One of the basic principles of Problem Solving is that if despite your best efforts to solve a problem it keeps recurring, it means you’re addressing a symptom or a consequence of the problem, rather than the problem itself. To overcome the issue, you need to dig further for the underlying cause.

We have Climate Change with the nailed root cause “Fossil fuels”. We addressed it for at least 32 years by spending an average of $ 1.3 trillion/year. All we achieved so far is an acceleration of Climate Change and a steady increase in Global Fossil fuel use.

We also have Traffic Congestion that’s been around long before automobiles were invented, but we blame the sheer number of cars and the lack of space for it. In the UK we spend over £10 billion/ year in building roads, and over £40 billion/year in public transport, to mitigate congestion and yet, our economy loses to congestion approximately £7.5 billion/year with a yearly increase of £718 million. Those £40 billion for public transport improvement is meant to determine a transition from cars to buses. Yet car use is increasing while bus use is in decline. The forecast is that congestion will get 30% worse by 2030 and 70% worse by 2050.

They say perseverance is the key to success. However, from time to time, one should stop and measure success. Continuing to do the same thing after 15-20 years of unsuccess without even considering alternatives enters the realm of insanity. After 32 years, it becomes an atrocity, considering that the very existence of life on Earth is at stake.

We’ve got two problems both of them aggravating despite our goodwill and best mitigating efforts. Nymbel’s reasoning starts from the assumption that we’re treating problems’ consequences instead of tackling their root causes. So, let’s start our quest for root causes, by defining some lofty, yet realistic goals, identifying the obstacles preventing us from achieving them, figuring out what’s fuelling them, and then finding ways to overcome or annihilate them.

Each obstacle will reveal some underlying causes of our problems and the old-school best practices or paradigms preventing us from noticing them.

Whenever roads get congested, the first thing that comes to mind (best practice) is to widen the road or build another road to divert part of the traffic, in other words, to allocate more space. And now that there’s no more public space left, all we can do is get used to spending more of our precious time in traffic. So, how do we use the space we have?

Once upon a time, buses reigned the roads, and roads were obviously designed to accommodate them. Today, 120 years later, the dominant travel mode is by car. Only 1% of the vehicles in the UK traffic are buses, and they only transport 6% of the commuters but because of current paradigms and best practices, they need to be part of the landscape, although that makes us waste 80% of the public space allocated for transport.

With a moaning or demanding-oriented mindset, we perceive this state as SPACE SHORTAGE.

However, with a pro-active or solution-oriented mindset, this can be regarded as SPACE WASTAGE, and this perspective changes everything.

Yes, I can hear you, bus passengers cannot drive or afford cars for various reasons, and it wouldn’t be moral to take buses away from them. Nymbel doesn’t intend to take buses away, it only provides a far more convenient transportation means that doesn’t require any special skills to travel with, uses a fraction of the public space, and has a smaller environmental impact. We’ll get back to this later.

Also, buses are our salvation. They are more sustainable and could reduce congestion by taking cars off the roads and car parks. Yes, they could, but that’s just a dream. In the real world, they do not because fewer and fewer people use them, and this reduced desirability also contradicts the first requirement of sustainability: meeting needs.

The wastage is even greater because 87% of the cars are single-occupancy, and one person doesn’t need a 3.6-meter wide lane to get around. A vehicle fitting in the red cross-section rectangle provides exactly the same comfort as a car.

Again, your transport-related paradigms will cry that a vehicle needs some extra side space to avoid collisions and driving errors. That’s absolutely correct for the complex road environment with vehicles driven by humans. But in the tremendously simplified Nymbel system’s traffic, in which human perception+reaction time of 1.5 seconds is replaced by sensors with a perception time of 1/60 seconds (90 times faster than humans) and instantaneous reaction, 10 cm on either side of the vehicle is more than enough.

Also, with this height/width ratio, a vehicle will go wheels up at the first sharp turn. Correct again, only that in Nymbel network the sharpest turn is 12 degrees, about the same as that of a motorway exit where you don’t even need to touch the brake.

Moreover, because the elevated network absorbs a significant part of the commuters, roads and car parks will become decongested offering better commuting conditions for those travelling in shared cars or those who won’t give up their status symbols.

I know. Elevated road infrastructures are always massive, intrusive, noisy, and expensive. So, best practices are recommending we avoid them, and that is because they are designed to support bumper-to-bumper fully loaded buses and lorries weighing over 22,000kg each, on two or three lanes in each direction.

Nymbel infrastructures, however, must only withstand 400 kg on one lane in each direction. Vehicles never get closer than 13 m from each other, so bumper-to-bumper situations never occur. The load/weight ratio is 1:110, and the infrastructure price is proportionally smaller.

Now, communities and local administrations will have various options to choose from for the future of transportation:

1. As planned by policymakers

2. Following current trends

3. The Nymbel future – higher transport capacity – less time spent in traffic – less public space used -increased safety for users and communities.

Much to the delight of the local administrations, by absorbing a significant part of the traffic, the space underneath the elevated tracks becomes available for active travel without needing any additional investment. The second and third lanes can be used for whatever communities or local authorities decide. If they choose to continue utilising one or both of them for car traffic, their users will enjoy decongested roads and car parks, and an increased average speed from today’s 10-20 mph to maybe 20-30 mph.

To recap: looking at the same problem (space scarcity) that causes traffic congestion from a different perspective enabled us to identify the root cause of traffic congestion –Space Wastage, and that applies both to roads and vehicles.

By adapting the vehicles’ size and their infrastructure to suit the needs of the population segment that forms the most prevalent traffic trend today -single occupancy, we reduced the lane width from 3.6 m to 1.4 m. By increasing the speed 3-fold compared to today’s average urban speed its capacity more than doubled, so we can transport the same number of people as two road lanes totalising 7.2m, using only a 1.4 m lane.

For intellectual property reasons, the methods and features that enable traffic seamlessness and enhanced speed and safety will only be revealed to potential collaborators or funders wanting to help speed up the concept’s way to the market.

In other words, Nymbel fulfils the same task as a road, but 3 times faster and uses less than one-third of the public space. The increased average speed comes with a proportionally decreased commuting time, (which is the key factor that generally determines peoples’ decision upon the locomotion mode they use), enabling a smooth and natural transition, based on own accord (rather than incentives and disincentives), from a wasteful and unsustainable transportation to an optimal and sustainable one.

With this space and time efficiency Traffic Congestion becomes a thing of the past and it won’t bounce back, even if the population density continues to increase.

All these achievements were made possible by a simple change of perspective on the problem and by ignoring some old-school best practices and paradigms that no longer fit the current context. And the best is yet to come.

Over 90% of the world’s energy today comes from GHG-emitting sources while solar and wind account for less than 4%. Even in developed countries like the UK, there’s still a looooooooong way before they start producing Transportation’s energy from renewables. There is this narrow-sighted perception promoted by policymakers that if a car doesn’t have a tailpipe it is Zero Emissions and Sustainable.

There is a law of physics that’s valid for every material particle on our planet, stating that in order to get from A to B it needs energy, and the heavier the object the more energy it needs. Unfortunately, EVs aren’t exempt from this law, and they are generally 8-15% heavier than their combustion engine counterparts due to their batteries. To get that energy, somewhere outside our backyard, some fossil fuels (often less energy efficient and more emission-intensive than Diesel or Petrol) are being burnt( classed as Scope 2 emissions), a third of it is lost in conversion processes and another ~5-8% is being lost in the grid before arriving to the EV charging facility. Moreover, before hitting the road EVs emit an enormous amount of greenhouse gases (classed as Scope 3 emissions), and have an atrocious environmental impact. The attempt to replace 1.6 billion ICE vehicles worldwide with EVs will heat and devastate the planet beyond repair.

I don’t mean that electric cars aren’t more energy-efficient than combustion cars. They are a great advancement in fighting emissions, but not great enough to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and prevent the environment from being ruined. However, creating a renewable energy infrastructure to keep them in motion puts huge pressure on the world’s financial resources. Humankind struggled to invest on average $1.3 Trillion/year so far in order for renewables to reach only 4% of the energy mix. The amount is required to triple to $4 Trillion/year, which is far over what the world can afford, considering that we also need resources to prevent or fight against the early consequences of climate change (storms, floods, droughts, wildfires, etc).

Another simple change of perspective however, can cut 80% of these scope 2 and 3 emissions, with a proportional decrease in the financial and environmental cost associated with the renewable infrastructure to electrify transportation – to meet our needs and well-being standards using less energy, rather than struggling to generate renewable energy that will end up being wasted.

We are already encouraged to do so, by transitioning from a car-reliant commute to one based on mass transport. Unfortunately, this hasn’t gained public traction so far. According to DfT statistics we’re actually witnessing a public repellence.

However, as a result of the space and time efficiency gain in conjunction with the desirability enhancement, traffic simplification, and reduced collision likelihood described in the previous chapter, Nymbel vehicles are lighter than cars. The full-scale prototype we’ve built weighs less than 220 kg. Adding the 120 kg of the passenger(s) and the 60 kg of the luggage one might want to take on a trip, the total weight will not exceed 400 kg, which is only a fifth of the 2000-2200 kg of an electric car.

This weight reduction brings a proportional drop in energy required to get from A to B, and the associated scope 2 and 3 emissions. Because the energy demand drops by about 80%, the need for investment in renewable energy infrastructure is also reduced by 60-80% with a corresponding decrease in land dedicated to solar and wind farms.

An energy demand decrease will also force energy providers to reduce their prices and the fossil fuel suppliers to reduce their production which in turn will reduce prices across all supply chains.

Nymbel’s 5-fold lighter and 2.5-fold smaller vehicle requires about 5 times less resources to manufacture. That is further reduced to about 6-8 times by the fact that the batteries are fully recharged during the night and (automatically) partially after every trip during the day. As the average commute is about 20 miles, our batteries only need to cover a 60-mile range to be on the safe side, which is 4 to 5 times less than the 240-300-mile range of an electric car.

Moreover, compared to cars that only serve 1 person per day (in 87% of the cases) a Nymbel vehicle serves 6-8 people/day (return trips), which multiplied by the 6-8 times resource reduction/vehicle makes up at least a 30 X overall reduction in resources compared to electric cars, to perform exactly the same task.

It’s important to acknowledge the role of natural resources in the green revolution’s success. Electric cars require a huge amount of minerals already in short supply (like Copper) or intricate, energy-intensive and environmentally damaging processes to refine (rare earths for batteries). But the resource demand doesn’t end with the car. Because neither sunlight nor wind is continuous, in order to keep the system in motion it needs energy storage facilities, which require exactly the same resources as car batteries but hundreds if not thousands of times more. Solar panels and wind generators also require an enormous amount of resources to be manufactured and connected to the grid, and grids require large quantities of the already scarce copper.

Most of these metals and minerals are mined all across the globe, but 85% of them are refined in China. This has two major downsides:

• The ore has to be shipped across the globe (with the associated emissions, pollution and environmental degradation) in order to refine only 6-10% of useful minerals from the ore’s weight.
• Geopolitical insecurity- if the Chinese government chooses to put an embargo on any of these rare earths, the whole green revolution must be put on hold while we develop alternatives. That might delay things by several years if not decades, and we definitely cannot afford such a risk.

A 30 times reduction in these resources’ demand will preserve resources for the coming generations, save the environment some unnecessary destruction, reduce the emissions and pollution related to their extraction, and increase the odds of greening transportation and its entire value chain in due course. Nonetheless, prices of all products and services based on these resources whether related to transportation or not, will be kept at bay.

We all love our cars with the multitude of benefits associated with their ownership. And the majority of the population is happy to pay this ownership cost instead of using the more-inconvenient-but-4-times-cheaper public transport. Unfortunately, the increasing traffic congestion cuts on our most valuable benefits (saved time, simplicity, peace of mind, etc), and that’s getting worse by the year, while the forced transition to electric after 2030 will increase car ownership costs. We’re aware that a small vehicle would have a lower ownership cost and would be easier to find a parking spot for, but we also value our safety, and in road environments small equals unsafe, hence the increasing demand for SUVs.

Ironically, most of that car ownership cost today is about what our vehicles are able to provide, not for what we actually use them for.

In order to enable us wasting our money that way, local authorities have to:

, and central authorities must

By addressing two relevant root causes of traffic congestion: space wastage and overcomplexity of urban road traffic Nymbel redesigned urban and intercity transportation through:

• Optimising the vehicle size and infrastructure.
• Simplifying traffic environment, and eliminating unpredictability.

with a positive impact on a broad spectrum of problems and crises we are facing today:

• Traffic congestion eradicated.
• 65% of the public space dedicated to transportation returned to communities.
• A safer built environment free of exhaust fumes, dust, rubber microparticles, and traffic noise.
• Time spent in traffic reduced 3-fold.
• Increased mobility for a wide range of population.
• Absence of traffic, parking, multimodal, and recharging-related stress.
• Traffic safety increased by 85%.
• Life-cycle emissions from urban transportation reduced by 60-80%.
• Resource use reduced by 70-80%.
• Environmental destruction and industrial pollution related to transportation’s value chain reduced by 70-80%.
• Investment in renewable infrastructure to electrify transport reduced by 60-80%.
• Level 5 (full) autonomy achieved using solely level 2 technology.