Roundtable Discussion: Will New Mobility Save Rural Areas?

I would like to begin our roundtable discussion on the theme of "Mobility in a Depopulating Society." Today, I'd like us to focus our discussion primarily on rural areas, but first, I will provide a brief overview of the current situation.

In rural Japan, mobility is fundamentally based on automobiles; without a car, long-distance travel is impossible. For those who cannot use a car, there is public transportation such as buses and trains. However, public transportation is fundamentally a mode of transport that requires a certain population density to be profitable, as it relies on a sufficient number of people riding in the same vehicle.

Japan is unique in that public transportation is primarily provided as a commercial service by private companies. Many bus services are also run by private companies, and they cannot be provided profitably without a certain passenger density.

To give some historical context, there was a major turning point in deregulation around the year 2000 with the abolition of supply-and-demand adjustment regulations. This made it easier for new companies to enter the market and set diverse fares, leading to a more market-driven approach to providing bus services.

Because it was anticipated that private companies would withdraw from unprofitable routes, the national government prepared a very generous safety net, using special allocation tax measures to subsidize 80% of the costs incurred by prefectures and municipalities. Currently, about 70 billion yen is paid out nationwide, and this amount is trending upward. Since 80% is subsidized, local governments bear the remaining 20%, but even so, some rural areas with financial difficulties are finding it hard to maintain their routes.

With that in mind, who is facing mobility problems? It's primarily students and the late-stage elderly—those aged 75 and over who do not have a car or have surrendered their driver's licenses—who need transportation for hospital visits, school, and shopping.

The stance has basically been that the question of "how far should we maintain public transportation?" is for each region to decide for itself. Since 2000, there have been various attempts, such as welfare-purposed paid transport, where NPOs operate vehicles for a fee, and some experiments by Uber, but a fundamental solution has not been reached. Now, with the emergence of new technologies like autonomous driving and MaaS (Mobility as a Service), I hope we can discuss today how these can be used to maintain transportation options in local communities.

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

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

I believed that autonomous vehicles would not be accepted unless they could provide solid safety for the community. Around 2014 or 2015, I received funding from the IPA (Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan) to conduct research, and since then, I have been discussing these issues with automobile companies from a slightly broader perspective.

I think that if cars that are not owned by anyone, so-called shared vehicles, were to become autonomous, they could be effectively utilized in local communities. However, I also believe it will be quite difficult to make this viable as regional economies continue to decline.

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

As you know, this year has been dubbed the first year of 5G, and with "connected vehicle" becoming a keyword, the networking of cars has become more active. I have now established a research organization called the Mobility Culture Research Center in Shin-Kawasaki, where we are promoting research on technology with an eye toward an autonomous driving society.

In rural areas, there are very high expectations for community-based MaaS. As we will discuss later, there are various trials underway, not with a single approach but with different methods tailored to local circumstances.

With population decline now evident and the economy unlikely to see rapid growth, the field of mobility is an extremely important theme for supporting Japanese society as a whole. I recognize that something must be done.

I was originally at Uber, where I was in charge of the government relations department. That's the lobbying division, and I was involved in considering the expansion of Uber's business while interacting with the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, local municipalities, and ministries like the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).

I left Uber last year and have now launched a company that provides consulting for mobility-related companies, helps create business strategies, and engages in lobbying. I am currently involved in various efforts to see what can be done to maintain and develop public transportation in rural areas and whether technology can be used to solve these problems.

At Uber, I was particularly involved in conducting ridesharing demonstration projects in depopulated areas. These include places like Kyotango City in Kyoto, which operates under the system for paid transport in public transport-barren areas, and Nakatonbetsu Town in Hokkaido, where such services can be offered for free without needing to use that system.

However, Uber Japan's mobility business itself is actually in a rather critical situation right now. Of course, there is opposition from the taxi industry and other factors, but as was reported in the news last week, Uber's parent company has laid off over 3,000 employees, and in Japan, many employees, including the mobility team, were targeted for dismissal. I am therefore concerned about what will happen to the ridesharing operations in Kyotango and Nakatonbetsu that I just mentioned.

I believe this highlights the difficulty of having a private company take on the role of public transportation.

Rural areas are experiencing both population decline and an aging population, yet a minimum level of mobility is necessary for local residents. What should be done in a "market failure" situation where private companies cannot provide that service?

In the past, people supported each other, for example, by family or neighbors giving rides 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 caused by elderly drivers, so I initially thought there would be a need for autonomous cars for the elderly.

However, Level 3 and Level 4 autonomous driving still require the driver to take a certain amount of responsibility for driving (Level 5 is fully autonomous). It would be fine if the cars were completely driverless, but with systems that merely support the elderly driver, it turns out that the elderly have difficulty getting used to them.

For that reason, I've become more negative as I've continued my research. Google says something like, "The least reliable component in a car is the human," and I think that's correct. If we go fully driverless, the safety aspect of mobility for the elderly would be technically solved. But it will take some time to get to that Level 5.

Mr. Shigeno, based on your experiments and the situation on the ground, what are your thoughts?

For some time, there has been talk of first providing what are now called micromobility vehicles—small, one- or two-seater cars. With micromobility, you can not only drive on public roads but also achieve door-to-door travel. The elderly are not just troubled by the disappearance of buses; they need door-to-door mobility, for example, from their front gate to a specific location within a hospital, and we need to support that.

What's important is that in local communities, 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 of the keys when considering mobility in local society.

In addition to the technical problem of movement, I think we also need the perspective of how to support the activities of the elderly.

That's a very important point. What's actually important is moving to do something, and that in turn changes the kind of mobility that is needed. If people go out less, they may become depressed or sickly, potentially increasing medical costs, so it's not just a mobility problem.

Speaking from a business operator's perspective, a major point is that there is a shortage of providers. The fundamental problem is that it's quite difficult to run such a business in Japan. Even before technology, Japan's regulations and legal system are perhaps the biggest barrier to new entry.

Also, while rural areas get a lot of attention for the mobility problems of the elderly, similar issues are surprisingly emerging in urban areas as well. For example, even in central Tokyo, in residential areas like Akasaka and Shirokanedai that are far from stations and have very few bus services, the number of elderly people who cannot get around is increasing significantly. In fact, Minato Ward was also considering a ridesharing-like approach to address the needs of the elderly and mobility-impaired, but it was blocked by legal systems and opposition from the taxi industry, ultimately resulting in only stopgap measures like taxi vouchers.

In rural areas, mutual support transportation or NPO-like operators provide support in a manner similar to Uber, but it is still quite difficult to make a living from this business alone. There are actually various ventures out there. Companies like notteco, a venture in Aichi called Share Showfa, and Scheme Verge, which is also working on autonomous driving, are exploring options, but it seems to be difficult as a business.

Amid these difficulties, MONET Technologies, a joint venture between Toyota and SoftBank, has recently entered the scene. Of course, their ultimate goal is likely autonomous driving, but for now, they are collaborating with various local governments on mobility measures for the elderly, taking on contracts for shared bus services.

Of course, everyone, including Toyota, has their sights set on autonomous driving, but as was mentioned, I think social implementation of driverless vehicles is still a long way off, especially in Japan.

Ideally, the public and private sectors should cooperate to create new rules, but that is not progressing well either. There are also cases where very strict regulations are imposed on demonstration projects on public roads.

In Japan, "shiro-taku" (unlicensed taxis) are prohibited by the Road Transport Act, with only a few services permitted as exceptions. When municipalities try to offer new services, even community buses, they often face strong opposition from local bus and taxi companies, who claim it's an encroachment on private business. In regions with a certain number of transportation modes, conflicts of interest inevitably arise.

Also, as was pointed out, the problem of mobility for the transportation-disadvantaged is not limited to rural areas but also exists in urban centers; I believe that is correct.

On the other hand, at present, public support is basically structured for buses and railways, with substantial subsidies. Beyond that, support is provided for demonstration projects on a project-by-project basis. Then there is the possibility of support through deregulation in special zones, and that's about it.

Even when providing public support, it probably uses the tax revenue of that municipality, so I believe it must generate something in return. For example, by providing mobility, the economy is revitalized, and tax revenue increases.

This is a very simplistic economic argument, but for example, if providing such services to the elderly reduces their medical costs or social security expenses, I think it would be good to provide public support for that service.

It seems to me that these connections are often overlooked, and special measures like special zones are approved individually, with research funds brought in from somewhere else. I believe that unless a more comprehensive, big-picture approach emerges, this problem will not be solved.

The premise for public support is why it is necessary. This is also very much related to the discussion of "who should be supported."

In new mobility, I think the question of who to support and where to allocate funds has become very difficult and ambiguous. If there's a bus company, you support the bus company; if it's a railway company, you support the railway operator. But the boundaries are not necessarily that clear.

Furthermore, since the existing frameworks are no longer viable, I think there are attempts, especially in rural areas, to break them down and search for newer forms. For example, the logic of reducing costs through health promotion and redirecting that money to enhance mobility spans the two fields of transportation and health, but in Japan, it is very difficult to support such cross-disciplinary initiatives.

I've worked in ITS, and for example, there's funding for communications, and there's funding for autonomous driving. But the moment you talk about transportation services as a whole, it's like hitting a wall of bureaucratic sectionalism.

Mr. Yasunaga has probably experienced this, but there are incredibly detailed and wide-ranging regulations, aren't there?

Yes. To put it very simply, the public support provided by various municipalities and the national government has become a symptomatic treatment. It's things like, "We'll give you 20 million yen a year to support the local loop bus," and it rarely leads to discussions about reforming the business model.

The reason for creating special zones is precisely because politics is involved. Taxis and buses have many existing industry associations, so coordinating with all of them and then doing something new as a country is almost impossible. That's why support ends up being individual measures like taxi tickets that no one will oppose.

Conversely, if you try to create a new mobility or regulatory framework with things like shared transportation, autonomous driving, or micromobility, you get significant opposition from existing industry groups, politicians get scolded, and ministry officials get scolded by the politicians. So, while everyone may want to do it in principle, when it comes to the specifics, no one wants to take responsibility.

Because of these difficulties with public support, I think we end up with only small-scale support that operates in special zones or slips through the cracks.

Indeed, I think the role of the national government should be to create more of a grand design and to have policies that support new technologies that are difficult to implement at the municipal level. However, there is a tendency to react negatively to new technologies and services. I think one aspect of this is the large number of vested interests.

Today, we have gathered people involved in new technologies and frameworks, so I would like to discuss the potential of ridesharing, autonomous driving, and MaaS, respectively.

First, regarding ridesharing, Mr. Yasunaga, what are your thoughts?

There is a big difference between ridesharing in Japan and overseas. Overseas, local governments and municipalities team up with ridesharing companies to create local mobility and last-mile solutions. Especially in the US and Europe, instead of private ridesharing companies shouldering the burden alone as before, municipalities are partnering with them to provide ridesharing services that connect, for example, subway stations with residential areas. Very flexible initiatives have begun.

I think this is because ridesharing is starting to become established as social infrastructure. After COVID-19, such cooperative relationships will probably increase even more.

On the other hand, in Japan, we are in a situation where we can't even have such discussions. As I mentioned earlier, ridesharing experiments are being conducted in various rural areas like Kyotango City and Nakatonbetsu Town, but it seems that the Uber-style approach will be difficult in the future.

In this context, for example, in Yabu City, Hyogo Prefecture, an NPO is operating a new local transportation service by car called "Yabukuru." This NPO was created with three local taxi companies as its core members.

How to involve the taxi industry, which has been the traditional provider of public transportation, is actually crucial for the potential of ridesharing in Japan. We should utilize the taxi and bus companies that have been the transportation providers until now. This would be a MaaS-like story, I think, but we need to consider whether we can incorporate the benefits of ridesharing in a Japanese way.

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

In the US, local municipalities have been responsible for operating services like buses, but with declining tax revenues, it has become quite difficult to maintain public transportation. In response, they are soliciting and attracting new solutions through a public bidding process.

Companies like Uber, Lyft, and New York's Via are increasingly entering the bidding business. Compared to a local municipality operating a shared bus, on-demand bus, or community bus on its own, this approach can reduce costs and increase convenience for residents. They are seeking a win-win-win situation for the three players: the municipality, the residents, and the operators.

I thought that was a wonderful story. The government skillfully provides ridesharing as a last-mile service, which improves the region, and the residents are properly participating in it. It's a very wonderful vision for a community, and I think that's 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. The presidents of those taxi companies are probably influential people in their region, and I think in Japan, such locally-rooted companies have existed for a long time. In such regions, rather than Uber coming in and saying, "Okay, please move aside," I thought it might be one viable approach if they could skillfully incorporate new businesses in the way they are doing now to improve services for residents.

I also feel very strongly, especially when I go to places like the US, that ridesharing has become another mode of transportation. This is a completely different feeling from Japan.

I was on a business trip to Los Angeles last December, and Los Angeles International Airport already had a parking lot that serves as a transportation hub for leaving the airport and moving into the city, which was compatible with Uber and Lyft. It's called LAX-it, and it has a dedicated pickup area for ride-hailing apps.

In other words, being picked up at the airport by rideshare has become a mode of transportation. In line with this, changes are occurring, such as public institutions also changing their pickup locations. While this may put pressure on existing transportation businesses, I think it shows that society is changing in a direction that presupposes ridesharing.

In Japan, there seems to be a reluctance to accept a situation where existing transportation businesses are disadvantaged by a new means of transport, so as you said, I think it's necessary to change while involving existing businesses.

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

As mentioned earlier, if we can successfully involve local taxi companies, we can secure employment and lower transportation costs, while also contributing to regional revitalization. I think it's important to consider this comprehensively and make the necessary regulatory reforms.

Everyone seems to be in favor of ridesharing. Let me say something negative for the sake of argument.

For example, in a local community, there is a sense of security with a bus company because it has been in business for many years and is unlikely to suddenly stop its service. But with Uber, for instance, if there happens to be no driver available, you might not be able to get a ride when you want one. Also, since it's essentially an unlicensed taxi, there is the safety issue of whether the driver can be trusted.

Furthermore, I hear talk that the elderly may not be able to master smartphones from a technical standpoint. I hear such concerns, but Mr. Yasunaga, what are your thoughts?

In terms of the negative aspects, Hertz, a major US rental car company, recently filed for bankruptcy protection. While the impact of COVID-19 is certainly a factor, I think it's also significant that they had been losing a considerable number of customers to ridesharing companies like Lyft and Uber even before that.

However, US companies repeatedly go through a process of creative destruction, so new companies emerge one after another, and old ones exit the market. In that process, they don't just completely disappear; sometimes they start new businesses by merging with new companies or create new businesses in the form of MaaS.

However, I think it's a difficult proposition to say, "Let's just let old companies go bankrupt for the sake of creative destruction" in Japan.

Regarding issues like the number of drivers and safety, different companies have different approaches, but both Uber and Lyft have an algorithm for each region that determines the minimum number of drivers needed based on supply and demand. They then use various methods to secure drivers to always exceed that number, bringing the service as close as possible to public transportation. They adjust the supply of drivers in each region so that when you want a ride and open the app, a driver will arrive within 5 minutes at the latest.

In terms of safety, both Uber and Lyft have equipped their apps with an SOS button. When this button is pressed, it contacts the local police and provides information on who the driver is and where the car is.

The problem of people who can't use smartphones also seems to exist in the US. To address this, they are making efforts such as adding phone support in addition to the smartphone app, enabling dispatch via text message, and allowing for cash payments.

Next, I would like to hear more about autonomous driving. In rural areas, even very elderly people drive, and as recent reports have shown, tragic accidents are occurring.

What is the outlook for autonomous driving?

As I mentioned earlier, even though it's called autonomous driving, it's not yet driverless, so I think that providing autonomous cars to the elderly might actually increase accidents.

However, I think there will be significant technological progress in about 10 years. This will also be related to the capabilities of 5G and ICT, but there's a possibility that it will reach a considerable level, and we will be able to provide safety to the elderly as well.

That said, "thinking about the worst-case scenario" is important when considering safety. For example, even with micromobility, we must organize the transportation system on the premise that large vehicles cannot enter the areas where they operate, and that even in the unlikely event of an accident, the occupants will not be harmed. It's not just about the technology of the autonomous car itself; I think it won't work well in a community unless we also take care to make the entire environment safe.

Regarding autonomous driving, all countries are currently rapidly advancing technology and R&D. In Japan, it is being promoted mainly through the Cabinet Office's Cross-ministerial Strategic Innovation Promotion Program (SIP), led by the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation.

To give you an outlook, we are aiming to achieve Level 4 autonomous driving on highways by 2025. This is where the driving condition is "autonomous driving is possible on highways, but humans must respond in an emergency."

Level 5 is completely hands-off, leaving it all to the car, and the technically feasible range for this expands as you narrow the limited domain. However, even with the talk of Level 4 on highways in 2025, it's hard to say what will happen on regular roads.

Therefore, I personally think that the realization of Level 5, which is the so-called "unrestricted" version where autonomous driving can handle any situation, will be in 2035 or even later. As someone promoting the technology, I'd like to say, "We can do it right away," but I think it will take longer than expected for an elderly person to get in alone and feel that "it's okay to leave it to the car."

Another issue is cost. Making an owner-driven car autonomous is quite a high hurdle. Of course, wealthy people can buy them, but if you think at the level of wanting to make your current kei car autonomous for daily use in a rural area, I think it will take time.

Thus, it will take a considerable amount of time for all cars in Japan to become autonomous, so a state where autonomous cars and normally driven cars coexist will likely continue. This is actually the most difficult environment for operating autonomous cars. In that case, ingenuity is required.

For example, I think it's only when we consider the environment, such as creating dedicated lanes, that we can introduce autonomous driving into rural transportation. When thinking on a scale of the next few years, I think we need to consider the speed of adoption while looking at both technological development and such environmental factors.

Will it be completely driverless in 20 years?

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

If it's possible to some extent with current technology by limiting the conditions, for example, in a rural area, would it be that difficult to have an autonomous car make round trips on a regular road from the center of a local community to a hospital or supermarket?

It's hard to say without examining the specific location, but generally, the more conditions you add, the easier it becomes to implement. For example, if you can prevent people or bicycles from darting out, that alone would change the story considerably.

The challenge for autonomous driving is how to respond to unforeseen situations, so the more controlled the situation becomes, the easier it gets.

I see. So, some form of collaboration where the infrastructure side supports the mobility side to some extent is necessary, isn't it?

Technically, there has been a long-standing debate about what can be done on the infrastructure side and the driving side, but it hasn't progressed much until now. However, as research on autonomous driving advances, the conversation is now turning to the need for support from the infrastructure side as well.

There's also talk of using long-standing ITS technology. For example, recently, instead of just identifying whether a traffic light is green or red with a camera, they are starting to incorporate assistance where the infrastructure side broadcasts the information to the vehicle.

By incorporating AI, camera images can now recognize many things, so for example, if a person is about to dart out from a narrow space, that information can be instantly transmitted to the car, and the car can brake properly based on that information. This is already doable, isn't it?

That's right. Including such infrastructure-side matters, we who are involved in technology would like to maintain the position that "autonomous driving is possible."

Returning to the topic of adoption, commercial vehicles may come before owner-driven cars. In the current COVID-19 pandemic, discussions about autonomous driving for logistics transportation have begun overseas as well. The potential to recover the cost of an autonomous vehicle is likely higher for commercial vehicles.

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

That's right. There's a labor shortage, and it's hard to find drivers for both trucks and buses, so I'm hopeful that this could also solve those problems.

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

It's not as if the definition of MaaS is set in stone; some people think ridesharing is MaaS, and various people are talking about various kinds of MaaS.

Right now, within the industry, we are defining it as "a service that allows users to access and freely choose from a variety of mobility services as if it were a single service." Specifically, we are calling a service MaaS if it presents various mobility options like trains, buses, taxis, bicycles, and electric scooters in a virtual space for users to access.

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

However, again, Japan and overseas have quite different ways of perceiving and developing this.

For example, overseas, there are ridesharing and electric scooters for the last mile, and new means of mobility are becoming quite integrated into society as infrastructure. However, in Japan, even if you say MaaS, parts are missing, such as the lack of ridesharing. This leads to problems where you still have the conventional connection between trains and buses, but you can't get that last mile to the hospital.

I see, so that's the crucial difference.

In this context, in Japan, private railway companies like Odakyu, Tokyu, and Keikyu are now working hard on MaaS businesses. Railways are a form of mobility that lacks flexibility once the infrastructure is built, and that has been their weakness. However, they are now using new technology to view MaaS as a service that can flexibly and seamlessly provide users with options within their own service, including on-demand buses and micromobility like shared bicycles.

Therefore, I think the Japanese model of MaaS is one where railway companies that have traditionally owned the infrastructure take the lead, with taxi companies and bicycle services, for example, joining in. Of course, I don't think that's the only model, but in Japan, major private railways provide many services to local residents, so I believe they will promote MaaS as a way to enhance the services they offer to their communities.

What's important is what kind of transportation modes are packaged together, isn't it? As you said, if there's no ridesharing, for example, even if you take a train to the station, it just becomes a MaaS with only conventional trains, buses, and taxis. The fact that companies like Odakyu are working hard on this is probably also partly because they are seeking additional revenue.

However, from the perspective of maintaining local transportation, I personally think the current situation in Japan is a bit different.

I interpret MaaS as mobility that provides services that are a plus for the community. It's not just an app; we already have things like "Ekitan" (a route finder). Instead, I think true MaaS is something that, when a local person wants to do something, shows them the optimal way to get there.

In that sense, we must also properly combine it with other systems that provide non-mobility services in that region. For example, if you want to go buy something, and it tells you, "If you go this way, you'll find it here. If you arrive at this time, an expert will be there," then you'll think, "Okay, let's go there."

Such a service that provides the joy of purchasing to the community is what creates an economic effect, so I strongly believe we should create a solid service.

A method that includes services other than transportation, I see. If tourism is also involved, I think it could generate even more economic effects.

I think one of the benefits of MaaS is that you can request a door-to-door trip once via email or something, and it will be provided in a fully connected way.

From a business perspective, how to generate profit and keep it running is important, and regional transportation has that aspect as well, doesn't it? The start of MaaS is probably the platform itself, and I think it's gaining attention because as these things come together, there are various possibilities beyond that. In other words, the immediate issue is transportation, but beyond that lies something more.

With MaaS, people's movements and behaviors can be turned into data, so multiple regional transportation systems can be analyzed, optimized, and organized, which I believe will expand the possibilities. Especially for the problem of rural transportation, I think we can also expect local governments, private operators, and service users to work together, in a sense by pooling data, to advance urban transport planning and MaaS.

That's right. The ability to collect data is a very appealing prospect for an analyst. Conversely, Japan currently lags behind other countries in data availability, so if making data open could create more possibilities, I think it could indirectly contribute significantly to supporting mobility in those local areas.

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

I have two points. First, something that has been coming up frequently in the context of MaaS recently is that there are people thinking about providing very good services not just for the elderly, but also for those who use wheelchairs. For example, an employee of a certain airline is trying to provide better mobility for wheelchair users, including on airplanes. In terms of providing services to people who have not had much involvement with transportation until now, I think this is a very wonderful initiative.

Second, during this COVID-19 pandemic, the transportation business has drastically decreased. As you know, inbound tourism was down 99.9% in March. I think the ridership rates for the Shinkansen are also at unbelievable numbers.

In that context, what we used to call "virtual mobility"—"mobility that avoids movement"—has come to the forefront during the pandemic. The concept of mobility will likely be perceived a little differently after COVID-19.

I think there are both positive and negative aspects. Because movement is restricted like this, there may be a part of us that feels that movement is very valuable, and conversely, we may feel that some of our past movements were unnecessary.

I think this concept of "movement without moving" has now come to be perceived as something real.

Your last point is an important one. When we realize that we can work and communicate virtually, we may no longer need to live in the city center. After COVID-19, there may be changes in how people live.

In the end, transportation exists to do something, so if you have any thoughts on how society might or should change in the future based on new changes in mobility, please share them.

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

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

Improving the community and improving mobility are two wheels of the same cart. If we can all share the understanding that the purpose of new changes in mobility is to improve the community as a whole, I believe we will move toward a better society.

We should make use of everything, including virtual mobility. If you have a slight stomachache and can be treated with telemedicine, you don't need to travel. It's important to use mobility when you absolutely want to go somewhere and meet someone. Using various technologies, we are gradually becoming able to do this.

Japan as a whole is becoming financially weaker, the population is decreasing, and I think things will basically get tougher.

However, instead of a negative mindset of shrinking various things because things are getting tougher, I also think that by considering different attempts and combinations as we have discussed today, we can surprisingly become richer.

What is clear is that if we continue on the current trajectory, it probably won't work. In that case, I think we should all use our ingenuity, turn it into a new movement, and say, "Let's change in this way." We should allocate budgets for that, and we should reconsider regulations for that purpose.

I am a technology person, so to say one last thing about technology, even if technology is lacking in various aspects, it will continue to advance, so even if it's not good at first, it will become able to cover the gaps. Therefore, I believe we need to optimistically support trials of various things, including the structure of society.

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

When considering the movement of people, I think it will shift toward more personal and private-space mobility. Specifically, things like shared bicycles and electric scooters. 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 was mentioned, the idea that there is no need to be in Tokyo is also emerging. That said, people don't move just for commuting, so even if you go to a rural area, the demand for last-mile mobility for shopping or going to the hospital will definitely remain. In the end, I think the important thing will be how to solve the challenges in that area even after COVID-19.

On the other hand, as was in today's "Nihon Keizai Shimbun," there are also parts that are trying to change out of necessity. For example, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism has relaxed regulations for taxis, allowing them to provide food delivery services as a temporary measure until around September of this year.

In a sense, COVID-19, whether for better or worse, will have an impact on mobility in rural areas as a social change, so I think how we view that will become important.

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

I don't think it's good to force a transportation service where there is no demand, so a certain amount of downsizing and assessment is necessary. For what remains, it has become necessary for rural areas to support each other with the power of the local community, applying new technologies.

From today's discussion, I understood that new technology has become usable in more ways than before, so in a sense, I thought that a bright future is possible. Thank you for your time.