Source:
ChatGPT:
I researched the underlying London trial and Singapore discussions around the same issue. The key finding is real, but there is an important qualification: standing on both sides improves total passenger throughput in sufficiently crowded situations; it does not necessarily make the journey faster for someone who wants to walk up.
π¬ What the video is saying
The Reel's main argument is:
Standing on both sides of an escalator can move more people through the system than having everyone stand on one side and reserve the other for walkers.
The conventional arrangement seems logical:
Left: people stand
Right: people walk
Walkers get to the top faster
Everyone else stands
But there is a capacity problem.
If most passengers want to stand, reserving roughly half the escalator for the relatively small number of walkers means that a large amount of usable capacity is deliberately left unused.
When the escalator is crowded, filling both sides with standing passengers can therefore move more people onto the escalator at once.
The London experiment
This wasn't just a theoretical calculation.
Transport for London trialled standing on both sides at Holborn Underground station, where the escalators are particularly long. An earlier trial found that standing on both sides could increase escalator capacity by about 30%. TfL subsequently conducted a longer six-month trial involving two escalators. (TfL Content)
The reason Holborn was particularly suitable is important: its escalators are around 23–24 metres high, and relatively few passengers wanted to walk up such a long escalator. Consequently, under the conventional arrangement, a substantial portion of the escalator's capacity could be unused. (The Independent)
TfL reported that during the earlier test, congestion was reduced by about 30%, and station-control measures to stop passengers entering because of crowding were needed much less frequently. (TfL Content)
π§ Why does it work?
Imagine an escalator with 100 passengers waiting.
Conventional system
Suppose:
70 people want to stand
30 people want to walk
If everyone stands on one side, only around half the physical width is being used for standing passengers.
The walking lane may also not be continuously occupied because walkers arrive at different rates.
Standing on both sides
You can put standing passengers across the entire width.
So instead of:
π§ π§ | πΆ →
you effectively get:
π§ π§ | π§ π§
More people enter the escalator per unit of time.
That's why system-wide throughput can increase even though an individual walker loses the ability to climb.
⚠️ The important catch
This is where social-media versions of this story can be misleading.
"Standing on both sides is more efficient" does NOT mean "everyone reaches the top faster."
Those are different measurements.
A person who normally walks up the escalator may actually take longer under a standing-only arrangement.
The benefit is primarily:
More people can be transported through the bottleneck per unit of time.
A Reddit discussion about the Holborn experiment captured this distinction particularly well. Some London commuters recalled that it made things faster for people who would normally stand, while making the experience slower for people who specifically wanted to walk. (Reddit)
So there is a genuine individual-vs-system trade-off.
πΈπ¬ Why this is particularly relevant to Singapore
This is where the Reel gets interesting for Singapore.
Singapore has a deeply established keep-left / walking-right escalator culture. The Straits Times reported in 2024 that the "stand on one side, walk on the other" practice has been longstanding here, while also publishing a letter arguing that standing on both sides could improve safety and efficiency in crowded locations. (The Straits Times)
And Singaporeans have actually been debating this for years.
HardwareZone
A 2025 HardwareZone thread titled "We shld go back to standing onboth sides of escalators" generated discussion specifically about the queues created by everyone squeezing onto one side. Several posters supported using both sides, particularly during peak periods. (HardwareZone Forums)
Another HWZ discussion asked why the majority should squeeze into one lane for the sake of the relatively small number of people walking. One poster argued that the main concern isn't escalator wear but safety, because walking on moving steps increases the chance of tripping. (HardwareZone Forums)
There are also Singaporeans who strongly defend the existing convention because they regard keeping left as basic pedestrian etiquette.
Reddit Singapore: surprisingly divided
A 2024 r/Singapore discussion about escalator etiquette had hundreds of votes, and the comments show the cultural conflict very clearly. (Reddit)
One camp essentially says:
"Keep left; right is for people who need to walk."
Another camp points out:
"If almost everyone wants to stand, why waste half the escalator?"
Some Redditors specifically cited the efficiency argument and said standing on both sides could clear a crowded entrance more quickly. Others said that the existing convention is simply more considerate because people have different urgency levels.
There is also a practical Singapore problem:
At places such as MRT stations, people can end up forming a long queue for the standing lane while the other half of the escalator is relatively empty.
That's exactly the situation where the standing-on-both-sides model becomes attractive.
πΈπ¬ There's actually evidence behind the Singapore debate
One thing I found particularly interesting is that Singapore's debate isn't merely based on social-media opinions.
The Straits Times previously reported that experts did not consider walking on escalators to be a significant cause of mechanical wear, despite claims that concentrating passengers on one side damages escalators. The more established safety concern was the possibility of people falling while walking. (The Straits Times)
So I would separate three claims:
| Claim | What the evidence says |
|---|---|
| Standing on both sides can increase throughput | Yes, in appropriate crowded conditions |
| It makes each individual passenger reach the top faster | No |
| Walking on one side necessarily causes major escalator damage | Not supported by the Singapore expert evidence I found |
| Walking introduces additional fall/safety risk | Experts cited by ST have identified safety as a concern |
| It works equally well at every escalator | No — escalator length, crowd density and number of walkers matter |
The TfL research itself also suggests this is context-dependent. Its own commentary said many normal-length escalators could benefit from having people walk, whereas Holborn was unusual because its very long escalators discouraged walking. (YouTube)
π What I found across social media/forums
HardwareZone
Leans toward: "Use both sides when crowded."
There are multiple threads complaining about queues created by the one-side-standing convention. But there are also people who consider keeping left/right walking to be basic etiquette. (HardwareZone Forums)
Reddit Singapore
Very divided.
People understand the capacity argument but many still prefer keeping one side available for walkers because they value the option to move faster. (Reddit)
Reddit London
The original Holborn experiment remains controversial years later. Some Londoners remember the 30% capacity improvement, while others remember the trial as frustrating because people who wanted to walk were prevented from doing so. (Reddit)
X / Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Threads
I couldn't find sufficiently reliable, directly indexed discussion of this specific Reel on those platforms, so I wouldn't manufacture a "social-media consensus." The strongest searchable Singapore discussion is currently Reddit/HWZ, plus the Straits Times coverage.
π€ So is the video correct?
Broadly yes — but the viral version needs a qualification.
The London experiment genuinely found roughly 30% higher escalator capacity when people stood on both sides. TfL subsequently used a standing-only arrangement at Holborn based on that earlier result. (TfL Content)
But the correct statement is:
When an escalator is heavily congested and most passengers are willing to stand, standing on both sides can increase total throughput.
It's not:
"Everyone should always stand on both sides because it's faster."
That's too broad.
For Singapore, I think the most logical interpretation of the evidence is:
Off-peak + normal crowd → keeping a walking lane makes sense if people actually use it.
Peak-hour + huge queue + mostly standing passengers → filling both sides can make better use of the escalator's capacity.
Very long escalator → the case for standing on both sides becomes stronger, because relatively few people may actually want to walk all the way up.
And that's essentially why Holborn was chosen for the London experiment in the first place. (YouTube)
So the fascinating part isn't really "walking vs standing." It's that an escalator's optimum operating rule changes depending on crowd density and how many people actually want to walk.
No comments:
Post a Comment