using [Work Harder vs Work Smarter in Transportation cld](https://claude.ai/chat/72f39e7a-0b55-4560-95f9-d2b23272abd3) | Aspect | Working Harder (Short-term)<br> | Working Smarter (Long-term) | | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Focus** | Maintaining current service | Building system capabilities | | **Actions** | - Adding more buses on existing routes<br>- Extending service hours<br>- Reactive maintenance<br>- **Pushing gas engines for better efficiency** | - Investing in new infrastructure<br>- Improving service quality<br>- Developing integrated systems<br>- **Investing in battery technology & standardization** | | **Funding Source** | Mainly from ridership revenue | Mix of ridership revenue and government subsidies | | **Risk** | Death spiral: lower ridership → less revenue → worse service → even lower ridership | Initial high investment, but creates virtuous cycle | | **Outcome** | Temporary fix, may lead to system decline | Sustainable improvement in transit quality | | **Example** | - Running more buses during rush hour<br>- **Making gas engines 5% more efficient** | - Building dedicated bus lanes<br>- **Reducing battery costs from $1,000 to $110/kWh (2005-2024)** | | **Results** | Small, incremental improvements with diminishing returns | Transformative change: EVs becoming cost-competitive with gas cars | Looking at these two diagrams side by side reveals important insights about capability traps and death spirals in transportation: Left Diagram (Generic Capability Trap): - Shows how organizations fall into working harder (B1) vs. working smarter (B2) - Reinforcing loop (R1) shows how capabilities either grow or erode based on investment - Key insight: Performance shortfalls can lead to focusing on working harder rather than improving capabilities Right Diagram (Transportation Death Spiral): - Similar structure but specific to public transit - Shows how declining ridership leads to reduced revenue → less investment → lower quality → even fewer riders - The "Reinvestment or ruin" (R1) loop in transit mirrors the capability trap - Government subsidies (B3) act as a potential escape from the death spiral Here's the updated table incorporating these insights: | Aspect | Working Harder (Short-term) | Working Smarter (Long-term) | | --------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Focus** | Meeting immediate output demands | Building long-term capabilities | | **Actions** | - Adding more service hours<br>- Reactive maintenance<br>- Pushing existing systems harder<br>- **Reducing costs to match lower revenue** | - Investing in infrastructure<br>- Improving service quality<br>- **Securing government subsidies**<br>- **Building ridership through quality** | | **Capability Impact** | Erodes capabilities over time | Builds capabilities over time | | **Feedback Loop** | **Negative spiral:**<br>Lower quality → fewer riders → less revenue → even lower quality | **Positive spiral:**<br>Better quality → more riders → more revenue → continued improvement | | **Examples** | - Running aging buses longer<br>- Cutting maintenance to save costs<br>- **Reducing service frequency** | - Investing in new vehicles<br>- Building dedicated lanes<br>- **Creating integrated payment systems** | | **Risk** | **Death spiral:**<br>Performance pressure leads to more "working harder," accelerating decline | **Investment challenge:**<br>Needs sustained support through transition period | | **Escape Route** | None without external intervention | Government subsidies and strategic investment | | | ![[Pasted image 20241120153923.png\|1000]] | | strategic investment and government support are crucial for breaking out of this trap. 1. more cars on the road vs (shared mobility; 50% - ): shared vehicles (utilitzed five time - role of 5 cars; fewer cars on the road) 2. sales of new cars (go up), utilitzed ; FLOW nothing changes (cars will stick around 200 miles; shared vehicls will retire five times faster; cancels out) scenario 3: proportional to how much they are serving ppl (400 passenger mile - not need ) scenario 4: av cause cost of driving fall dramatically, leading stock goes down (helping ) - using the care you scenario 5: vehicle lifetime increase with the intro of electric powertrains much less friction stock: down (shared xan stick longer) pooling bring down and what part of technological transition you're focusing on (utilitzation ; limitied impact on sales, more use) AV: increased utilitzation reduces stock, limited impact on flow (sales), reduced operating costs increase utilization and sales Pooling: increased capacity reduced sales EV: increased life reduces sales not 20 years, yes 200 miles