontal moving walkways.) Imagine the capacity then!<p>They're not rides. We have way, way, way, too many out-of-shape people in the world. There should be every encouragement to take at least a few opportunities to exercise.<p>Yes, some escalators can be long, such as the ones mentioned in this article. Still not a big deal, I've done it. (And they only "feel" long when you stand the whole way.) If you really want a ride, use an elevator.
Interesting! I never thought about that, but it makes total sense.<p>I think people are always interested in a diversity of options though:<p>* Have two escalators, with one running with a much higher speed than the other.<p>* Go really crazy and install a slide: <a href="http://newslite.tv/2010/06/28/slide-installed-for-berlin-sub.html" rel="nofollow">http://newslite.tv/2010/06/28/slide-installed-for-berlin-sub...</a><p>The best world is to make public transport comfortable for both fragile people and people in a hurry.