A major halachic issue in modern life is the use of elevators on Shabbat and Yom Tov. The question has been debated for decades, but there have been distinct periods of both Halachic and technological developments in this area. In this essay, we will attempt to summarize the different approaches taken by the poskim in the past few decades.
The Earliest Responsa - The Strict Views of Minchat Yitzchak and Chelkat Yaakov
Both Dayan Yitzchak Weisz (Minchat Yitzchak (3:60) and Rav Yaakov Breisch (Chelkat Yaakov 3:137) forbade using elevators on Shabbat even if they are set to move automatically (“Shabbat elevators”). Dayan Weisz's reasoning is that the rider's additional weight in the elevator cabin causes the elevator to work harder, thereby causing its motor to draw more current. Rav Breisch's argument is quite interesting. He cites Rav Yitzchak Schmelkes' ruling (Beit Yitzchak 2:30) that one is forbidden to ride on a train or trolley on Shabbat. The precedent cited by Rav Shmelkes is a Gemara (Beitzah 25b) that records the rabbinic prohibition to be transported in a sedan-like chair carried by others because this runs counter to the spirit of Shabbat (see Rashi s.v. Ein Hasuma). Rav Breisch proceeds to apply the Beit Yitzchak's ruling to an elevator. Rav Breisch argues, "What is the difference between riding horizontally and [riding] vertically?" Both activities should be forbidden even if the train or elevator is entirely automated. He notes the practice of scrupulously observant Jews to avoid riding on elevators on Shabbat.
The Earliest Responsa - The Lenient Views of Rav Henkin and Rav Unterman
Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Kol Kitvei Harav Henkin 2:59) and Rav Yehudah Unterman (Torah Shebaal Peh 5727 p.13) felt that it is permissible to ride an elevator if one does not push any of the buttons. Rav Henkin points out that Halachah (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 252:5) follows the opinion of Beit Hillel (Shabbat 17-18) that one may arrange (before Shabbat) for his utensils to perform melachah on Shabbat. Accordingly, if the rider performs no melachah, Rav Henkin permits the use of an elevator or Shabbat. Rav Unterman adds, "I have personally witnessed great Torah sages entering an elevator and travelling to the floor for which a non-Jewish passenger pushed the button; they never raised the possibility of their added weight posing a Halachic problem."
Rav Unterman relates that he was present one Shabbat when the Chafetz Chaim was meeting with other rabbinic figures discussing community matters. When the Chafetz Chaim needed something to be brought to him, one of those present proceeded to ride the elevator along with a non-Jewish passenger to retrieve the item. None of the assembled, including the Chafetz Chaim, objected to his riding the elevator.
It should be noted that it appears that Rav Moshe Feinstein (see Teshuvot Igrot Moshe 2:80) agrees with Rav Henkin and Rav Unterman's ruling that if the elevator is not operated by a Jew and a non-Jew has not been instructed to operate the elevator, one may ride in it on Shabbat.
Rav Halperin's Resolution
Based on the heretofore cited rulings, it would appear that Rav Henkin and Rav Unterman's ruling should be considered normative Halachah. Rav Breisch's novel approach comparing elevators to trains received almost no support from other halachic authorities.88See chapter 17 of Maaliot B’Shabbat; Rav Hershel Schachter told me that Professor Zev Lev told him that Rav Yaakov Kaminetzsky did not concur with the ruling of the Beit Yitzchak upon which the Chelkat Yaakov bases his ruling. Also, increasing current is permitted by most authorities in case of considerable need.89See Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1 p. 74, who notes the common practice to engage in conversation with individuals who wear hearing aids despite the fact that this causes increased current flow in the hearing aid. Moreover, the increased current flow is caused indirectly (grama) because when one enters the elevator, the motor is not operating. Only when the elevator begins to ascend does the flow of current increase. Performing melachah on Shabbat indirectly is permitted in case of exceptionally great need (see Shulchan Aruch O.C. 334:22 and Bei’ur Halacha ad. loc. s.v. Digram).
This would appear to be analogous to the case of the Gemara (Sanhedrin 77a) known as "sof chamah lavo." This passage describes a case in which one ties someone up and leaves him in the desert at night, whereupon the encroaching sun kills the victim the next day. Rashi (s.v. Sof Chama) explains that since the killing agent (i.e. the sun) was not present when the perpetrator tied up the victim, the murder was committed indirectly (grama), and, accordingly, the criminal will be punished by God, not by beit din. Similarly, when one enters the elevator, the motor is not operating; it is only when the elevator is in motion that his weight causes an increase in current. This argument appears to be made by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in the Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 1:305 end of n. 140).90In addition, see Maaliot B’Shabbat pp.172-174, where Rav Levi Yitzchak Halperin notes that the increased current is caused by the passenger so indirectly that the passenger's actions are even beyond the pale of grama and instead fit into the category of "meniat moneia," preventing a preventive act from occurring. Accordingly, the increased current appears not to be a serious problem and one may take an ascending elevator. Rav Hershel Schachter told me, though, that this should be avoided if at all possible.
However, Rav Levi Yitzchak Halperin, director of the Institute for Science and Halachah in Jerusalem, published a work on elevators entitled Maaliot B’Shabbat that revolutionized the way many halachic authorities view elevator usage on Shabbat. Rav Halperin notes in the introduction to the book that he invested no less than sixteen years into investigating the halachic challenges posed by elevator usage on Shabbat. Rav Halperin relates that he travelled many times to Europe and the United States to meet with leading elevators manufacturers in the world including Otis, Westinghouse, and Schindler. His conclusion is that one may ascend in an automated elevator but may not descend unless special modifications have been made to avoid halachic pitfalls. Rav Halperin's conclusion is just the opposite of what had been asserted by earlier poskim. It previously had been assumed that taking an ascending elevator posed the most serious problems. Rav Halperin insists that riding an ascending elevator is permitted, but that riding a descending elevator is fraught with halachic problems.
Rav Halperin's Arguments
Rav Halperin points out that the weight of the passenger riding on the elevator assists the elevator's motor in the descent of the elevator. He writes, "If the passenger is responsible for the descent, he is responsible also for illuminating the various lamps, connecting the door motor, the brakes, and numerous other electric circuits which are activated during the descent (Maaliot B’Shabbat, p. 11 of the English section)."
Rav Halperin points out another problem associated with descending in an elevator. He writes:
When the car is descending with a heavy passenger load it may speed up to a point where the counter-force developed in the motor is greater than the force of the electric power station. When this condition occurs, the motor, rather than aiding the descent, is used to brake the car thus preventing dangerous overspeed. When the speed of a motor increases to a value above that for which it was designed, it automatically becomes a generator. Instead of consuming electrical energy it generates power which is fed into the electric company lines to be used by consumers in the immediate vicinity [p. 19 of the English section of Maaliot B’Shabbat].
Mr. Y. Kornbluth of Brooklyn, New York, an engineer who advised Rav Halperin on this matter (see Maaliot B’Shabbat p. 16), told me in January 1995 that one used to be able to perceive this phenomenon at the World Trade Center at times of peak usage of the descending elevators (around five o'clock in the afternoon). The lights would burn brighter than usual because of the power generated by the descending elevators. Others respond, though, that this situation is unique to unusually tall buildings during high volume usage.
Rav Halperin vs. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
We now will focus on five core areas of dispute between Rav Halperin and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. Rav Shlomo Zalman challenges Rav Halperin's approach and suggests that it may be permitted to ride on a descending elevator. His opinion is recorded and discussed at length in Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah (23:49 especially n. 140). We will cite a few of the proofs alluded to by the advocates of both sides of the issue to give the reader a richer appreciation of these fascinating debates.
Dispute #1 - Performing a Melachah that Would Have Occurred Even Absent His Action
Rav Shlomo Zalman suggests, "Since the passengers did not cause any change in the pace of the elevator, either faster or slower, for even without the passengers everything would have occurred exactly the same, it is considered that the passengers’ actions are irrelevant and Halachically insignificant."
Rav Shlomo Zalman cites numerous proofs to this suggestion. One source is the Mishnah (Shabbat 12:5) that teaches that one who writes two letters in black ink upon two letters already written in black ink (k'tav al gabei k'tav) does not violate the prohibition of writing on Shabbat. The Ramban (ad. loc. s.v. Konketom) and Ritva (ad. loc. s.v. Katav) both explain that theoretically, this act should have been defined as writing, since the previously written letter is “erased” and a new letter created in its place. Nonetheless, the Gemara does not define this act as writing because the writer has not accomplished anything. One violates Shabbat when he engages in "melechet machshevet," accomplishing a goal to produce something new. When one does not add to what was previously in existence he has not engaged in melechet machshevet and has not violated Shabbat.
Rav Halperin (see chapter nine of Maaliot B’Shabbat) vigorously disputes Rav Shlomo Zalman's proofs and cites proofs to prove the contrary. One example is the Gemara (Keritut 20a) that teaches (see Rashi and Rabbeinu Gershom ad. loc.) that one who has two candles in front of him, one lit and one not lit, and simultaneously extinguishes one candle and lights the other has violated Shabbat. We see from here that even one has not accomplished anything new, he is considered to have performed melachah on Shabbat. Moreover, Rav Halperin points out that additional passengers' weight slightly increases the velocity of the elevator.
Dispute #2 - Is a Person Responsible for the Actions of His Weight?
Rav Levi Yitzchak Halperin (see chapter seven of Maaliot B’Shabbat) also seeks to demonstrate that one is halachically responsible for the effects of his weight even if he is standing still. One of Rav Halperin's proofs is a Mishnah (Kilayim 8:3) that states, "One who drives a team of Kilayim [mixed animals] is punished with Malkot [forty lashes], and he who rides in the wagon [which causes the mixed animals to plow] also is punished with Malkot. Rav Meir excuses the person who sits in the wagon from Malkot."
Both the Rambam (Hilchot Kilayim 9:9) and the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 297:12) rule in accordance with the first opinion in the Mishnah.
Rav Halperin concludes from this Mishnah that even if one is sitting in the wagon absolutely motionless and it is merely his weight that causes the animals to plow, he is halachically responsible for the result. Similarly, even though the rider in an elevator is motionless and only his weight causes the elevator to descend, the person is responsible for the actions of his weight. Dayan Weisz (Minchat Yitzchak 3:60) seems to concur with this view.
Professor Zev Lev (Techumin 5:63) seeks to counter this argument. Professor Lev argues that the act of sitting down in the wagon (rather than merely being seated) is what causes the animals to move. Professor Lev also mentions the fact that many great halachic authorities and Chassidic masters traveled on steam powered ships on Shabbat even though they knew that the ship consumes more fuel if it carries more weight. Professor Lev cites this "maaseh rav" (actions engaged in by eminent scholars) as proof that these authorities believed that the passengers are not halachically responsible for the actions caused by their weight.91It should be noted that maaseh rav is a significant proof in Jewish law. What great sages did is at least as important, if not more important, than what they said. The Talmud is replete with stories about the actions of the various Tanna’im and Amora’im. Stories abound concerning the halachic practices of the great sages until this very day, and they are taken quite seriously by halachic authorities. See, for example, Rav Moshe Shternbach's Teshuvot V’hanhagot, where the author cites innumerable instances of the halachic practices of the great sages of the past hundred years.
Professor Lev cites the celebrated responsum of Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:132), who permits a relative or friend to accompany a woman about to give birth to the hospital on Shabbat. Professor Lev notes that Rav Moshe writes explicitly that no additional melachah is performed due to the presence of the extra passenger. He apparently is not concerned about the increase in fuel consumption due to the weight of the extra passenger.
Professor Lev explains that most people are unaware of the impact their weight has on the operation of the elevator. They intend only to reach their destination and are not concerned with the effect of their weight on the motor's function. He cites an important comment made by the Maggid Mishneh (commenting on Rambam Halachot Shabbat 12:2) that absent intention and awareness, one cannot be considered to be engaged in Melachah. The Magen Avraham (318:36) approvingly cites this comment, and Rav Meir Simchah of Dvinsk termed this comment of the Maggid Mishneh a "beautiful jewel" (Ohr Sameach to Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 12:2).
Professor Lev compares riding in an elevator to a situation in which one is sitting in at the Shabbat table on Friday night during the winter with the window closed. In this situation, the inhaling of oxygen and exhaling of carbon dioxide impacts the flames of the Shabbat candles. No halachic authority has written that this constitutes a problem, because this phenomenon is beyond one's intention, concern, and awareness. Similarly, the impact of one's weight on the operation of the elevator is beyond the intention, concern, and awareness of the rider and thus should not constitute a halachic problem. Avi Levinson responds that the effect on the candles is not noticeable, but the effect on the elevator is very noticeable if it causes lights to go on more brightly somewhere and the velocity to change. Also, it is most likely that we are dealing only with a rabbinic prohibition in the case of the candles (for many reasons; one reason is that the melachah is done k’l’achar yad, in an unusual manner) and Chazal did not issue a decree to cause people to suffocate or freeze; it is not so clear the same would apply to elevators (even if only rabbinic prohibitions are involved).
Dispute #3 - Mesayei’ah Ein Bo Mamash
Rav Shlomo Zalman presents another reason why the passenger is not halachically responsible for the effects of his weight on the operation of the elevator. The Mishnah (Shabbat 10:5) teaches that if two people do a melachah that could have been accomplished by one person, then both parties have not violated a biblical prohibition. The Gemara explains that one transgresses a biblical violation of Shabbat only if he performs a complete melachah and not merely a part of one. However, both parties have violated a rabbinic prohibition. This scenario is referred to as “zeh yachol v’zeh yachol.”
On the other hand, if both parties are required in order to successfully perform the Melacha, then both have violated a biblical prohibition. This category is called “zeh eino yachol v’zeh eino yachol.”
A third situation is when one person is capable of performing the melachah without assistance but performs the melachah together with a weaker individual who is unable to perform the task alone. This scenario is called “zeh yachol v’zeh eino yachol.” The actions of the individual who is unable to perform the melachah without the assistance of the other party is described by the Gemara as “mesayei’ah ein bo mamash,” “One who merely assists has no significance.”
The Acharonim debate whether the one who assists violates a rabbinic prohibition (Taz, Y.D. 198:21) or violates no prohibition altogether (Shach, Nekudat Ha-Kesef, Y.D. 198:21). The Mishnah Berurah (328:11) and the Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 328:20) rule in accordance with the lenient view of the Shach that one who merely assists has violated no prohibition.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach believes that the elevator passenger is “mesayei’ah ein bo mamash,” a mere “aide” to the elevator, and thus the passenger is not responsible for the effect his weight has on the motor’s functioning. He reasons that, “It is considered as if the elevator is capable of performing the task alone and the passenger merely assists the elevator, because the elevator is set to ascend and descend regardless of whether anyone enters it.”
Rav Halperin seeks to disprove this argument (see chapter 10 of Maaliot B’Shabbat). Rav Halperin argues that for someone to be defined as “eino yachol,” it does not require that the individual be incapable of performing the task alone. Rather, if in a particular situation the individual is incapable of performing the task alone, he is defined as “eino yachol.” The source for this assertion is a Tosefta (Shabbat 12:10, cited by the Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 11:14), which states that, “If a minor holds a quill and an adult holds the minor’s hand and writes, the adult violates a Biblical prohibition. If the adult holds the quill and a minor holds the adult’s hand and writes, the adult has not violated a Biblical prohibition.”
The Ohr Sameach (commenting on the aforementioned Rambam) explains that in the latter scenario, the adult is defined as an “eino yachol” and thus has not transgressed a Torah-level prohibition. Rav Halperin points out that even though an adult normally is capable of writing without assistance, he nonetheless is defined as an “eino yachol” in the scenario outlined by the Tosefta. Accordingly, Rav Halperin concludes:
Therefore, if because of passenger’s weight in the elevator the current flow in the motor is reduced to the extent that with that amount of current flow it would not be capable of moving the elevator downward, the elevator is defined as an “Eino Yachol” and the passengers are responsible for the descent of the elevator. This applies whether the passenger weight suffices to move the elevator without the motor’s assistance (passengers = “yachol”; elevator = “eino yachol”) or whether the passenger weight works in combination with the motor to move the elevator downward (passenger = “eino yachol”; elevator = “eino yachol”).92Professor Lev and Rav Yisrael Rozen attempt to refute this argument in essays published in Techumin (5:70-72 and 86-93).
Dispute #4
A fourth argument is suggested by Rav Shlomo Zalman and further developed by Rav Yisrael Rozen (Techumin 5:83-86). The source for this point is Tosafot (Pesachim 25b s.v. Af and Sanhedrin 74b s.v. V’ha Ester) who elaborate on the Gemara’s rule that one must sacrifice his life rather than kill another (“yeihareg v’al ya’avor”). The basis for this rule is in the celebrated phrase, “How do you know that the other person’s blood is not redder than yours? (see Rashi ad.loc.).”
Tosafot add:
In a situation where one is not actively killing, such as if bandits threaten to push someone onto a baby to kill it, it appears that one is not required to sacrifice his life rather than cooperate in this terrible deed. The reason for this is that he can claim, “How do you know that the baby’s blood is redder than my blood,” since he is merely passively cooperating in the murderous act.
Rav Shlomo Zalman reasons that:
If a Jew was coerced by a non-Jew to enter a descending elevator under which a baby was placed in order to be crushed, the Jew does not have to sacrifice his life rather than enter the elevator, even though he performs an action by entering the elevator. This is because entering the elevator is not contributing to the murder of the baby, because the elevator would have killed the infant even if he didn’t enter the elevator. Similarly, as far as the laws of Shabbat are concerned, entering the elevator should not be considered as significantly contributing to the elevator’s descent.
Rav Yisrael Rozen further elaborates on this point. He reasons that one is not using his weight to cause the elevator to descend. Rather, the elevator’s motor is utilizing the passenger’s weight to cause the elevator to descend. The person is not using his weight to effect a result; the elevator is using the passenger’s weight to effect a result. Thus, the passenger is not responsible for the affect of his weight on the elevator’s descent. Rav Shlomo Zalman also notes that one is considered to be affecting the motor only indirectly.
One may counter argue that willingly entering an elevator and standing passively while the elevator uses his weight is not analogous to the scenario described by Tosafot. Rav Hershel Schachter points out that in Tosafot’s scenario, there is coercion from the beginning, whereas the passenger willingly enters the elevator. Rav Halperin develops this point (see chapter eight of Maaliot B’Shabbat). He notes that one is forbidden to willingly put himself into a situation in which he will later be forced to desecrate Shabbat. Rav Halperin’s source for this assertion is the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 266:4), Shach ad. loc. 6, and Bei’ur Hagra ad. loc. 10. However, the Mishnah Berurah (248:2) cites opinions that permit one to willingly enter a situation on Shabbat in which he will likely be forced to desecrate Shabbat if he does so for the sake of fulfilling a mitzvah.
Dispute #5
We mentioned Rav Halperin's concern that when an elevator carries a heavy load, the motor turns into a generator and produces electricity that is fed into the power lines. Rav Halperin writes that this involves a Torah prohibition, since the generator powers various machines and appliances that perform many melachot.
Professor Lev (Techumin 5:65-73) responds with factual and halachic arguments. He points out that in reality, no new current flow is created by added passenger weight. He also argues that any power that is generated by the elevator is dissipated in the electric wire and is of no use.
Furthermore, even if Rav Halperin were to be correct factually, the problem would constitute a rabbinic prohibition, not a biblical one, because the creation of the power is a melachah she'einah tzricha l'gufa, a situation where one intends to perform a melachah but it was not his purpose to perform that melachah. A classic Talmudic example is one who digs a hole with the sole intention of collecting dirt and is unconcerned with the usual purpose of preparing the ground for planting. The Gemara (Shabbat 93b) cites a dispute regarding whether such a melachah is forbidden biblically (Rabi Yehudah) or rabbinically (Rabi Shimon). Although the Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 1:7) rules that it is biblically forbidden, most Rishonim rule that it is rabbinically forbidden (see Ra’avad ad. loc., Shulchan Aruch O.C. 316:8, and Mishnah Berurah 316:34). Accordingly, Professor Lev argues, if indeed the elevator motor is turned into a generator and powers many machines and appliances, only a rabbinic prohibition is violated. He argues that the intention of the elevator passenger is to descend to lower floors and not to create a generator. Thus, the passenger's action can be deemed a melachah she'einah tzricha l'gufa.
Rav Halperin disputes this point. He argues that "The passengers require and therefore desire that power be generated by his weight and utilized, for otherwise the car speed increases without control and it is impossible to slow down and stop except by emergency measures."
Halachah L'Maaseh - A Compromise
We have seen at length that both sides of the elevator debate have presented compelling arguments for their positions. Thus, it is difficult for a halachic authority to decide which opinion to follow. It is helpful to note that (providing one accepts Professor Lev's facts and argument) the entire debate is whether or not one violates a rabbinic prohibition. Moreover, Rav Halperin writes (see Maaliot B'Shabbat ch. 2) that since the electric circuits that are completed in the course of elevator usage last only briefly ("eino mitkayeim"), only a rabbinic prohibition is violated. If, however, the lights displaying the floor numbers are incandescent, then a biblical prohibition perhaps may be involved. One may argue, on the other hand, that since these lights are turned on only momentarily, they too are "eino mitkayeim" and thus only a rabbinic prohibition is violated.
Accordingly, it appears appropriate to follow the decision made by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in n.140 of Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah ch. 23) that "One should not rebuke those who are lenient and ride on a descending automatic elevator." Therefore, although, one should make every effort to avoid using a descending automatic elevator, he may rely on the lenient opinions when absolutely necessary. Rav Mordechai Willig stated that one should make every effort to move into an apartment on a low floor to avoid having to rely on the lenient opinions regarding elevators. Rav Halperin makes very compelling arguments and his opinion should be followed except in a situation of great need.
Electronic Weighing Mechanisms and Sensors
A complicating factor in this question is the presence of electronic weighing mechanisms and sensors in more modern elevators. One activates these electronic mechanisms when entering the elevator. Rav Halperin (see ch.15of Maaliot B'Shabbat) addresses this problem. He notes that these electronic weighing mechanisms measure the weight of the passenger load and transmit the information to the control system. It informs the control system about conditions such as "passenger in car," "full load," or "overload" and other information that enables proper control of acceleration and deceleration.
Among the steps taken by both Rav Halperin's Institute for Science and Halachah and the Zomet Institute93The Zomet Institute is an establishment in Alon Shevut, Israel that seeks to find engineering solutions for many contemporary halachic challenges in order to modify elevators for Shabbat use is to disconnect the electronic weighing mechanisms, as they pose a serious problem. Perhaps in case of great need or in case one does not have the opportunity to research if a particular elevator is equipped with these devices, one can rely on a s’feik s’feika (double doubt). Perhaps the elevator is not equipped with weighing devices, and even if it is, perhaps the weighing devices work through increasing current and not completing a circuit (see Maaliot B'Shabbat p.183). One should consult his Rav regarding this question. Another serious problem corrected by Rav Halperin's institute and the Zomet Institute are the electric sensors present on elevators. One should do his best to avoid triggering the sensors on more modern elevators.
Specially-Designed Shabbat Elevators
Rav Halperin's Institute for Science and Halachah modifies elevators so that the passengers' weight has no impact on the elevator's descent. The Zomet Institute also modifies elevators that accommodate some of Rav Halperin's concerns (such as eliminating the use of incandescent bulbs) but takes a somewhat more lenient (and far less expensive) approach to this issue.94The details of how the Zomet Institute modifies elevators for Shabbat are described in Techumin (5:96-99). See Rav Gershon Tannenbaum’s article (Jewish Press, October 23, 2009 page 53) which strongly questions the credibility of the announcement made in 2009 that many leading Israeli poskim forbade the use of all elevators on Shabbat. Rav Tannebaum also records that in the 1950’s Rav Aharon Kotler approved of what was arguably the first Shabbat elevator, which serviced guests in the Pioneer Hotel in upstate New York.
Automatic Escalators
There is one area where it seems that one may be lenient: the use of automatic escalators on Shabbat. Rav Neuwirth (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 23:52) permits the use of automatic escalators on Shabbat because the concerns detailed by Rav Halperin regarding an elevator seem not to apply to escalators. This ruling is of great significance in communities such as Hong Kong where it is very difficult to get from one section of the city to another without using escalators.