[Feature: Mobility in a Depopulating Society] Roundtable Discussion: Will New Mobility Save Regional Areas?

I would like to hold a roundtable discussion on the theme of "Mobility in a Depopulating Society." Today, I want to focus our discussion primarily on regional areas, but first, I will provide a brief overview of the current situation.

In regional Japan, mobility is basically centered around automobiles; without a car, long-distance travel is impossible. Public transportation such as buses and railroads exists for those who cannot use cars, but public transportation is essentially a form of transport that is profitable only when a certain number of people ride in the same vehicle—in other words, it requires a certain level of population density.

Japan is unique in that public transportation is primarily operated by private companies providing commercial services. Many bus companies are private, and they cannot provide services commercially without a certain passenger density.

Regarding the historical background, around the year 2000, there was a major turning point in deregulation with the abolition of supply-demand adjustment regulations. This made new entry easier and allowed for the setting of diverse fares, making the model of providing bus services by leaving it to the market more prominent.

Because it was expected that private companies would withdraw from deficit-ridden routes, the government prepared a very generous safety net, subsidizing 80% of the expenses of prefectures and municipalities through special local allocation tax measures. Currently, about 70 billion yen is being paid nationwide, and this is on an upward trend. Since it is an 80% subsidy, local governments bear the remaining 20%, but even so, in some regional areas where funding is tight, it is becoming difficult to maintain routes.

Based on that, who is facing mobility issues? Basically, it is students and those aged 75 and older who do not have a car, or late-stage elderly people who need transportation for hospital visits, school, or shopping after returning their driver's licenses.

The stance has been that the question of "to what extent should public transportation be maintained" should basically be considered by the local community. Since 2000, for example, there have been things called welfare paid transport where NPOs operate vehicles for a fee, and Uber has conducted some experiments, but these have not led to a fundamental solution. Now that various new technologies such as autonomous driving and MaaS (Mobility as a Service) have emerged, I would like to discuss with all of you today how these can be used to maintain regional transportation.

First, I would like to ask each of you to briefly introduce your involvement with mobility.

I originally come from the Department of Mechanical Engineering and worked on control systems, but I came to the Graduate School of System Design and Management in 2008, and I am currently researching autonomous driving from the perspective of systems engineering.

I felt that autonomous vehicles would not be accepted unless we firmly provide safety to the community. Around 2014 and 2015, I received a budget from the IPA (Information-technology Promotion Agency) for research, and since then, I have been talking with automobile companies from a slightly broader perspective.

I think that if cars that are so-called sharing-based or not owned by someone become autonomous, they could be effectively utilized in regional areas. However, I also think it is quite difficult to make this viable while regional economies are declining.

My specialty is computer networks. Originally, in the application of wireless data communication, networking automobiles was one of the major pillars of my research theme, and I have been researching the field of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) for some time.

As you know, this year is the first year of 5G, and "connected vehicles" has become a keyword, with the networking of cars becoming active. Currently, we have established a research organization called the Mobility Culture Research Center in Shin-Kawasaki to promote research on technology with an eye toward an autonomous driving society.

In regional areas, there are very high expectations for lifestyle-oriented MaaS. As we will discuss later, there are trials using various methods rather than a single approach, tailored to regional circumstances.

With population decline becoming clear and it being hard to imagine the economy growing rapidly in the future, the field of mobility is a very important theme for supporting Japanese society as a whole, and I recognize that we must do something about it.

I was originally at Uber, where I was in charge of the government affairs department. That was a lobbying department, and I considered the expansion of Uber's business while interacting with the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, local municipalities, and ministries such as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

I left Uber last year and have now started a company that does consulting for mobility-related companies, creates business strategies together, and conducts lobbying. I am working on various things to see what can be done to maintain and develop regional public transportation and whether technology can be used to solve these issues.

At Uber, I conducted ride-sharing pilot projects, particularly in depopulated areas. These included Kyotango City in Kyoto, which operates using the system for paid transport in areas lacking public transportation, and Nakatombetsu Town in Hokkaido, where it can be done for free without using such a system in the first place.

However, the mobility business of Uber Japan itself is actually in a quite critical situation right now. Of course, there is opposition from taxis and such, but as was in the news last week, Uber itself cut more than 3,000 employees, and many employees in Japan, including the mobility team, were subject to layoffs. Therefore, I am worried about what will happen to the ride-sharing operations in Kyotango City and Nakatombetsu Town that I just mentioned.

I believe there is a difficulty in so-called private companies being responsible for public transportation in this regard.

Regional areas are facing both population decline and an aging population, but minimum mobility is necessary for local residents. What should be done in the event of a "market failure" where private companies cannot provide that service?

In the past, for example, family members or neighbors would support each other by carpooling to take someone to the hospital, but if that is no longer possible, what should be done? Mr. Nishimura, what are your thoughts on the issue of mobility for the elderly?

There are quite a few accidents that occur because elderly people are driving, so initially, I thought there was a need for autonomous cars for the elderly.

However, with Level 3 or Level 4 autonomous driving, the driver is still required to drive with a certain degree of responsibility (Level 5 is fully autonomous). It would be fine if they became completely driverless cars, but if it is something where the elderly themselves are supported to some extent by an autonomous car, in the end, there are difficult aspects because the elderly cannot get used to it.

For that reason, I have become negative since progressing with the research. Google says something like "the most unreliable part in a car is the human," and I think that's correct. If we make them completely driverless, the safety aspect of mobility for the elderly will be technically solved. However, reaching that Level 5 is going to take some time.

Mr. Shigeno, based on your experiments and the situation on the ground, what is your view?

For some time, there has been talk of first providing small one- or two-seater cars, now called micro-mobility. Using micro-mobility would allow not only driving on public roads but also door-to-door travel. In the first place, for elderly people, it's not just that they are in trouble if the bus disappears; they need door-to-door travel, for example, from their front gate to a specific spot in the hospital, and that needs to be supported.

What's important is that in regional areas, there are various community activities. For example, gathering at a community center or happening to meet an acquaintance when going to the hospital contributes to health in a broad sense. Therefore, how to connect mobility and community is one key when thinking about mobility in regional society.

I think we need a perspective on how to support the activities of elderly people in addition to the technical problem of movement.

That is a very important point. In reality, it is important to go somewhere and do something, and I think the necessary mobility changes depending on that. If people go out less, they may become depressed or prone to illness, leading to increased medical costs, so it's not just a problem of mobility.

Speaking from the perspective of an operator, a major point is that there is a shortage of providers. In the first place, there is the problem that it is quite difficult as a business in Japan. I think Japanese regulations and the legal system are actually the biggest barriers preventing new entry, even before technology.

Also, while regional areas get attention regarding the mobility problem of the elderly, the same problem is unexpectedly emerging even in urban areas. For example, even in central Tokyo, in residential areas like Akasaka or Shirokanedai that are far from stations and have almost no buses, the number of elderly people who cannot move around is increasing considerably. In fact, Minato Ward was considering measures for the elderly and the mobility-impaired using a ride-sharing approach, but it became impossible due to the legal system and opposition from the taxi industry, and in the end, they could only provide symptomatic treatments like taxi vouchers.

In regional areas, supportive transportation and operators like NPOs are providing support in a manner similar to Uber, but as a business, it is still quite difficult to survive on this alone. Actually, there are various ventures. Companies like notteco, an Aichi venture called Share Chauffeur, and a venture called Scheme Verge that is also working on autonomous driving are exploring options, but it seems difficult as a business.

Amidst these difficulties, Monet Technologies, a Toyota and SoftBank alliance, has recently entered the scene. Of course, I think the ultimate goal is autonomous driving, but currently, as a mobility measure for the elderly, they are collaborating with various local municipalities and are commissioned to run shared bus businesses.

Of course, everyone, including Toyota, has autonomous driving in their sights, but as mentioned, I think social implementation with driverless vehicles is quite far off, especially in Japan.

Ideally, the public and private sectors should cooperate to create new rules, but the reality is that this is not progressing well. Even regarding pilot projects on public roads, quite strict regulations are sometimes imposed.

In Japan, "unlicensed taxi services" are prohibited by the Road Transportation Act, with some services permitted as exceptions. When a municipality tries to provide a new service, even if it's a community bus, local bus and taxi companies sometimes strongly oppose it, claiming it pressures private business. In areas where there are multiple modes of transport to some extent, conflicts of interest inevitably occur.

Also, as pointed out, it is true that the problem of mobility for the transportation-poor exists not only in regional areas but also in urban centers.

On the other hand, at this point, as for public support, there are basically schemes for buses and railroads, and they are subsidized with quite large amounts of money. Other than that, support is provided for pilot projects on a per-project basis. Beyond that, there is only the possibility of support through deregulation in forms like special zones depending on the case.

Even if public support is provided, since it presumably uses the tax revenue held by that local government, I believe it must produce something. For example, by providing mobility, the economy is revitalized and tax revenue increases as a result.

This is a very simplistic economic argument, but for example, if providing such services to elderly people means that their medical costs are eliminated or social security costs are reduced, I think it would be good to have public support for the provision of those services.

To me, it seems that people are doing things individually, like specially approving things through special zones without looking much at that relationship, and then bringing in research funds from somewhere to attach to them. I think this problem will not be led to a solution unless a way of thinking emerges that captures the whole on a slightly larger scale.

The question is why support must be provided as a premise for public support. This is very much related to the discussion of "who should be supported."

In new mobility, I think the question of who to support and who to give money to has become very difficult and ambiguous. If there is a bus company, it goes to the bus company; if it's a railroad company, it goes to the railroad operator—there are such things, but those boundaries do not necessarily exist.

Furthermore, since the existing framework of discussion is no longer viable, I think there are attempts in regional areas to break it and search for newer forms. For example, the logic that costs decrease through health promotion and that money is then diverted to enhancing mobility spans two fields: transportation and health. In Japan, support for such cross-sectoral things is very difficult.

I have worked on ITS, and for example, money is provided for communication, and money is provided for autonomous driving. However, the moment you say "transportation services as a whole," it becomes like a wall of vertical administration.

I'm sure Mr. Yasunaga has experienced this, but there are extremely detailed and wide-ranging regulations, aren't there?

That's right. To put it very simply, for example, the public support provided by various local governments and the national government has become symptomatic treatment. They provide 20 million yen a year because they are supporting a regional circular bus, but it rarely leads to a discussion about reforming the business model.

When you think about the reason for creating special zones, politics is exactly what is involved. There are many existing industry associations for taxis and buses, so it is almost impossible to coordinate all of them and then do something new as a country. That's why it ends up being individual support like taxi tickets, which no one opposes.

Conversely, if there is talk of creating a new mobility or regulatory framework with shared transport, autonomous driving, or micro-mobility, it faces considerable opposition from existing industry associations, politicians get scolded, and ministry officials get scolded by the politicians. So, even if they want to do it in general terms, when it comes to specifics, everyone asks who will take responsibility, and no one wants to do it.

Because of this kind of difficulty in public support, I think in the end they can only do things in special zones or provide small support that slips through the cracks in a disjointed way.

Certainly, as the role of the national government, I think a policy is needed to create something more like a grand design and support new technologies that are difficult at the municipal level, but there is a tendency to react negatively toward new technologies and services. I suppose that also has the aspect of there being many vested interests.

Since we have people gathered here today who are involved in new technologies and frameworks, I would like to discuss the possibilities of ride-sharing, autonomous driving, and MaaS respectively.

First, Mr. Yasunaga, what about ride-sharing?

There is a big difference in ride-sharing between Japan and overseas. Overseas, administrations such as local governments and ride-sharing companies join forces to create regional mobility and the last mile. Especially in the US and Europe, instead of private ride-sharing companies handling it alone as before, municipalities are joining forces with ride-sharing companies to provide, for example, ride-sharing that connects subway stations and residential areas, and quite flexible initiatives have begun.

I think this is because ride-sharing is starting to take root as social infrastructure. After COVID-19, such cooperative relationships will probably increase more and more.

On the other hand, as for Japan, we are in a situation where we can't even talk about such things at all. As I mentioned earlier, ride-sharing experiments are being conducted in various regional areas like Kyotango City and Nakatombetsu Town, but it seems that the Uber-style approach will be difficult in the future.

In such a situation, for example, in Yabu City, Hyogo Prefecture, an NPO is providing a new regional transport service by car called "Yabukuru." This is an NPO created with three local taxi companies as core members.

How to involve the taxi industry, which has been the provider of public transportation until now, is actually important in terms of the possibility of ride-sharing in Japan. Utilizing the taxi and bus companies that have been the providers of transportation until now—I think this becomes a discussion about things like MaaS—but I believe we need to consider whether we can incorporate the benefits of ride-sharing in a way that suits Japan.

In the US and Europe, does that mean municipalities are actually providing money?

In the US, local municipalities have been responsible for operating buses and such until now, but tax revenue has decreased and maintaining public transportation is quite difficult. In response to this, they are soliciting and bringing in new solutions through something like public bidding.

Companies like Uber, Lyft, and Via in New York are increasingly entering the bidding business. Rather than the local municipality operating shared buses, on-demand buses, or community buses alone, it is becoming a form that keeps costs down and increases convenience for residents. They are exploring a form where the three players—the municipality, the residents, and the operators—each have a win-win situation.

I thought the story just now was very wonderful. By the administration effectively providing ride-sharing as a last-mile service, that region improves, and moreover, the residents are properly participating in it. It's a very wonderful form as a community, and I think that is exactly what should be done.

On the other hand, in the case of Japan, I think what the taxi companies in Hyogo Prefecture are doing is also very good. Probably the presidents of those taxi companies are people who hold power in that region, and in Japan's case, I think companies closely rooted in such regions have existed for a long time. In such regions, rather than Uber coming in and saying, "Okay, please move aside," if new businesses are effectively incorporated in the current form and services to residents improve, I thought that would be one way to go.

I also feel very strongly, especially when I go to the US and elsewhere, that ride-sharing has become another mode of transport. This is a completely different feeling from Japan.

I went on a business trip to Los Angeles last December, and at Los Angeles Airport, the parking lots that serve as transportation hubs for moving from the airport to the city were already compatible with Uber and Lyft. It seems to be called LAX-it, and there are dedicated pickup points for ride-hailing apps.

In other words, it has become a mode of transport where you are picked up at the airport by ride-sharing. In line with that, for example, public institutions are also making changes such as changing carpooling locations. That may partly pressure existing transportation operators, but I think society is changing in a direction that assumes ride-sharing.

In the case of Japan, there is a feeling that it is difficult to accept that existing transportation operators and others will suffer due to a certain new means of transportation, so as you said, I think it is necessary to change while involving existing operators.

This is probably not just in the world of transportation, but about how Japanese society as a whole will shift to new industries brought about by digital technology. It is exactly what is being called "digital transformation" right now, and I think it's about how to move from current business formats to the next step. At that time, how to connect with society, how to enter other services to secure profits, and how to secure employment.

If we can effectively involve local taxi companies as in the previous story, we can secure employment and lower transportation costs while also leading to regional revitalization. I think it is important to think about that comprehensively and carry out the necessary regulatory reforms.

Everyone is favorable toward ride-sharing. I will dare to say something negative.

For example, in a region, if it's a bus company, they have been operating for many years, so there is a sense of security that they won't suddenly stop the service. However, with Uber, for example, if a driver happens not to be there, might people become unable to ride when they want to? Also, to put it bluntly, it's an unlicensed taxi service, so there is the safety issue of whether the driver is reliable.

Furthermore, there is talk that technically, elderly people might not be able to master smartphones. I hear such concerns as well; Mr. Yasunaga, what do you think?

In terms of negative aspects, recently, Hertz, a major American car rental company, has gone into civil rehabilitation. This is of course partly due to the impact of COVID-19, but I think it's also largely because they had been losing many customers to ride-sharing companies like Lyft and Uber even before that.

However, since US companies undergo repeated metabolism, new companies keep emerging and old companies exit. In that process, instead of exiting completely, they sometimes do other new businesses through fusion with new companies or create new businesses in forms like MaaS.

However, I think it's quite difficult to say let's shut down old companies one after another for the sake of metabolism in the same way in Japan.

Regarding issues such as the number of drivers and safety, different companies have different ways of thinking, but both Uber and Lyft first have figures for the number of drivers needed per region based on an algorithm, always according to supply and demand. And they ensure they secure drivers in various ways to always exceed those figures, bringing it as close as possible to public transportation. They adjust so that they can supply a number of drivers in each region who will arrive within 5 minutes at the latest when you open the app when you want to ride.

In terms of safety, both Uber and Lyft are equipped with an SOS button, and when that button is pressed, the local police are contacted, and they can see who the driver is and where the car is driving.

Also, the problem of people who cannot use smartphones seems to exist in the US as well. For such people, they seem to be making efforts such as including telephone support in addition to smartphone apps, allowing dispatch via short message service, and allowing payment in cash.

Next, I would like to hear more about autonomous driving. In regional areas, even quite elderly people move around by car, and as has been reported recently, tragic accidents are occurring.

What is the outlook for autonomous driving?

As I mentioned earlier, even if we say autonomous driving, it is currently not driverless, so I think that if we provide autonomous cars to the elderly, accidents might actually increase.

However, I think there will be quite a bit of technical progress in about 10 years. I think the technical capabilities of 5G and ICT will also be related to this, but there is a possibility that it will reach a considerable level, so it will become possible to provide safety to the elderly as well.

That said, "thinking about the worst-case scenario" is important when thinking about safety. For example, even in the case of micro-mobility, we must prepare the transportation environment on the premise that large cars cannot enter the areas where it runs, or that even in the unlikely event of an accident, the people riding will not suffer damage. I think it won't work well in the community unless we care for making the entire environment safe, not just the technology of the autonomous car itself.

Regarding autonomous driving, countries around the world are currently rapidly advancing technological and research development. In Japan, these efforts are primarily promoted through the Cabinet Office's Strategic Innovation Promotion Program (SIP), led by the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation.

Looking ahead, we aim to realize Level 4 autonomous driving on expressways by around 2025. The driving condition is: "Autonomous driving is possible if it is on an expressway. However, humans must respond in case of an emergency."

Level 5 is where you leave everything to the car completely hands-off, and for example, if you narrow the limited domain, the range that can be handled technically expands. However, even if we are talking about Level 4 on expressways in 2025, it is impossible to say what will happen with general roads.

Therefore, I personally think that the realization of Level 5, which is the so-called removal of limitations where autonomous driving can handle any location, will likely be in 2035 or later. From the standpoint of promoting technology, I would like to say, "We can do it right away," but I think it will take longer than expected for an elderly person to ride alone and be able to say, "It's fine to leave the rest to the car."

Another issue is cost. Making owner-occupied cars compatible with autonomous driving is quite a high hurdle. Of course, wealthy people can just buy them, but if we think at the level of someone in a rural area who wants to use it for daily transportation and wants to make their current light car autonomous-ready, I think it will still take time.

In this way, since it will take a considerable amount of time for all Japanese cars to become autonomous, a state where autonomous vehicles and normally driven cars coexist will likely continue. That is actually the most difficult environment in which to operate autonomous vehicles. Consequently, some ingenuity is necessary.

I believe that it will only be possible to introduce autonomous driving to rural transportation by considering the environment, such as creating dedicated tracks. Thinking on the order of the next few years, I think the speed of adoption needs to be considered while looking at both technological development and that kind of environment.

Does that mean it will be completely driverless in 20 years?

Technically, I think it will be. The rest depends on how the receiving side, society, feels about it.

If it is feasible to some extent even with current technology if conditions are limited, would it not be so difficult, for example in rural areas, to use autonomous vehicles for round trips from the center of a local settlement to hospitals and supermarkets on general roads?

I can't say for sure without examining specific locations, but generally speaking, the more conditions you add, the easier it becomes to realize. For example, if we can ensure that people or bicycles don't jump out, that alone would change the story significantly.

Since the challenge of autonomous driving is how to respond to unforeseen circumstances, the more controlled the situation becomes, the easier it is to do.

I see. So you're saying that some kind of collaboration, where the infrastructure side supports the mobility side to some extent, is indeed necessary.

Technically, there has been a long-standing discussion about what can be done on the infrastructure side versus the driving side, but until now, not much progress had been made. However, basically, as research into autonomous driving progresses, the conversation has shifted toward the idea that support from the infrastructure side is indeed necessary.

There is also talk of using long-standing ITS technology. For example, recently, we have started incorporating assistance where, instead of just identifying whether a traffic light is green or red with a camera, information is streamed from the infrastructure side and passed to the vehicle side.

By loading AI, it has become possible to understand various things from camera images, so for example, it is already possible to instantly inform the car that a person is jumping out from a narrow space, and have the car brake properly based on that information.

That's right. Including those infrastructure-side matters, as people involved in technology, we want to maintain the position that "autonomous driving is possible."

Returning to the topic of adoption, commercial vehicles might come before owner-occupied cars. Amidst the current COVID-19 pandemic, discussions on autonomous logistics transport have begun overseas as well. This is because the possibility of recovering the cost of autonomous vehicles is likely higher for commercial vehicles.

It is said that the aging of commercial truck drivers is also progressing, so if we can first ensure safety in those areas, I think that would be a very good thing.

Exactly. Due to labor shortages, it's hard to find drivers for both trucks and buses, so I hope those kinds of problems can also be solved.

Next is MaaS. I think many members of the general public are still wondering, "What is MaaS?"

If you ask whether the definition of MaaS is fixed, it's not really; some people think ride-sharing is MaaS, and various people are talking about various kinds of MaaS.

Currently, within the industry, it is defined as: "Let's call it MaaS when users can access diverse mobility services as a single service and choose freely." Specifically, it means listing various mobility options such as trains, buses, taxis, bicycles, and electric kickboards in a virtual space, and calling the service that users can access MaaS.

What's different from before is that mobility options that used to operate separately are now virtually integrated into, for example, a single app or website. That is what we call a MaaS service, such as a MaaS app.

However, the perception and development of this are quite different between Japan and overseas.

For example, overseas, there are ride-sharing and electric kickboards for the last mile, and new means of mobility are becoming quite integrated into the social infrastructure. However, in Japan, even if we say MaaS, there is no ride-sharing, so parts are missing. Consequently, there is only the same connection between trains and buses as before, and in the end, the problem arises that one cannot travel the last mile to the hospital.

I see, so that is the decisive difference.

In this context, in Japan, private railway companies like Odakyu, Tokyu, and Keikyu are currently working hard on MaaS businesses. Railways are a form of mobility that lacks flexibility once the infrastructure is built, which has been a weakness until now. However, by using new technology, they are viewing MaaS as a service that can flexibly and consistently provide users with their own services along with, for example, on-demand buses and micro-mobility like shared bicycles.

Therefore, I think the Japanese form of MaaS is one where the railway companies that previously held the infrastructure take the lead, and entities like taxi companies and bicycle services join in. Of course, I don't think that's all there is to it, but in Japan's case, major private railways provide quite a lot of services to local residents, so I believe they will proceed through MaaS in the sense of providing services to those regions.

The important thing is what kind of transportation modes are packaged together, isn't it? As you mentioned, for example, without ride-sharing, even if you go to the station by rail, it becomes a MaaS that only has conventional rail, bus, and taxi. The reason Odakyu and others are working hard might also be partly because they are seeking additional income.

However, from the perspective of maintaining regional transportation, I personally feel that the current situation in Japan is a bit different.

I perceive MaaS as something where mobility provides services that are a plus for the region. If it's just an app, we already have things like "Ekitan," but I think true MaaS is something that, when local people want to do something, shows them that this is the optimal way to travel at that time.

In that sense, we must also firmly combine it with other systems that provide services other than mobility in that region. For example, when someone wants to go buy something, if it explains, "If you go this way, it's right here. If you arrive at this time, there's an expert there," then they'll think, "Okay, let's go there."

Since services that provide the joy of purchasing to the region generate economic effects, I believe we should definitely create solid services.

So it's a method that includes services other than travel. I think if tourism and such are also involved, it will generate even more economic effects.

I think one benefit of MaaS is that if you request door-to-door travel once via email or something, it provides it in a fully connected form.

From a business perspective, it's important how to gain profit and keep it running, and regional transportation has that aspect as well. Probably the start of MaaS is exactly that platform, and I think it's attracting attention because once these things are in place, there are various possibilities beyond that. In other words, the immediate issue is travel, but there is something different beyond that.

Since MaaS allows for the digitization of people's movements and behaviors, multiple regional transport systems can be analyzed, and as they are optimized and organized, possibilities will expand. Especially for regional transportation issues, I think we can expect the three parties—local governments, private operators, and service users—to bring their data together to advance urban transport planning and MaaS.

That's right. Being able to collect data is a very attractive prospect for an analyst. Conversely, since data is currently less available in Japan compared to other countries, if making data open creates more possibilities, I think it will contribute significantly, albeit indirectly, to supporting travel in such local areas.

What are your thoughts on new modes of mobility that we can look forward to?

There are two things. One is something that often comes up in the context of MaaS recently: there are people thinking about providing very good services not only for the elderly but also for those who move in wheelchairs. For example, an employee of a certain airline is attempting to provide better travel for wheelchair users, including flights. I think this is a wonderful initiative in terms of providing services to those who haven't been able to engage much with transportation until now.

Another thing is that the travel business has plummeted during this COVID-19 pandemic. As you know, inbound travel decreased by 99.9% in March. I think the occupancy rates of the Shinkansen and such are also reaching unbelievable numbers.

Consequently, we used to call it "virtual travel," but during COVID-19, the idea of "travel that doesn't require moving" has emerged. The concept of mobility will likely change slightly in its perception after COVID-19.

I think there are both positive and negative aspects. Because travel is restricted like this, there are parts where travel can be felt as something very valuable, and conversely, there might be cases where people feel that previous travel was unnecessary.

I feel that this concept of "travel without moving" has come to be perceived as something real.

Your last point is an important one; once we realize that work and communication can be done virtually, for example, it might become unnecessary to live in the city center. After COVID-19, there might be changes in how people live.

Ultimately, transportation exists to do something, so if there is anything you would like to add regarding how society might change or should change in the future based on new changes in mobility, please do so.

I believe it is very important to maintain a state where the community using that transportation is sustainable and economically viable. Otherwise, I don't think there is any point in organizing mobility.

We must change society from that perspective. Until now, we have worked hard to maintain public transportation with subsidies, but I think we must proceed in a way where local residents can truly understand that such mobility is necessary, while also making better use of the power of the private sector.

Improving the community and improving mobility are two sides of the same coin, and if everyone can properly share the understanding that the purpose of new changes in mobility is to improve the community as a whole, I think we will head toward a good society.

We should also utilize virtual mobility. When you have a bit of a stomach ache, if it can be handled with telemedicine, you don't have to go out of your way to travel. It's important to use them selectively, such as using mobility when you absolutely want to go to that place and meet that person, and such things are gradually becoming possible using various technologies.

Finances are weakening across Japan, the population is decreasing, and basically, I think things will get tougher.

However, I don't think we should have negative thoughts like shrinking everything because it's getting tougher; as several points came up today, I think we can become unexpectedly wealthy by considering different attempts and combinations than before.

What is clear is that even if we continue to work on this as an extension of the present, it probably won't go well. If that's the case, I think it's about everyone being creative, making it a new movement, and saying, "Let's change in this way." Budgets should be allocated to that, and regulations should be reconsidered for that purpose.

Since I am a person on the technology side, to say one last thing about technology, technology will continue to advance even if it is insufficient in various aspects, so even if it's no good at first, it will become possible to cover it. Therefore, I believe we need to optimistically support tries for various things, including social systems.

I am also often asked recently, "What will mobility be like after COVID-19?" As you all know, I think that while the movement of people will likely decrease, the movement of goods will conversely increase.

When considering the movement of people, I think it will shift toward more personal travel and travel in private spaces. Specifically, shared bicycles and electric kickboards. In the US, the use of private cars is increasing again. From that perspective as well, I think autonomous driving after COVID-19 will become important.

As mentioned, the idea that there is no need to be in Tokyo is also emerging. That said, people don't travel just for commuting, so even if they go to rural areas, the demand for last-mile travel to go shopping or to the hospital will definitely remain. In the end, I think how to solve the challenges in that area will be important even after COVID-19.

On the other hand, as reported in today's "Nihon Keizai Shimbun," although it is a temporary measure until around September this year for taxis, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is relaxing regulations so that they can provide food delivery services. In that way, there are parts that are trying to change out of necessity.

In a sense, whether it's a bad side or a good side, COVID-19 will also have an impact on travel in rural areas as a social change, so I think it will be important to see how we look at that.

Thank you. The renowned Professor Emeritus Ushio Chujo of the Faculty of Business and Commerce often used to ask, "Why do airplanes fly?" He wasn't seeking a technical answer; what Professor Chujo meant was that they fly because there is demand. They fly because there are customers.

I think it's not good to force transportation services where there is no demand, so a certain amount of downsizing and discernment is necessary. It has become necessary for rural areas to support what remains with the power of the local community by applying new technologies.

I learned from today's talk that new technologies can now be used in more ways than in the past, so in a sense, I thought a bright future could be possible. Thank you very much for your time.