Decades ago, the MTR Corporation in Hong Kong vigorously promoted the slogan: “Stand on the right, walk on the left, for the benefit of others and oneself.” This was an era focused on efficiency and order, and the message was simple yet powerful, achieving considerable success. Even today, many Hong Kong residents instinctively stand on the right side of escalators, leaving the left side for those in a hurry. This has become not merely a habit but an internalized public ethic.
Widening the perspective, this practice is not unique to Hong Kong. Japan, the UK, and several European cities have developed an unspoken agreement to “stand on one side, walk on the other.” Interestingly, Japan presents a contrast: in eastern cities like Tokyo and Osaka, people typically stand on the left and walk on the right, while in the Osaka and Kyoto areas, the opposite is true. London’s Underground has long displayed signs instructing passengers to “Stand on the right.” On the surface, this appears to be a globally accepted urban order, each city adjusting its own practices.
However, the problem is that this order may not be effective.
A widely cited turning point originated in London. In 2015, Transport for London (TfL) conducted a formal field test at Holborn station, a busy interchange between the Piccadilly Line and Central Line, particularly crowded during peak hours. TfL temporarily suspended the practice of “standing on the right, walking on the left” on one of the long escalators, instead instructing passengers to stand on both sides, with staff present to guide them.
The results were quite clear: the number of people passing through the escalator increased by about 30% per minute, the queue at the escalator entrance noticeably shortened, and platform congestion improved. TfL’s conclusion was straightforward—allowing passengers to stand on both sides in high-traffic environments is more efficient than leaving one side for walking. This was not a theoretical deduction but rather data from actual testing.
The reasoning is not difficult to understand. The number of people willing to walk on escalators is always a minority. Observations from various cities indicate that those who actually “walk” typically account for only 10% to 20% of passengers; the vast majority prefer to stand. The result is that one side, where people are standing, forms a long queue, while the walking side often remains empty, utilizing only half of the escalator’s designed capacity. During peak hours, this forces crowds to accumulate at the escalator entrance, exacerbating congestion on the pathways and platforms.
This reflection has also emerged in Japan in recent years. Railway operators in Tokyo, including Tokyo Metro and JR East, have begun to downplay or even remove instructions to “walk/stand” at some busy stations, instead encouraging passengers not to walk on escalators. In Osaka, there have been public calls to stop walking on escalators citing safety concerns.
Safety is another long-ignored cost. Escalators are not designed for walking; the height of the steps, speed, and synchronization with the handrail require a higher level of stability in one’s stride. Accident analyses in both the UK and Japan show that falls are more likely to occur on the walking side, particularly involving luggage, rushing, or looking down at mobile phones. When accidents happen, the escalator often needs to be shut down, affecting the entire flow of people rather than just a few seconds for individual passengers.
There is also a less obvious but equally real issue: wear and tear on machinery. The engineering assumption for escalators is that weight is evenly distributed across the steps. Long-term concentrated standing on one side leads to uneven stress on the steps, chains, and drive systems, accelerating wear and increasing maintenance frequency. What is purportedly convenient for a few actually raises the operational costs for the entire system.
If we genuinely consider efficiency and safety, the answer is clear: during busy periods, passengers should stand on both sides to ensure every step is fully utilized. Further, if passengers could alternate sides—standing one step left, one step right—this would increase stability and improve psychological comfort. This represents a rational use of limited space.
The issue is not whether the original promotion was well-intentioned, but whether we are willing to acknowledge that a once-successful practice may not always be correct. Cities change, traffic patterns evolve, and public order should be adjusted based on empirical evidence rather than maintained by memory and sentiment. The practice of standing on the right and walking on the left had its historical context; however, in today’s densely populated cities, it may have shifted from “benefiting others and oneself” to “harming both.”
A truly mature public culture does not rigidly adhere to habits but understands when it is necessary to let them go.
