Do middle-aged non-ninja developers belong? - <AUTHOR>

I am a developer and currently work for a large American organization that is to remain nameless.  I am passing my prime (in the scale of software developers), approaching middle age.  Software development is something I love and have loved since I was a kid.  However, I've never had a natural talent for it; I would never use the term "ninja" when describing myself (partly because I don't have the skill and partly because I'm too old to use ridiculous terms like that).
It's hard work to gain the understanding that others around me easily have, but I don't and won't stop trying.  It's been a journey of education and the education is something I've quite enjoyed.  The group in which I work was guided towards learning better design principles and while I did not stand out in the group, I came away with a better understanding and better ability.  The group has since gone in a different direction, thus removing my motivation for remaining within it -- the pursuit of mastery (other than the obvious requisite paycheck).
Being 40ish, my "forming" years are behind me, so I'm not one to be "shaped" in the image of another.  I've been lucky enough to have fallen into jobs or have "known someone" for most of my professional track.  But now I'm wanting to leave a stable job that pays adequately with the goal of finding a position that provides more job and life satisfaction.  So I am wondering...is there a job market for a middle-aged developer who isn't among the best, but brings a desire to learn; a constant effort to become better and gain a more thorough understanding?  Or is this is a young man's game in which only the elite need apply and I need to consider an exit strategy before it's too late? <comment><USER3> I think you need to dismiss the myth that your 'forming' years are behind you.

I work for a few research groups at a large, prominent southern university. There are people who get engineering phds in their 30s and 40s. You have coded a large chunk of your life and have an excellent framework to bolt stuff on to.

There is always a job market for an enthused developer that doesn't believe in his own hype. You don't have to announce you are not among the best, I don't think a lot of people who think they are the best are anywhere close. I write much better code now when I am in my 30s than when I was in my 20s. If you stay in touch with technologies and you build stuff for yourself that you are willing to show people, then your prospects should look pretty good.

Best of luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess what I meant is I see a lot of guys in the group who are younger (20-25) with more senior guys trying to "form" them into what they feel is a "good" developer. I've been around long enough to have developed my own ideas, and while I'm always open to having my views influenced and changed over time, I'm not going to sit down and have someone tell me "this is what you need to do to be good like me".

Your note about building stuff on your own is something I constantly do. I try to keep at least a couple projects going at home for the purpose of practice and incorporation of advancing technology. I don't have my finger on the pulse of everything, but I'm by no means being left behind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals > who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age > <http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age.html>

It may seem that "rock star ninja developers" are a young person's game and to some extent it is. Many people find that their life priorities change as they age. Many younger developers may value making a name for themselves and devote a lot of time outside of 40 hours a week to coding and upping their game. So even if younger developers may have less on the job experience, they may be far more active in the development community than career developers. Those factors may be just as or even more important to some companies than tenure. Other companies may place more value in stability and tenure than having a bunch of rock stars. As you age and your life priorities shift (such as having kids with lots of extracurricular activities that you want to focus on), the type of position that suits you best may change.

To grossly oversimplify, startups will gravitate towards rock stars - <USER2> and and flashier with a lot of drive, while enterprises will go for reliable, tenured developers who consistently get the job done even if they are just average. I've seen no shortage of middle ages .net and Java developers. Might not be the sexiest languages, but they are very popular with enterprises. Any company should be interested in a developer that is an accomplished learner and stable developer. But if your priorities in life don't include spending a significant amount of non-work hours diving into the hot language/technology du jour, you won't be able to compete with younger developers who can.

So yes, there is a job market for average middle-aged developers, it's the same job market for all developers. But if you're suited to an enterprise position you'll have a hard time finding one that lives on the bleeding edge of technology of which you might be wanting to get into.

<comment><USER5> >It may seem that "rock star ninja developers" are a young person's game and to some extent it is.

I was an awesome developer at 22, and I'm a much more awesome developer at 45. I'm a bit more methodical now -- I could crank out (crappy) code really quickly when I was 22, and now it might take me twice as long to get things running but when they're running they're mostly DONE, solid, and reasonably documented. Also, at this point I tend to work ~30-40 hours a week instead of 60+, which could be why it takes me longer. ;)

Just saying that it's not really a "young person's game" to be a "rock star", unless you mean the "being underpaid" part, which I certainly was for years compared to my relative contribution almost everywhere I've worked. (I'm also not claiming to be famous, except for in one particular niche, but that's another story...)

But OP sounds like he was never an awesome developer, so yes, I agree that enterprise is likely the place for him to look.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > is there a job market for a middle-aged developer

Yes, it's called entrepreneurship.

You are a programmer. You can make value by wiggling your fingers.

The solution: Build a micro product, turn it into a freedom business, and fire your boss.

<http://fourhourworkweek.com>

<http://lifestylebusinesspodcast.com>

<http://startupbook.net>

<comment><USER7> What if you're not entrepreneur material? Not everyone has the spark or drive on that level.

I am ferociously dedicated - to an almost quixotic level - to programming, but in general I find that I literally have no compulsion to do any coding for myself outside of work hours.

I'm almost in my mid-thirties and I took worry about the future where the need for codehorses like myself is thoroughly outweighed by the need for "Rock Star Ninjas".

<comment><USER6> i think you answered your own question. There is no job security any more, unless you make it yourself. Building a business is the ultimate safety net for everyone. No it's not easy, but it's easier for programmers (people that can create value) than for people with no skills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 37yo here. Like you, I have met ridiculously smart, knowledgeable and _young_ people and came to the conclusion that I am never ever going to be able to be like them. Heck!!! If I had not met them first hand, I would not have an idea how far the gap in front of me is.

But it seems that you do not seem to realize how far the gap _behind_ yourself really is. If there is one capital sin in programmers, it has to be our hubris... and you seem rather humble to me. Of course it is possible that your self esteem is accurate, in which case you would be rather incompetent or at least mediocre. But if that was the case, how did you make it this far into the craft?

No, in my experience mediocre programmers don't go around thinking about "the pursuit of mastery". You really have to consider the possibility that you have a severe case of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome>! If that's the case I can only advice to keep going, do the best you can and not worry too much about comparing yourself with others.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not one to put stock into the myriad of psychological conditions that people seem to carry around like badges ("Look at me, I'm ADD!"), so I followed your link with a dismissal at the ready. Then I read something in there that was close to my own words..."Proof of success is dismissed as luck"...I about choked!

Not that I'm ready to go around saying "I have a disorder, yay!", but it was certainly an interesting concept to be introduced to.

And before I get angry comments about my ADD comment, my son has been diagnosed ADD, so I make that snide remark knowing full-well what his life is like.

<comment><USER9> Imposter syndrome is incredibly common among very successful people, which as much as we might hate to admit it, most developers are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm 26 so I can't speak at all to what a 40ish developer needs to do to get a job. My advice is what I'd give to anyone asking what I think you're asking regardless of age. I'm also assuming you have no desire for entrepreneurship or management.

Since you have a steady and mostly happy job, focus on differentiating yourself after hours. Build out your github profile (my current focus since it's entirely private projects right now), find a programming niche that is financially rewarding and put your emphasis there. Specialist programmers in under-served sectors can earn significantly more than the management supervising them. You don't get to that point by "doing .NET" or building WordPress plugins (not to sound condescending, I've done both for a living), but it can be incredibly lucrative.

<comment><AUTHOR> A desire for entrepreneurship? Definitely. But I don't have any side projects or ideas that I feel would be unique enough or adopted well enough in an open market. They're great toys for me, but my girlfriend just doesn't understand them. :)

And a big NO to management. I love coding. I want to die while refactoring. Or die while coding, then come back from the grave to refactor later.

<comment><USER9> I'm the same way in a lot of respects. I'd love to wake up every morning to tweak a product or SaaS business that I live off of but I haven't gotten that _spark_ from anything yet.

What language(s) do you work with?

<comment><AUTHOR> Work with or are competent at? :)

For the last 8 or so years, the jobs have been C#/.Net. Before that, Delphi. Before that, C and C++ (quite a while ago). There's also been a touch of Ruby, a couple days of PHP, and an odd smattering of x86 assembly.

<comment><USER9> I've been doing PHP since I started programming in middle school but have been gradually shifting to .Net (VB at my employer). Never had any interest in Ruby for whatever reason.

Best of luck in your search.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You said that you do not have a natural talent for developing, so your issue is about raw skill rather than age. Maybe you should specialize further in a subject area that you know well. Carrying one big "weapon" that you are skilled at would be better than carrying 50 like a "ninja".

</comment><comment><USER11> From what I've seen, the middle-aged men like yourself tend to end up as managers rather than "code monkeys". The pay is often higher and the demands of keeping up to date with technology is less critical. But that just my personal anecdotal evidence from the companies I've worked in.

I think as long as you can code (you said you're not a natural, but I trust you're still at least average at it) and you have a desire to push yourself (which does come across), then there's no reason to stop coding. After all, who wants to conform to trends ;)

My main bit of advice (and something which I'm sure doesn't need to be said), is make sure you have a back up plan in case your passion doesn't translate into a profession

</comment><comment><USER12> Redmand was 22 years old when he decided to become a successful programmer. He was 40 when it occurred to him for the first time that being a star developer was a young man's game and that people might object. To hell with that, he thought, and never worried about it again.

\--"She was twelve years old when she told Eddie Willers that she would run the railroad when they grew up. She was fifteen when it occurred to her for the first time that women did not run railroads and that people might object. To hell with that, she thought—and never worried about it again." -Atlas Shrugged

I think if you just be you and do what you do with a little more confidence you'll find your way just fine.

</comment><comment><USER13> Yes. But, IMO, you're going to find it in more 'mature' verticals; places where reliability and commitment are valued and lived out daily. IMO, that's going to be in the embedded space or in a larger company that quite possibly doesn't 'sell software'.

<comment><AUTHOR> I feared that that may be the fact of the matter. Not that I need sexy in my daily life, but something that offered the chance to grow would be nice. That's not been an easy find in the larger companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> You can easily become a rockstar ninja sith lord developers. The best way to achieve this is half your salary by 50%.

This rockstar vibe is a great trick. Call someone great but pay them as low as possible.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't think age is relevant to be valued and compensated for your ability to be productive and creative.

Your mindset is everything and don't let irrelevant thinking to cripple in.

There are plenty of posts on HN from bright ninjas feeling depressed about their 20-something "old" ages and "lost" opportunities.

Age is irrelevant, mindset and attitude (is it the same thing?) is everything.

</comment><comment><USER16> I just turned 36, and while I often worry about the perception that programming is a young man's game, I've honestly been learning more and more the past few years, to the point that I feel I've never been more competently able to build whatever is asked of me.

Sure, there's the manager strategy, where you'll trade one set of concerns for another, and that's probably an easy way out. You might also consider something like a 'business analyst', or a position which sits between developers and non-developers, translating non-technical requirements into specifications for developers to work on.

In short, there are options for 'very technical' people (which developers tend to be) to transition into less technical areas of the same field, and they are necessary jobs as well. You might talk to your manager, boss or (if you have access) a CTO to see what kinds of opportunities are available. You might even try 'interning' for a week or so in those various positions if you can be allowed to and see how they actually interest you.

Regardless, programming might be a young man's game, but there are a myriad of things that I bring to the table that it's hard for youngsters to match. I am proficient in a variety of languages, frameworks, etc. I can build an application from the ground up. I can administer the database, I can build the frontend with HTML and Javascript, I can use Backbone, Ember or Angular to make it super interactive, and I can of course build the backend in Django, Python, .Net, Java, etc., etc. The years of experience you have make you ideally suited for speccing things out too - it's often easier for someone who's worked with a lot of systems to look at a given pair of systems and see where things overlap, where they might fit together, and what an integration effort might look like.

There's a job for this too, called IT Architect. Again, you might find that you love it, or you might hate it, but it's a real thing that demands technicality and expertise.</comment>


Robot Combat League: SyFy reality show features half-ton robots boxing. - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/21/robot_combat_league_syfy_reality_show_features_half_ton_robots_boxing.html <comment><USER2> Strictly speaking, they aren't robots (autonomous machines), they're remote- controlled telepresence devices fully under the moment-to-moment control of their handlers. Just for accuracy.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot#Defining_characteristics>

A quote: "For robotic engineers, the physical appearance of a machine is less important than the way its actions are controlled. The more the control system seems to have agency of its own, the more likely the machine is to be called a robot. An important feature of agency is the ability to make choices."

In this case, "robot" is a convenient, accessible term, but it's not accurate.</comment>


Why PostgreSQL Instead of MySQL: Comparing Reliability and Speed in 2007 - <AUTHOR> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs.83

<comment><USER2> I've always been a fan of PostgreSQL-

We've seen the pain that mysql rebuilds can cause, with companies being down for hours. I've seen this in companies I've worked at, and on public companies such as wikipedia.

We've had good luck with psql internally. The speed isn't as much of an issue as some people had predicted, once we eliminated row counts. We're doing most of our processing on the server side, rather than using stored procedures, so we may have a different use case than most.

Slony should be _fine_ for replication for most people. There's also the heftier Mammoth replication, but that's for-pay.

We've talked with Command Prompt (commandprompt.com) a few times, and they've been great at supporting pgsql- They have top notch pepole on staff, who know the details of slony setup, or tweaking db files. I believe they employ two slony devs on staff.

The only real annoyance I've found with postgresql is capitalization. they're being faithful to the SQL standard, but they require that all column names are lower-case, unless you put each part in quotes.

select * from "Product"."Table", where "Field", etc.

It'd be great if there were a way to allow more permissive names throughout.

In all though, I'd highly recommend it.

-Colin

<comment><USER3> WRT capitalization, lower-case identifiers are not actually required in PostgreSQL. The case-folding rules are:

      1. unquoted identifiers are folded to lower-case
      2. double-quoted identifiers have their case preserved

This applies to all SQL queries, whether DDL or otherwise. Therefore, you can freely use mixed-case or upper-case identifiers, as long as you _consistently_ either don't double-quote them, or always use the same case when you double- quote them.

So it is perfectly feasible to use non-lower-case identifier names, you just need to be aware of the rules. In practice, most Postgres users just use lower case identifiers all the time, but that's mostly a matter of style I think.

(FWIW, Postgres' case-folding behavior is actually one of the few areas where it is _not_ conformant with the SQL standard.)

<comment><USER2> Wow, thanks for the info. I'm glad to learn when I've got the wrong idea- I must have misread their forum posts on why they did it that way.

When we tried using mixed case without quotes it always converted it to lowercase internally- It reminds me a bit of OS X's file system handling, in how it worked- It accepted Mixed case, it just didn't care ;)

I'll look more into it, thanks. -Colin

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The reason why we went with MySQL even though Postgres performed better was the greater availability of MySQL expertise on the team. Three people on the team were experienced in MySQL and each had a bag of tricks and none of us knew Postgres past the basics. Also, people at the hosting place had a ton of MySQL experience and they would jump in and help when needed.

Consider many different things when choosing DB. Don't just consider raw performance.

</comment><comment><USER5> I definitely agree that in most cases Postgres is still superior to MySQL (feature maturity and variety, reliability, ...). There's just one problem: (to my knowledge) there is currently no such thing as an open source clustered version of postgres. (There is a non-free clustered version, but it's not mature and its cost is prohibitive to small businesses.)

MySQL, even with its problems, is good enough. Moreover it accounts for future growth with MySQL Cluster. While MySQL Cluster is not yet mature (though this may change soon), it's there, it's open, and it's why I chose MySQL for my startup, even though I'm a Postgres veteran.

The problem with Postgres (and most databases without clustering) is when you need more resources your only option is to buy a bigger box to replace your current one. Eventually you'll have to buy specialized and super pricey machines...

With clustering you can add x-number of cheap commodity boxes to the existing set to meet your current needs.

<comment><USER6> By non-free clustered version, are you referring to Slony (<http://slony.info/>) ? I believe you can use it for free, and I have known people who use it successfully in production.

<comment><USER7> That's how the Reddits did it.

<comment><AUTHOR> They use Postgres? I hadn't seen that before.

<comment><USER8> From 11 months ago: [<http://programming.reddit.com/info/jl2a/comments/cjpfw>]

" We use postgresql + slony, and are fairly pleased. Most of the time reddit slows down, it's db related, but so far there has always been a way to work through it. That being said, I feel we have to spend far too much time worrying about the database, and that's probably the situation with any relational db.

Presently, we have a db master that replicated to one machine, and that second machine replicates to a couple others. Most of the reddit queries are handled by the master and the first slave. The other slaves are used for backups and slow queries (e.g. stats and recommendations).

Replication and query load-balancing helped out a lot with the database load, but it introduced a new host of problems. Replication lag, in particular. This occurs when a db write is committed to the master, but the next read hits a slave before the write has propagated. "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Postgres 8.2.4 has some significant performance improvements even over 8.1.8. I have been amazed at the performance gains in some slow parts of the application simply from upgrading to the latest version of Postgres. On the other side I'm very disappointed by the lack of real clustering. Slony addresses some needs but to me it feels like a hack. I'm starting to experiment with breaking up the data across multiple database servers. Sooner or later when the number of writes is high enough clustering breaks down due to the size of the replication traffic.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think both databases have their merits, but the thing that makes me turn up my nose is seeing so many MySql installations done wrong. These are the people who didn't consider things carefully and choose, but just heard that Mysql was faster, installed the default version of that, and now handle people's _money_ with no transactions, and no referential integrity.

</comment><comment><USER10> Replication options?

Hot spares?

<comment><USER6> <http://slony.info/></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I find a career path? - <AUTHOR> I am a rising senior and CS major at a good STEM college, with a very good GPA. However, I feel lost about what I want to do with my life. I used to be passionate about CS but lost it after high school, but chose to keep going with it because it is lucrative and I am good at it. I interned in software development last summer and my experience confirmed my suspicion that I dislike CS and would find it really unpleasant to work a 9 to 5 job where my main task is programming.
I have resented CS and saw it as something I just had to do, and so have not done any research in college. I really only have 1 internship under my belt, but did not feel like I made a huge contribution where I was. My true passion languages, specifically Chinese (high level) and Japanese (basic conversations), and I want to try living in Japan (I am from the US).
I love languages, so I have considered studying NLP or machine translation, but honestly am not sure if that will lead to a job I still dislike given I do not like CS. I am looking into applying to grad school to have a competitive edge in a specialized CS field. The applications are this fall, and I feel like I do not have much to on my resume other than 1 internship, good grades, and a good GRE score.
I was thinking about applying to work at a company in Japan, like Microsoft Japan, etc. and work there for 1 or 2 years to get the experience of living there while doing things I could put on a resume to grad school, and find something I am interested in along the way. I do not know what my chances are of getting such a job there is, especially now with COVID.
My question is how should I go about finding a career path I will enjoy but also provide for me? Am I rushing into grad school? Should I work in Japan for 1 or 2 years (my favorite option), should I work for a company in the US, or should I do post-bach research?
Is anything I am saying even worth trying, or am I on the completely wrong path?
Thank you so much! <comment><USER2> Teaching English has always been an option for people in your position, especially with an interest in languages. It lets you go overseas, spend some time in another country, and as you said... explore a bit to determine what you really want. The people I know who did that right after college came back fired up and knowing what they wanted, because they saw different cultures and got to know different people and it brought clarity to their own experiences and helped them focus on what they loved. I can't promise the same, of course, but if you just need time to think while being somewhat productive, such things are an option. (You are also correct that COVID might stop that plan. Time will tell.)

I recommend you don't get a tech job overseas, though, because you will burn much of your energy on the job, and not have time to explore all the other directions life has to offer. If after 6 months, you have no more an idea of what to do vs. today, that is the time to get a more typical job and start building a resume.

It also may be worth talking to a career psychologist. I did that when I was finishing school, and he helped guide me towards the careers that I both had talent for and would find enjoyable. That was almost 30 years ago, and I still read that report on occasion when contemplating career moves.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you want to live and work in Japan doing something other than CS but also something that could lead to connections for a future career, look into applying to the JET program. [https://jetprogramusa.org](https://jetprogramusa.org) . Alternatively there are some opportunities for grad students to do research in Japanese universities through exchange programs. Ultimately, there is no one direction or action you can take that is going to guarantee you'll land on a career path that you will find enjoyable so it's more important to just do _something_ and adjust accordingly. You say you'd like to live in Japan - so go do it. Apply to the JET program, apply to companies that will send you there or look for companies that have internship opportunities there. Research exchange programs through your university. If all else fails, just go there and start looking around. There are many options.

<comment><USER4> I second the suggestion of the JET programme. I have some friends who did this after university (I'm in New Zealand) and their experience was very positive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My advice to you would be that if you know that you are not going to like working as a programmer, then don't get into it. To support your passion for languages, try something different like analytics, implementation consultancy, client facing roles like business analysis etc. This will help in building your soft skills, which will eventually help you in other professions as well.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is a good time to take risks, because you'll still be able to recover from the failures. It seems like a hard time to get a job in the US, especially with any market corrections happening from COVID. If you can't get into Japan, there will probably be some good stuff in China and Southeast Asia if you're interested in Chinese. There has definitely been substantial research into languages in Asia, which I'm under NDA not to disclose.

<comment><USER7> research into new programming languages?

<comment><USER6> Research in actual human languages like Chinese and Japanese, but with relation to product development, e.g. speech recognition, speech synthesis, natural language models. Some languages like Chinese and Arabic are particularly different to English, yet the market is large enough to be viable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This has some good advice for working on cool/difficult things that don't fit into traditional roles

[https://guzey.com/personal/what-should-you-do-with-your- life...](https://guzey.com/personal/what-should-you-do-with-your-life/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't think you should write off software engineering as a career based on one internship. Companies vary wildly.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'd recommend joining new graduate programs that let you rotate in different fields so you get a flavour of what different business functions do. I'd also recommend joining a large consultancy where you can get a breadth of various work across different industries. Consultancies are terrible for work/life balance but you get exposure to all kinds of problems across all kinds of industries.

It may take you a while to find what you love but keep at it. You're still early and your career can take many directions at any time so don't feel like you have to choose what you want to do and stick with it. I started out in computer science, did software engineering, went into consulting, then analytics then worked in business focused on strategy, which then allowed me to become an executive leading ML teams.

</comment><comment><USER11> If you don't have money and don't have experience, you should try to get those two things quickly.

If you do, you will find that it's much more thrilling to travel and meet interesting people than it is to chain yourself to an unrewarding career path.

Good luck!

<comment><USER12> This exactly. Most companies have a time limited program to bring in new grads. Remember to take advantage of your status, wherever you are attempting to apply in the world. Some highly desirable positions are only available to grads like you because they are looking for a smart trainee to grow into an eventual role. This is also why it is easier to land a non-cs job, because their only expectation for you is to be bright and committed.

I would recommend for you to apply to all positions available through these new grad programs. Quickly learn something about the key words from the job descriptions (within the week) to pad your resume. Your work history won't matter as much as how you present the narrative on your resume.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Definitely travel to Japan! Do it while you're young.

You literally have your whole life ahead of you - 1 or 2 years in Japan will give you experiences you've never even thought about!

</comment><comment><USER14> You'll stumble across someone/something that will spark your interest.

Put yourself in places where you'll make such discoveries!

If you want to hear about a random niche industry (mine), drop an email address.

<comment><USER15> Not op, but what's your random niche industry?</comment></comment>


Why London Underground stopped people walking up the escalators - vanilla-almond http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/16/the-tube-at-a-standstill-why-tfl-stopped-people-walking-up-the-escalators <comment><AUTHOR> ... or, you could ask everybody to walk, thereby "quadrupling" the effective capacity.

I've been in UK many times, and being able to effectively walk up _all_ escalators due to the diligence of the people always impressed me. Coming from a country that doesn't have such respect for basic rules, it feels just wrong despite the gain of average efficiency.

<comment><USER2> > you could ask everybody to walk

That assumes that everyone is capable of walking on an escalator. I, for one, am not. I get vertigo, and am on the brink of a panic attack for the entire duration of my ride. I can barely step on one, let alone walk, particularly when going down.

I do look for an elevator whenever possible, but there are times when one is not available and I have to work myself up to the task. I have to grip the handrail with both hands, and focus on a point on the steps themselves.

I'm sure there other issues that people have - like being able to walk but not climb - that would prevent them from being able to walk. Therefore, it's best to have the option to stand on one side and walk on the other.

<comment><USER3> The current proposal (stand on both sides) assumes everybody is capable of standing on an escalator. I, for one, am not. I get vertigo, I get mad, I get sad. My body doesn't handle being stuck deep below the surface for very long times, so I must walk up. I usually don't do very long underground trips because of that condition.

<comment><USER4> I love the vertigo feeling in long escalators. When I go up, I tilt my head back and stare at the ceiling somewhat above the line of sight to the top. I almost have the sensation that the tube is vertical and I could free-fall backwards at any moment.

<comment><USER5> How the hell do you perceive it as something good and enjoyable instead of a valid reason to get a panic attack?

<comment><USER6> I've never done that but it sounds neat.

Anyway, I'm guessing the answer to your question is: control. You know that you can at any moment tilt your head forward and lose the vertigo sensation. So you are safe and in control and you also _feel_ safe and in control. That makes the experience enjoyable (I assume).

<comment><USER5> Ah. See, I have this vertigo too, but it's always on. And I stumbled on escalators a couple of time already, so that increasing my vertigo with 30-50 meters below me doesn't feel like a particularly good idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In Argentina we have a more complex protocol:

* Outside peak hours: stand on the right part of the escalator and leave the left part for walking.

* At peak hours: stand in both sides of the escalator.

* At extremely peak hours: If most of the flux goes upwards, stop the downward escalator and walk on it (this is actually illegal)

<comment><USER8> I've never seen someone stopping the escalator, but I have seen the stairs standing still with astounding frequency. I thought it was poor maintenance, but it never occurred to me it was flow optimization.

<comment><USER9> I've seen escalators that at night stop (like go to sleep) if nobody is walking and start (wake up) when someone walks towards them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One thing the article doesn't analyze at all: standing on both sides improves total throughput, but how does it affect the individual latency for people walking up the left side? If the answer is "it's faster for them too", then tell people that and they'll be more inclined to go along with it. And if the answer is "it's slower for them", then no wonder they don't want to go along with it.

<comment><USER11> Also the "faster for everyone" as a goal ignores that people that will go faster with this system is people that were in no big rush to begin with (so they took the right side), while people that wanted to go faster now can't.

You take away something that some people wanted to give the rest something nobody asked for.

<comment><USER12> Consider those rushing left-side walkers: with left-side walking in effect, at peak times, they may have to wait a few minutes at the bottom of the escalator to get on, while their walking will save them 30 seconds on the trip up. Not worth it. 16,220 per hour, versus 12,745.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The math is the article is a little sketchy. "But a 2002 study of escalator capacity on the Underground found that on machines such as those at Holborn, with a vertical height of 24 metres, only 40% would even contemplate it. By encouraging their preference, TfL effectively halves the capacity of the escalator in question, and creates significantly more crowding below, slowing everyone down. " It doesn't make sense that this would "halve the capacity" unless no one was walking. It seems that with a 40% stated preference for walking, it would be only a 10% loss of capacity due to preference differences. The description should really also include a description of how fast walking is compared to standing. Elevators move at around 0.3 m/s, people walk at about 4x that pace, so even doubling the spacing requirements would shave a fair bit off of that.

I think this result is a due to it only being tried on one of three up escalators. By the assumption that there are 6 lanes, devoting 1/3 to walkers and 2/3 to standers can lead to greater efficiency if that more closely matches the actual preference distribution. By maintaining choice, and matching the available options to those desired by passengers one can optimize the results for both those who prefer speed and those who prefer not expending energy.

<comment><USER14> However people stand on adjacent steps, but allow much more space around walkers, which is where most of the capacity loss is.

<comment><USER15> This depends on the ratio between elevator speed and (elevator speed + walking speed), compared to the density ratio between standers and walkers. I'm not sure what the outcome would be but it may be the case indeed that walker throughput would be less that stander throughput no matter what.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Considering that an escalator is one of the few real-life powerups available outside of a video game, not walking up it is tantamount to wasting it, both traveling up and down. Like getting Haste and then just standing there, or being able to Deal Double Damage and not hitting the trigger.

I usually camp at the bottom, waiting for the crowd to disperse, then grab the powerup and use it efficiently.

<comment><USER17> There's nothing wrong with running up the escalator. The issue is people crowding to the right to make room for the people doing it, which decreases the capacity for everyone else.

<comment><USER18> Only if the number of people running is small. If there's a large enough number of people running up the escalator, then the capacity will be increased over everyone standing. It's quite simple.

According to the article, the problem they had was that on really long escalators, not many people bothered to run, so the capacity was indeed too low.

The solution is simple: cattle prods for people on the left who run too slow. That'll get them up it faster. Seriously, what a bunch of lazy people. I can understand elderly or obese people not running up the escalator (which is why the right needs to be reserved for them), but the rest of you have no excuse.

<comment><USER19> In defense of those "lazy people," there are escalators and then there are _escalators._

Here in Washington, DC, for instance, our Metro system has several escalators that are 200 feet or more in length ([http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/23038/what-are- the-...](http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/23038/what-are- the-10-longest-metro-escalators/)). The longest one, in the station in suburban Wheaton, Maryland, is 230 feet long and climbs 115 feet vertically over that length. (Photo: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheaton_station#/media/File:Wh...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheaton_station#/media/File:Wheaton_escalator_from_bottom_right.jpg)) Long, steep escalators like that make a challenging climb even for the young and fit.

<comment><USER20> I used to live in Hong Kong, it has a network (mostly linear) that (in total) goes a half of a mile sideways and 443 feet up.

Granted, the individual spans are less than that, but if you can rest on a landing between spans, you can also just... well, ride the step you're on.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central–Mid- Levels_escalator_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central–Mid- Levels_escalator_and_walkway_system)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > had gone to Hong Kong on holiday. Lau noticed that passengers on that city's > Mass Transit Railway (MTR) were standing calmly on both sides of the > escalator and, it seemed, travelling more efficiently and safely as a > result.

Is this new? When I visited Hong Kong in 2011, you had to stand on the right and walk on the left. In fact, this was one of the things that caused a great deal of anger towards "mainlanders" – tourists from mainland China – who ignored such social conventions.

EDIT: I just googled it and apparently the "no walking on the escalators" rule in Hong Kong is only a few months old:

[http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education- community/artic...](http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education- community/article/1853813/stop-walking-escalators-hong-kong-divided- over?page=all)

<comment><USER22> No one obeys the stand only rule, at least not anywhere on Hong Kong island that I've seen - so much so that it startled me to read it in the article.

</comment></comment><comment> vanilla-almond Here is a photo of the escalators in Holborn station, as mentioned in the article

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/topaas/16557435918/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/topaas/16557435918/)

<comment><USER23> I walked up and down those many times as a student at the LSE. It would've driven me mad if I'd had to stand; very, very few things annoy me as much as being stuck behind people (or traffic) moving unnecessarily slowly.

While obviously not everyone will be able to walk, we should be encouraging more people to do so and certainly not slowing down those who are able and willing just to make more room for the lazy. I find it hard to imagine that the percentage of people who are physically incapable rather than just unwilling to climb an escalator is large enough to cause meaningful congestion.

<comment><USER24> _It would 've driven me mad if I'd had to stand; very, very few things annoy me as much as being stuck behind people (or traffic) moving unnecessarily slowly._

Isn't this exactly the point, though? At peak times, there are significant crowds around the entrances to escalators at busy Underground stations, and those crowds hold _everyone_ up regardless of their preference for standing or walking. The idea here is to avoid the crowds forming a bottleneck in the first place, or at least to reduce the delay if there are still too many people to sustain full throughput.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Too much modern public transport is slowing people down for the sake of throughput. Using the escalator this way adds capacity, but it makes journey times longer, much like the endless passages that have replaced cross-platform interchange on newer lines, or the decision to _not_ connect Crossrail to Oxford Circus and force people to walk up, along the street and down instead.

If the escalators are at capacity then the right thing is to build more. But that costs money, so instead we get "cheats" like this.

<comment><USER26> > Using the escalator this way adds capacity, but it makes journey times > longer.

In the article they mention that on these long escalators, the majority of people would only stand anyway, so their time on the escalator is the same. For the minority that do walk up, even though their time on the escalator is slightly longer, because the bottleneck was significantly reduced they're not waiting before the escalator for as long which makes up for it.

If you're increasing throughput, it means you're getting more people out of the station in the same amount of time, so their journey is quicker.

> If the escalators are at capacity then the right thing is to build more.

But in the article they demonstrate with diagrams that they're not at capacity because everyone is leaving the right sigh free for people to walk, but no one actually does.

> But that costs money, so instead we get "cheats" like this.

I'm not familiar with the geography of London's stations but I would imagine building more escslators is hard. Lack of space and added disruption while they build them.

This is a great optimisation. I would imagine the cost-to-benefit ration would be heavily in favour of utilising the existing escalators capacity more efficiently, rather than building new ones.

<comment><USER27> You are wrong about the bottleneck at the bottom, generally you can usually proceed up the left and walk the escalator without being delayed by the bottleneck queue of people wanting to stand on the escalator. Those folks are generally to the right leaving a relatively clear path on the left.

So it is slow now for those of us that normally go at speed through the warren tunnels such as Holborn. There will be no fast overtaking lane on the escalators.

<comment><USER18> >You are wrong about the bottleneck at the bottom, generally you can usually proceed up the left and walk the escalator without being delayed by the bottleneck queue of people wanting to stand on the escalator. Those folks are generally to the right leaving a relatively clear path on the left.

Yeah, that's nothing at all like America. Over here, people will just get on and stand in the middle of the escalator and hog as much room as they can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Okay, in my city (Edmonton) we have the province's biggest University, that is mostly served by the LRT, and the university station in underground and hence has escalators. During peak morning hours, every single person walks up the escalator stairs and it is considered rude to stand in the morning. When the escalator is down everyone complains, because we need to 2x the walking now. Actually the fact that escalator is broken (i.e one is turned off and the other is closed for maintenance) has created a sort of inside joke, to the point where the escalator has its website to say if its working [http://uofaescalator.com/](http://uofaescalator.com/)

</comment><comment><USER29> "With the constant (and unsustainable) attention of staff, and three weeks of practice, they eventually became a little more docile [...] It's like child psychology [...] So if you can't tell them what to do every two minutes, how on earth do you get them to comply? [...] The handrail and tread of the escalator will be a different colour, and firmly planted pairs of feet will decorate the left of the steps."

I wonder if they have tried to simply explain to commuters why it makes sense to stand on both sides. Treating people like intelligent and responsible adults often works much better than treating them like intellectually disabled children.

<comment><USER26> Seems like a difficult thing to do in such a small trial. Because it's just one escalator (out of 7) in one station, their only point of contact is someone at the bottom of the escalator to shout "stand still".

They hinted at in the article about if they were to expand the trial, they would be able to sell the public on the benefits of it, presumably through a larger campaign.

<comment><USER15> Hand out leaflets? People could read them while they stand on the elevator. :)

<comment><USER26> Sounds like a great idea for a larger trial!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is complete b/s. I (too) often take the tube at peak hour, the left line is usually full, even in long escalators like the connection between the DLR and the central line at Bank. The idea that you have an empty left line and a packed right line is just not true.

</comment><comment><USER31> What an unnecessarily long article. Scroll down to the second photo to see what it's about and skip the text.

</comment><comment><USER32> I am surprised that in London right side of escalator was reserved for non- walking travelers.

British drive on the left side of the road, so more natural tradition would be to stay on the left side of escalator and run on the right.

<comment> robinson-wall It makes more sense in my head the current way round. The traffic (people that are moving) is on the left.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Escalators are very rare novelties here. I never really understood their purpose over a regular stairs, but they are so cool on the occasions I see them.

As a kid I was taught that walking up or down an escalator was rude, could cause injury, and defeats the purpose of the escalator. I think I was punished for doing it. When I went to DC, people were asking me to move out of the way so they could run up the escalators. I thought they were just being rude, but then I noticed lots of people doing this.

I don't remember there being any signs or anything anywhere explaining this. It just emerged as part of their culture. Very interesting. I will definitely try running up an escalator the next time I see one.

<comment><USER33> The purpose is for those with disabilities, elderly, etc. Walking up stairs can be tough for some people.

<comment><USER17> That's what elevators are for. Someone in a wheel chair can't go up an escalator I don't think. All multi story buildings are required to have elevators for the disabled, so the escalator is just a fancy extra.

<comment><USER34> I don't know why you're being downvoted, there are elevators with handicap signs at pretty much all subway stops in Toronto. If you're standing on an escalator it's because you're lazy not too disabled to walk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> An interesting example of how too much uniformity can weaken a system. Where i live, there is a low but "reliable" percentage of riders who are just too rude to follow the left/right protocol. They are rare enough that during low- traffic periods, chances are quite low that you will be blocked while taking the individual latency improvement of walking. However, in periods of high traffic there will be enough of of them to reliably break the throughput- limiting lane pattern and congestion propagation will make sure that it stays that way until the next break in throughput demand.

Never occurred to me that the occasional lane-blocker was an accidental optimization.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think the main issue is the width of the escalators. Given that strangers don't like to stand next to one another (as per article's claim), two single width escalators would end up working more efficiently than one double width.

</comment><comment><USER20> > In lieu of actual people, a hologram customer service operative will remind > people to stand on both sides.

Is this some sort of British slang thing, or did somebody make enormous strides in hologram technology when I wasn't looking?

<comment><USER37> They're cardboard cutouts with rear projection. [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UarWbumn240](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UarWbumn240)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Come to Rajeev Chawk station of New Delhi Metro, and you will see 3 rows of people on escalator: Left, Right & Center too.

Must be almost touching the escalator's "Design Capacity"!

</comment><comment><USER39> Moscow has one of the busiest subway systems in the world, ranked 4th by annual ridership. There's a "stand on right, walk on left" rule, but at congestion hours passengers are advised to stand on both sides to make transportation more efficient, and it's been like that for decades.

Reading a Guardian article on that feels, uh, really redundant? I guess we Russians have some experience in dealing with mobs.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Escalator" is an interesting name. Here in Brazil escalators are called "rolling stairs" (escada rolante).

<comment><USER8> In Argentina they are called "mechanical stairways" (escalera mecánica)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> In Moscow escalators are controlled manually. Each set of escalators has one operator. During peak hours operators manually instruct people to use both sides, constantly repeating instruction for new people that keep arriving. As soon as they stop repeating, people use only the right side as usual.

<comment><USER41> St. Petersburg has one operator for tri-lane escalators, and two for quad+ - Though maybe I just haven't noticed, it seems to me that people just naturally being the double bunching when capacity is high - usually the operators here just complain too much about people running on the escalator or sitting on the steps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Brain fart time: how about a transit system composed entirely of escalators ? When you board, you take a slow treadmill that runs in parallel to a faster one, and that in turn to another, gaining 0.3-0.6 meters/second on each lateral skip. You do the reverse when approaching your destination.

An treadmill running at 10m/s with pairs of people spaced at 0.5m has a capacity of 40 people/second, or 2400 people per minute, or one large train every 30 seconds. The average speed is higher and you no longer need to wait for a train. The only very small problem is the prohibitive cost with existing tech.

<comment><USER43> Robert Heinlein wrote a short story about this concept named The Roads Must Roll. He uses it to illustrate class differences.

<comment><USER11> Is it pre or post *The Caves of Steel" by Asimov?

<comment><USER44> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caves_of_Steel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caves_of_Steel)

 _The Roads Must Roll_ was published in 1940. _The Caves of Steel_ was published in 1953.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here is an idea.

On long escalators, mark some of the stairs in a particular color at regularly spaced intervals. Those are the designated "rest stairs".

Someone walking up who changes their mind (temporarly or for the rest of the ride) just finds a green stair, and moves over to the standing spot to let those behind pass.

Rest stairs can be spaced reasonably sparsely so as not to cut into capacity too much or annoy people, and would only be featured on the long escalators where this is a problem.

Maybe some people give up on the idea of walking up the long escalators in rush hour because they don't want to hinder someone who is faster.

<comment><USER45> You can already do this. If you want to rest you step to the right. People walking continue to pass on the left.

<comment><USER4> Not if the right side is completely packed with people at a peak time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> No Western person would be comfortable riding an escalator side by side with a stranger (aka weirdo in UK speak) for the equivalent of fifty to a hundred steps of stairs in a hot smelly subway so dirty your snot turns sooty. Standing on the right to allow others to walk up the left is not a technical optimization constructed by the impatient of the world. The real optimization problem is you're dealing with people and not frictionless spheres. X number of people walking up the left is faster than zero.

<comment><USER47> They just came from an underground carriage where they were almost certainly standing next to multiple strangers in a much more uncomfortable environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> The only time I ever see two people standing still on a single escalator stair is parents with children or romantic partners - people who are comfortable sharing physical space with one another. Strangers don't share an escalator stair.

So if you let people stand on the right and walk on the left, you're getting higher density and throughput, since you now have one person standing per stair PLUS people walking on the left. It's like turning a 1-lane into a 2-lane street.

</comment><comment><USER49> TL;DR: Because many more travelers stand (on the right) than walk (on the left); catering to the latter potentially leaves nearly half the escalator's capacity unused.

</comment><comment><USER50> Walking on an escalator is usually not very efficient thing - you cut throughput in half and will maybe save 30 to 60 seconds walking down, and only if you'll actually catch a train in that period. Walking upwards is even less efficient - saving 10-20 seconds by inconveniencing hundreds of people? Really?

All this is comparable to people crossing streets on red light and afterwards walking slower than me crossing on green.

</comment><comment><USER51> It's still faster for the person running up the escalator but for that luxury, we are sacrificing half the capacity of the escalator.

Having another row of people on the left means the overall capacity increases and everyone moves faster but I always walk up the stairs and this won't benefit me one bit. Everyone else wins.

Standing when I'm in a rush can never be faster than walking up the escalator.

<comment><USER52> i figure it's not a luxury. people walk slowly inside the stations. escalator or no escalator. platforms are ridiculously small. i avoid taking the underground when i'm commuting to work because it's just hell. walking up the escalator is the one time i feel i'm actually going places (when i'm commuting). this would be acceptable if the rest of the journey wasn't just miserable. now they set out to make the journey 100% miserable. thanks tfl...

why doesn't tfl try and improve the stations instead of coming up with this crap? i hate to sound like some sort of hillbilly but hey, if everyone walks up the escalator the throughput is even greater! another one: if you close down one station for a whole year, why not improve the platforms by making them bigger? in fact, you close down the station for a year and when you open it again the works are not even close to being done! fantastic!

/rant

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I've never heard "escalump" in DC, but I have heard and used "escalefter" many times. There was even an ad inside the metro about it one time:

[http://klaprothlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Tourism- to...](http://klaprothlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Tourism-to-U.S..jpg)

<comment><USER54> It was part of the same ad campaign (I remember it):

[http://farm1.static.flickr.com/71/201509778_6f81b468ac.jpg](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/71/201509778_6f81b468ac.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> With many thing once people get used to a change their behaviour adapts in ways that the changer did not hope for. I suspect this will end with each person standing across both sides of the escalator cutting throughput.

</comment><comment><USER56> I assume the biggest improvement is removing the merging problem when people queuing on the left merge at the last minute and people on the right aren't being completely passive to the queue jumping.

</comment><comment><USER57> Why not make the escalators smaller so they only fit one person at a time? Then they could have two lanes where they used to have one and standers would naturally block walkers.

<comment><USER58> That would work if everyone was the same width. Which they are not

<comment><USER57> I don't think your line of thinking makes sense. Escalators already account for varying widths of people. But on average, two people of varying widths can fit on an escalator. Just make the escalators more narrow so that, on average, only one person fits on the escalator.

<comment><USER58> Have you ever been on a singlewide escalator? They have both single and double in my city. Rider comfort does not scale down linearly. It's the same story on roads, a two lane highway is going to be much wider than half the width of a four lane highway.

<comment><USER57> Ah, so you're saying that two singlewide escalators wouldn't fit where a doublewide escalator exists, now? That's a different and more compelling argument, but they could still do it. Also, this article is about putting rider preferences second. I would include rider comfort as one of those preferences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> _"From my point of view," says TfL's head of transport planning Geoff Hobbs, "the ideal train would look like a bread bin"_

lol I can see that being taken out of context.

</comment><comment><USER60> The article and its experts assume that "efficiency" is more important than culture and regimen without proving that is true.

<comment><USER61> Its also interesting to see the cultural turmoil people are willing to put up with just to avoid the implied worse alternative of flexible working hours or working from home occasionally.

A quick "easy" but apparently utterly culturally unacceptable way to increase capacity by some 240% would be to work from home one day per week on average (or a half day every other week, or two days every other person, etc) and flex working hours such that the "rush hour" is twice as long.

This would interfere with primate dominance rituals such as enjoying lower social class suffering, so instead we'll get something that merely redistributes suffering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The solution is to actually have a full escalator, with an uninterrupted row of people on the left who are walking. That's what I see in Vancouver, and cities in Japan. The escalator is fully occupied, _and_ one side of it is used for walking.

It's surprising to hear that Londoners are just keeping one side clear, with few "takers" to climb up. Are they unfit or something? Respectful, though.

<comment><USER18> How long are those escalators in Vancouver and Japan? According to the article, what they saw in the London escalators was that on the really long ones, not many people wanted to walk, but on the shorter ones they did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I wonder why they don't make the escalators three people wide. There is certainly space for it.

<comment><USER63> It's dangerous because the person in the middle can't hold a handrail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I run up stairs. Hence have little patience but plenty of scorn for people who can't be bothered with a bit of locomotion on the escalator. Come on, I'm 56, you're half my age, move it!

London Transport might have attempted a campaign along those lines. Lowest common denominator can be tiresome at times.

</comment><comment><USER65> Is there a reason why all escalators are 2 people wide?

<comment><USER66> It is the maximum that is safe (3 wide has a person in the middle with no handrail and if anyone fell, they would become a bowling ball).

It is much more efficient than 1 person wide - two double-wide escalators offer more capacity than the 3 single-wides that fit in the same space, and likely consume less energy and cost less to maintain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> And there goes my little exercise I get in the morning.

<comment><USER68> Get off one stop early and walk a bit? (Assuming this isn't a joke).

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I feel like I can't be alone in not wanting to stand next to someone I don't know on an escalator and finding the idea uncomfortable?

<comment><USER70> Are you comfortable standing next to someone you don't know on the subway? If not, you probably wouldn't be down there in rush hour in the first place...

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> It seems to me that the throughput on the left side is faster - and therefore even if it were more spaced out (not the case in rush hour when it is almost as crowded as the right side), the fact that people are moving faster and spending less time on it would make up for any difference.

<comment><USER72> From tfa: _An escalator that carried 12,745 customers between 8.30 and 9.30am in a normal week, for example, carried 16,220 when it was designated standing only_

<comment><USER73> I don't quite understand how that works. Surely there wasn't a crowd of 3000 people at the bottom of the escalator when people were walking on the left? Where do the extra people come from?

<comment><USER74> Public transit in major cities is a set of complex queuing systems. If a station is slower getting people out, they will crowd on the platform and create "back-pressure" on the entire system as the crowd causes incoming trains to take longer to unload, people will see longer queues to enter the system so they'll be marginally more likely to take a cab or abandon their trip.

So some of the 3000 people were literally standing on the platform, but many of them may have been new customers or time-shifted rides that didn't even exist before.

All of this seems like a very micro optimization to eek out efficiency in peak throughput. The bigger macro problem is that transit is centered around sharp peaks due to inflexible work/life schedules. Moving everyone in London or New York around is tough enough, but doing it in a few hours each day is a nightmare and you have to massively overbuild infrastructure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> So in conclusion, present-day Londoners are lazy, and rather than encouraging people to move more, we should pander to them. Why not give everyone a Coke and a Big Mac with every Oyster card too? No wonder there is an obesity crisis.

<comment><USER76> Isn't there anything more interesting to say? Resentment isn't too useful.

I watched someone carry a wheelchair down the escalator a few weeks ago. No one could get past them, since the owner of the wheelchair was clinging to the person kind enough to escort them.

<comment><USER75> Done that myself a few times. In the present system, those who aren't able to walk, don't have to, and those that can, ought to be encouraged to, for the matter of public heath.

<comment><USER77> Their journey usually involves walking to the station, walking to the escalator, walking from the escalator to the train, and walking from the train to work.

That short escalator ride isn't a public health disaster.

The lack of healthy food available to commuters is probably a bigger problem.

<comment><USER75> It's more subtle than that. The difference in attitude between "I walk when it's unavoidable" and "I walk whenever I can because we spent a billion years evolving to do it and living in a city is very bad for my overall health and wellbeing".

<comment><USER76> There was a woman who became obese following a transplant of gut flora.

Recall how much the idea of evolution bothers some people. Are you sure this isn't a similar type of situation?

We seem to have evidence that obesity isn't always a choice.

<comment><USER75> For 50% of the population? I call shenanigans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Tldr?

</comment><comment><USER79> This sucks. Now people who want to walk up and get a little exercise cant, just cus they are outnumbered by lazy sedentaries.. :(

</comment><comment><USER80> It wouldn't be quite as large of a problem if people who were physically able would just quit being lazy and walk up the escalator, even if it is a bit of a hike. It's not like walking to the top of a skyscraper.

You know what's faster than either walking up stairs or an escalator? Walking up an escalator.

</comment><comment><USER81> I used to go through Holborn every morning at 8.50am and I could see them preparing the experiment a few weeks in advance. They placed people in all the corridors to count throughput.

However, as I was changing from the Central line to the Piccadilly line in the morning, like many others I walked through the much quieter 'No Exit' corridor (against the flow of traffic) to avoid/alleviate the congestion in the actual designated exit corridor. I'm not sure if I was counted in their stats as a +1 or -1?

Then they closed my local station anyway, so I switched to the overground. 5 mins more, but so much nicer!

<comment><USER82> Please don't walk against the flow, it inconveniences so many people. :( In some cases it can half the throughput for a coridoor as people walking in the right direction have to slow down and merge into another line just so you can go past.

<comment><USER83> Sorry, downvoted you by mistake.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> I don't think use of the Underground will increase by 60% by 2050. Mass transit will be a bad memory by then.

When our driverless cars head underground, they will all be going at the same high speed.

<comment><USER85> Digging a single tunnel under the length of London (the Crossrail project) cost ~$25 billion. And that's just one tunnel. London has a population of ~8.5 million, and a single road lane with automated vehicles can handle around ~3,000 cars per hour. Multiply it out, and the cost of tunnelling a road system large enough to carry the entire city at high speed becomes mind- bogglingly huge.

<comment><USER84> I said "WHEN our driverless cars head underground". I did not say all the travel would be underground.

Small single passenger vehicles can also pass each a lot more easily in the amount of space a train takes up. You could have two levels in the amount of vertical space a train takes up.

I also don't think a train takes up less of the available space and time than individual cars would, when has to stop at all the stops. All other trains must wait too. The flow is constantly interrupted.

Robotic underground construction is also going to be a lot cheaper.

Whatever happens and whatever the mix between walking and vehicle transportation evolves, people are going to prefer to travel in their own vehicles over being crammed into cars with strangers and having to navigate escalators.

This particular system is shaped by the current technological constraints, not so much by people's desires. When technology advances, it will eventually change.

<comment><USER86> I don't think you've seen a London Underground deep tube line, you ain't getting two levels of cars in that space. No overtaking either, as they use separate tubes for each direction. Even the larger, shallower subsurface lines are UK loading gauge, which isn't big enough for double decker trains. I doubt any double decked traffic on existing UK railway land without extensive expensive rebuilding.

As for "robotic underground construction", it's not like they have a load of Navvies digging by hand nowadays, a modern tunnel boring machine is pretty damn robotic, but it still costs a fair chunk of change to tunnel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> >>The stand-on-the-left controversy is no exception. Harrison, Stoneman and their colleagues believe it could make a noticeable impact on congestion at some of London's busiest stations, congestion that will only get worse as train design, frequency and reliability improve, as the trains get faster and the doors get bigger, and ever more passengers are dumped on the platform at a time.

THAT is a very british approach. Planners know that a problem is approaching, a problem created willingly by infrastructure improvements elsewhere. But rather than address that spillover issue with money/time/new bricks, yet another code of behavior is to be enforced. The people are to shoulder the burden yet again. Heaven help the tourist in a hurry who gets an asbo for not maximizing the carrying capacity of tube escalators. I wait for the day the escalator stops and everyone stands motionless for fear of being ticketed.

See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyL5mAqFJds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyL5mAqFJds) where shoddy architecture is answered by suggesting that things will be ok so long as only lightweight people enter the building.

And i thought there was an obesity crisis? They've been telling us for years to keep moving and now here is a government agency telling people to stand motionless? I say encourage people to burn calories by running the escalators in reverse!

<comment><USER88> In terms of resource use, that is a spectacularly efficient solution. They are not "shouldering" a burden, they are using existing capacity to a fuller extent, which is just about the most efficient solution to any problem anywhere. It's cheap and gets the job done.

Also, frankly, if you're unwilling to follow the local code of conduct, you deserve an asbo/death sentence/stern tut-tutting and disapproving glares.

<comment><USER87> It is efficient only when the escalator is running near capacity, not when the escalators are less than 1/2 full. I suspect that this experiment will result in new rules to be applied 24/7 no matter whether they are anywhere near capacity.

<comment><USER24> Why would you expect that? Given how pragmatic most Brits are about rules and etiquette, at least once social norms have been established and people have become used to how things work, your assumption seems rather pessimistic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Capacity could be improved even more, without fuelling the obesity epidemic and inconveniencing those of us who prefer to keep moving . All they have to do is make walking compulsory on both sides.

<comment><USER80> I'm an escalator walker myself but not everyone is physically able to walk up or down a very large set of a stairs. Just because someone can not do that doesn't mean we ought to design things to exclude them.

<comment><USER90> Of course not. However, since you have several lanes, what about having "walking compulsory" and "standing compulsory" escalators? Assuming enough escalators to get the right distribution, this would ensure maximum throughput and minimum annoyance at peak hours.

<comment><USER80> I think you'd still end up with wasted escalator capacity. If the observations in the article hold true in this scenario, you'd have a mostly empty "walking" escalator right next to a packed "standing" escalator.

I think the point is enough people prefer to stand over walking than any dedicated walking space is likely wasted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> Would this not be fairly straightforward to simulate? I see statements like: "and, it seemed, travelling more efficiently and safely as a result." and "His report prompted Harrison and her colleagues to wonder..." and think... they're guessing? They're going right to disrupting normal travel patterns of many people for a trial on nothing more than a hunch? Why not prove to a reasonable degree that this would actually work beyond the anecdotal feelings of a few employees before inflicting such a change on the public?

Seems like they are just shifting the cost for finding out from themselves to the disrupted travellers. Even if over longer periods of time this proves more efficient, disrupting normal patterns for regular commuters will cause a lot of stress and disorientation; such stress may be a soft cost, but most commutes already suck. I guess when you're a government agency, it's hard to fail your customers in a way that matters to you.

<comment><USER92> They did simulate. Thing is that you can only tell if simulations are correct by testing in real life.

(do simulations for a living)</comment></comment>


The infantilization of Western culture - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/the-infantilization-of-western-culture-99556 <comment><USER2> This is not relevant to "Western" culture. It is relevant to US culture and East Asian culture, esp. Korea. Western includes Europe and South America, and these cultures are not as infantile.

Why? I have no idea.

</comment><comment><USER3> I like that advertising mascots were mentioned, like the Geico lizard. I also think software tools like standard Adobe illustrator tend toward a cartoon infantile look. Probably as a side effect for the need to make things vector scalable. It tends toward a flat big shape paradigm.

It also could be that companies like the idea of the customers as dependant upon the product, and infantilization fosters dependancy

</comment><comment><USER4> 'The dictionary defines infantilizing as treating someone "as a child or in a way that denies their maturity in age or experience."'

I don't know whether to laugh or be offended!</comment>


Why my weblink is deleted from here. - <AUTHOR>

Why the link is deleted. If it is a new website. people should know about it right? <comment><USER2> _[dead] Lets know people a new way to interact people. [friendmaybe.com] (friendmaybe.com)_

1\. Why should we follow the link? It seems to have nothing to do with startups or high tech and does not appear to be intellectually stimulating.

If you made this site yourself and you're asking for comments on it, you should start the link text with "Show HN:".

Otherwise, the suspicion is going to be that it's just spam.

2\. Poor grammar. You don't interact people, you interact _with_ people. "Lets" is spelt "Let's". There should be some punctuation between "people" and "a": either a colon, or a dash, or a full stop (and then capitalise the "a").

Poor grammar adds to the impression that the link may be spam.</comment>