如何化解排隊難題 有3個截然不同的視角

I love queues. Not that I love queueing — I may be English but I’m not that English. But from a safe distance, queues are fascinating. They’re less fun if they cause you to miss your flight. In mid-May, two-hour queues for security at Chicago’s Midway airport had just that effect. Jeh Johnson, the US Secretary for Homeland Security, offered travellers some meditative advice: “Contemplate increased wait times as you travel.” I’d hope we can do a little better than mindful meditation.

我喜歡排隊的隊伍。不是説我喜歡排隊——我可能很“英國”，但我還沒那麼“英國”。但離開一個安全距離來看，排隊是個有趣的問題。如果排隊讓你錯過了自己的航班，它就沒那麼有趣了。5月中旬，在芝加哥中途機場(Midway Airport)排隊兩小時等着過安檢就導致了這種結果。美國國土安全部部長傑•約翰遜(Jeh Johnson)建議旅行者考慮周到一些：“旅客們請考慮到，等待時間延長了。”我希望我們能拿出比建議旅客考慮周全更好一點的解決辦法。

There are three very different perspectives on queues: psychological, engineering and economic.

關於排隊問題，有3個截然不同的視角：心理學、工程學和經濟學。

The psychological perspective tells us that much of what makes queues unpleasant is nothing to do with the waiting time. If a queue carries risk (you may or may not make your flight), then it is far more stressful. So are queues that are confrontational, unfair or require constant monitoring for queue-jumpers or the sudden opening up of new lines.

從心理學角度來看，排隊帶來的不快在很大程度上與等待時間無關。如果排隊帶有風險（你可能趕不上飛機），那麼排隊帶來的壓力就要大得多。那些像打仗一樣、不公平、需要持續提防有人插隊或突然新開一隊的排隊也是如此。

A single serpentine queue, secure against cheats, can be a perfectly civilised place to stand and check email or read a paperback. With a bit of cleverness, the queue may be a pleasure — as at well-designed theme parks — or an unobtrusive virtual version, as when you collect a ticket from the supermarket deli counter and do some shopping while waiting for your number.

能夠防止作弊的單獨一列蜿蜒前進的隊伍，有可能是一個適合站着查查郵件或者讀本書的愜意之所。用上一點巧思，排隊也可能是一種樂事（比如在設計良好的主題公園裏排隊），還可能變成一種悄然進行的“虛擬排隊”（比如你從超市熟食區拿一個號，在等待叫號的期間你可以購物）。

There are, however, limits to the psychological approach. When the Eyjafjallajökull eruption shut down air travel across Europe in 2010, I found myself queueing for train tickets in Stockholm Central Station, along with almost everyone else in Sweden. Thankfully, the queue had a counter system: simply take a ticket, and wait for your turn. I sat in a café, sipping espresso and typing on a laptop as I waited. But, after a pleasant three-quarters of an hour, I did some mental arithmetic, and realised that the queue was approximately 14 hours long. In the end, if you miss your plane or your train, it hardly matters that the queue itself was a nice place to chill.

然而，這種心理學角度存在侷限性。2010年，埃亞菲亞德拉火山(Eyjafjallajökull)噴發導致整個歐洲的空中交通停運，我在斯德哥爾摩中央車站(Stockholm Central Station)和幾乎全瑞典的人一起排隊買火車票。所幸的是，隊伍是排號的：你只需要拿個號，然後等着叫號就行了。我坐在一家咖啡店裏等待，一邊抿着意式濃縮咖啡，一邊用一台筆記本電腦打字。但在愉快地度過了45分鐘以後，我心算了一下，意識到我大約要排上14個小時之久。到頭來，如果你錯過了你的飛機或者火車，排隊的隊伍本身是否愜意這一點根本無關緊要。

When psychology fails, engineering must take the strain. A well-engineered queue copes gracefully with periods of high demand, and balances the cost of waiting against the expense of overproviding idle service staff.

當心理學失效的時候，工程學就必須頂上。經過精心工程設計的排隊能夠從容地應對高需求時段，並且平衡等待成本和配置過多閒置服務人員的花費。

Queue engineers understand that queues can have strange properties. Imagine the queue at a busy post office. During the mid-morning lull, roughly one person a minute arrives and one person a minute can be served. The queue will fluctuate — and, alas, there will never be a negative number of people in the queue — but we can expect it to stay fairly short. Then, during lunch hour, extra people arrive and the queue starts to lengthen — two people, then four, five, 10. As the rush subsides, the capacity of the ticket office again begins to match the inflow of customers: one person arrives each minute, and one person is served each minute.

設計隊伍的人理解隊伍可能有奇怪的特性。想象一下在忙碌的郵局裏，人們排着隊。在上午的低峯時段，大約一分鐘來一個人，一分鐘可以服務完一個人。隊伍的長度會變化不定，而且（唉）始終不會少於零個人——但我們可以預計這個隊伍會一直處於較短的狀態。然後，在午餐時段，有更多的人來了，隊伍開始變長——從兩人變成四五個人，然後變成10人。在高峯時段逐漸過去之後，售票處的服務能力再度開始匹配客户的流入速度：一分鐘來一個人，一分鐘可以服務完一個人。

Annoyingly, even though the inflow and outflow of people from the queue is the same as it was in the morning, the afternoon queue is about 10 people long. It will stay 10 people long until the capacity of the ticket office is greater than the inflow of customers. Once a serious queue has formed, it needs attention or it can linger indefinitely.

令人煩惱的是，即便下午人們加入和離開隊伍的速度跟早上是一樣的，但隊伍依然有約10個人那麼長。除非櫃枱的服務能力超過客户的流入速度，否則這個隊伍會一直保持這個長度。一旦排起了長隊，就需要加以干預，否則隊伍可能會一直這麼長。

That brings us to the economic perspective on queues. Queues are a terrible, inefficient waste of time. If the resource in question is genuinely limited, then the existence of a queue shows that it is being underpriced. If everyone had to pay to join a queue, the queue itself would be shorter, because some people would decide not to bother. Those who did queue would earn back their entry fee in time saved, while the person selling tickets for the queue would make some cash.

這讓我們把眼光投向了經濟學視角。排隊是對時間的一種極大的、無謂的浪費。如果所涉資源真的是有限的，那麼出現排隊現象表明這種資源定價過低。如果每個人都需要花錢才能加入排隊隊伍，那麼隊伍將會變短，因為一些人會想，不如別排算了。那些真正去排隊的人通過節省時間賺回了排隊的費用，而賣票者將從中賺到一些錢。

In other cases, however, capacity should expand to keep the queue short. Imagine a line so long that most passengers would pay $50 to skip it — probably a good description of the two-hour queues at Midway. Hiring extra Homeland Security staff would save $50 worth of frustration for every extra person they scan from the line.

然而，在其他情況下，應該擴展服務能力以保持隊列較短。想象一下，有一條隊伍排得太長，以至於大多數乘客願意花50美元省去排隊的過程——中途機場要排兩小時的隊伍很可能就是這樣。僱傭額外的國土安全部人員，會為每一個額外得到安檢的人免除（價值50美元的）糟糕心情。

How many people could an extra security team see? One per minute, perhaps? Fifty dollars a minute would surely pay for some extra personnel. The problem is that the security team is unlikely actually to receive the $50. In an alternate universe, passengers would have a whip round, hire more agents, and the line would move just fine.

一個額外的安檢小隊能夠安檢多少人？可能是一分鐘一個人？一分鐘50美元顯然能夠供得起一些額外人手。問題在於，這個安檢小隊不太可能真的獲得這50美元。在另一個世界裏，乘客們可能會湊份子，僱傭更多的安檢人員，隊伍就能夠以正常的速度前進了。

But in the world in which we live, queues remain. Part of the cost is imposed on foreigners, whose annoyance barely registers on the system. (This is particularly true of immigration checks.) For example, on a recent trip from South America to London, I chose to change at Madrid rather than at Miami because I’ve had terrible experiences at Miami. That’s bad for the US economy but security screeners, customs officers and immigration officials respond to political signals, not market ones. The US political system is hardly likely to dance to my tune.

但在我們生活的這個世界裏，長長的隊伍會繼續存在。部分成本的施加對象是外國人，他們的惱怒幾乎不會顯示在我們的系統中（入境檢查尤其如此）。比如，在最近的一次從南非前往倫敦的旅行中，我選擇從馬德里而不是邁阿密轉機，因為我在邁阿密曾有過糟糕的經歷。這對美國經濟沒有好處，但安檢、海關和入境官員是對政治信號，而不是市場信號做出迴應。美國政治體系幾無可能迎合我的意願。

Looking on the bright side, I hear that Reagan National Airport, often used by members of Congress as they fly in and out of Washington DC, works like a charm.

看看積極的一面，我聽説美國國會議員進出華盛頓所常用的里根國家機場(Reagan National Airport)運轉出奇良好。