Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.
If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

The 6th Study Group on the Ideal of "Mobility Roadmap"

Overview

  • Date and time: Wednesday, August 9, 2023, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
  • Location: Kioi Conference Seminar Room A on the 4th floor of Tokyo Garden Terrace Kioi-cho (online)
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Content
      • "Secretariat Summary"
    3. Adjournment

Conference Video

The conference is available on YouTube (Digital Agency official channel).

Materials

Minutes

Counsellor Asayama: Dear Then, from now on, we will hold the 6th "Study Group on the Ideal of' Mobility Roadmap.'"

As in the past, this study group will be live streamed. In addition, a video recording will be released on the Digital Agency website after the event, so please be aware of this.

Today, unlike the past five Study Groups, the summary will be the agenda. Although the agenda is fewer, we expect that the content and discussions will be diverse, so we plan to spend two hours. Thank you very much for your cooperation today.

First of all, Mr. Murakami, Director-General of For the public Group, Digital Agency, would like to say a few words. Thank you very much.

Mr. Murakami: Thank you, Mr. : Today, I would like to have a lot of talks with you, and I have less than 10 explanatory materials. I think this will be the last time for the Study Group. I will also report to Minister Kono, and I think we will move to the stage where the mobility Working Group will be established under Council for the Promotion of a Digital Society, and the work there will be directly linked to the Cabinet Decision.

However, as I stated at the end, the CSTI, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) are working on a cross-ministerial framework, so I will write a comprehensive roadmap for all of Issue. However, I would like to advance the process so that the bulky parts of each ministry will be prioritized when the Cabinet Decision documents are prepared.

However, as you are participating in the Study Group today, at that time, even in the Study Group at today's level, if it is expressed in this way, it may not be a discussion point yet, or it may be over, and each ministry has various thoughts. Therefore, after receiving a lot of opinions today, I would like to give them out in a comfortable manner, so I would like to ask the chairman to leave it to me, including the terminology, and if it is a discussion point, I would like to give it out to the world after coordinating the points that can be expressed in this way.

To put it the other way around, I would like to hear your frank opinions today, and I would like to proceed to the creation of a road map in a comfortable manner. I would like to have an open discussion.

That's all.

Counsellor Asayama: Dear , I would like to ask the Chairman to proceed with the proceedings from now on. I would like to ask Mr. Ishida. Nice to meet you.

Chairman Ishida: Then, I would like to ask for your continued support today. As Mr. Murakami just said, today is centered on discussion.

Now, I would like to ask you to explain about the summary proposal that is the main topic for today.

Counsellor Asayama: Dear Now, the Secretariat will explain the materials.

In Document 4, it is summarized as a draft of the study group. It is about nine sheets, so the amount is quite small, but we would like to enrich it based on what you discussed today, so I would like you to discuss it.

First of all, the overall structure consists of three parts. The first page is "Background and Purpose," which summarizes the flow of the discussions so far in about three pages. Next, on page 4, why automated driving is not developing the project, and the factors are analyzed by the Secretariat. Next, on page 6, based on this analysis, the content of the specific discussions on what should be specifically discussed by the Working Group in the future is raised as an issue.

Then, I will explain in order.

Please take a look at page 1. Based in Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap, with the efforts of each ministries and agencies, we have been working on institutional reform and technical development. As a result, operation services using automated driving technology have started in various parts of Japan.

However, many of these efforts depend on special road environments suitable for automated driving, and many are still at the demonstration stage. I recognize that there are still many Issue left to be established as businesses and industries. In light of this situation, in fiscal 2022, we held a study group on the future of the digital transportation society, and compiled a report that two perspectives will be important in the future.

As the two viewpoints are written here, in order to run the automated driving, I have compiled one summary that I believe should not be organized only from the supply-side perspective, but should be considered in an integrated manner from the actual demand-side Issue.

In addition, from the perspective of the supplier side, we have summarized that we should consider not only efforts centered on vehicle technology, but also the Issue of the entire surrounding social system.

In addition, moving to page 2, we have decided to launch the Study Group to consider the necessary conditions and measures to establish the project as an industry. As stated in my explanation, the purpose of establishing the Study Group has been made clear by holding the Study Group five times in the past. There are three main points, (I), (ii), and (iii). One is that although Japanese society has turned to a declining population, in order to implement mobility services as a project, it is impossible to be a viable project unless various demands are carefully grasped. In addition, as I have been considering in various ways from the standpoint of actually using them, the resources on the supply side of vehicles and drivers are also quite limited, so the point is that we must look at on-demand from the demand side, which is to accurately allocate such resources according to demand, over the long term.

Second, in order to appropriately capture such demand, it is important to incorporate it into data in some form. In addition, although we tend to focus only on passengers, it is necessary to capture various demands not only by passenger and cargo, but also by demand generated from automated driving vehicles, service robots, and drones. Furthermore, it has become clear that we must work hard to determine the best combination of services by calculating back from demand.

The third point is that in order to advance such efforts, it will be essential to make investments in Digital infrastructure in the future. In terms of who will bear the cost, there are various ways of self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance, but I have summarized this as an issue that it is necessary to make efforts while firmly cooperating among business operators.

However, as I organize these matters, it has become clear that these issues cannot be resolved one by one, and as stated below, in particular, these issues are intricately intertwined, and there is a Issue in which there are mutual dependencies and trade-offs, so it has become clear that we must resolve these issues as a whole.

On page 3, it is summarized that these problems will not be solved unless they are shared softly by the parties concerned as a large architecture from the business and data sides. As stated in Mr. Murakami's first address, I would like to summarize the viewpoints and points of contention necessary for the relaunch of ministries and agencies as Mobility Roadmap, changing the form of Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap from the beginning of autumn, so that these will be included in the roadmap as measures to be taken by each ministries and agencies together. I would like to hear your candid opinions on the points that I will explain later.

The main part is from page 4. On page 4, we summarize the current situation and the factors why automated driving is not developing as a project. (1) and (2) are the current situation, and based on that, we summarize the factors why automated driving is not developing as a project in (3). I would like to omit (1) and (2) a little, but as I have explained so far, regarding Level 4 in ministries and agencies, I believe that the basic technology necessary for providing services has already been established. In addition, as a result of various efforts to mitigate regulation in each region, I believe that the physical environment for vehicles to travel on the road without drivers is in place.

However, although the current procedures are described in the subsequent drawings, we recognize that it is technically possible to operate not only automated driving but also drones and service robots if necessary procedures such as permission to use roads and permission to fly are taken.

However, in order to make these things into actual services, there is Issue, which is summarized in (3). Broadly speaking, Issue has summarized the five points under "Issue for Utilizing New Technologies for Sustainable Businesses," and the current status of these five points is summarized under "General Evaluation of the Current Status."

First of all, with regard to Issue, the first question is whether it is an established technology that can withstand implementation in the real world. Although it is not underlined here, it is my recognition that the current automated driving has been technically established to Level 4, and it has almost been completed at this point.

In addition, with regard to B, I would like to compare it with page 5 in terms of whether the development of the environmental side for application in the real world is progressing. In order to apply it in the real world, whether to respond to collision prevention on the vehicle side or to provide some information from the road side, I believe that the market sentiment has not been established.

My third question is about C. Since there is a continuous need for the use of this technology in the real world, it has been covered by revenue from usage fees and the like until now, but in order to actually operate it, it is important that the need to use it continues. In relation to this, as stated below, it is natural that we must capture various demands in order to use it in places such as hilly and mountainous areas, so we must firmly establish a vision of what kind of movement demand in real life we will capture, but it is our current recognition that there are not necessarily many cases where such a vision has been established at this point.

The fourth point is that the hurdles to introduction (initial costs, etc.) are low. There are quite a few companies that are motivated, but the introduction costs are extremely high. In addition, as demand for public transportation is expected to taper off, there are extremely limited business operators who can bear the cost themselves, so I believe we must carefully consider this point.

With regard to E at the end, it is important whether or not the running costs are sustainable after the service is actually started, and whether or not the burden mechanism has been established if this is not possible. This is not just running costs in the sense of operating costs, but as described in E, in the event of an accident, if the vehicle side or the operation side is responsible for all the costs, unexpected costs will occur, so we must firmly obtain a consensus on social requirements. However, at present, this point is not always sufficient, and the risks on the vehicle side and the level of technology to be secured in that case are not always clear, so I wonder if we must carefully consider this.

In addition to A to E, as described below, solving only one of these problems will not lead to the commercialization of new technologies such as automated driving vehicles, drones, and service robots, so the point is to solve them as a whole.

Now, I would like to summarize how we will specifically consider this on pages 6 and beyond. There are quite repeated descriptions, but as I have explained so far, the Issue of self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance is intricately intertwined, so it is necessary to properly link the relationship of interdependence and trade-offs and connect it to the overall solution of Issue. Self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance are intricately intertwined in this way, and I have written examples of this in (I) to (vi) below. For example, in (I), we support the initial introduction cost of vehicles, which is at the lower left in the ponte above, and to what extent this part should be supported to turn around the business. Of course, it is also related to how much effort should be made to ensure the profitability of self-help, and the "off balance of initial vehicle costs" indicated by the arrow above must be considered together.

In addition, as I have mentioned in (ii) to (vi), there are several cases where various factors work together to ensure business feasibility. Therefore, it is extremely important to share the architecture as a whole, the concept of design, what Issue is in each layer of business, data, and technology, and what should be done. This point has been confirmed in the discussions of the Study Group thus far.

We have to consider this comprehensively, but when we consider each Issue, first of all, we have to sort out what kind of Issue there is for self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance, and what kind of issues we have to consider in the future. This is summarized on page 7 and after. As an "overview of each region," we have set up three issues for self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance.

First of all, regarding self-help, as Point 1-1, automated driving will not spread without reducing the cost of introducing vehicles, so I have summarized Issue in terms of specific recommendations and points that must be considered in the future. In particular, as for the first point, what level of service level is required will change how much performance is required for vehicles. Of course, if the level required for vehicles is low, the cost of introduction will decrease, so it is necessary to clearly define what level of service level is required in general, and to lead to the actual reduction of the cost of introduction. This is the main point of contention.

The second point is that it is inevitably expensive, so in order to reduce the initial introduction cost, there is a question of whether it will be some kind of public support, direct support, or subsidies, and we need to carefully consider the design of these systems.

As for Point 1-2, it says "visualization and creation of demand." As I mentioned earlier, demand is inevitably tapering off, but there are still many hidden demands. By categorizing roads in order to organize the concept of roads, what kind of traffic demand will be generated in what kind of division of roads, and by optimizing means, whether service cars can secure demand or whether services centered on owner cars will run, by clarifying demand, new demand can be captured, so I think we need to carefully consider this. As mentioned in the second part, I think we need to carefully consider how to visualize demand related to each road and convert it into data, and by aggregating where and what kind of traffic and logistics demand there is, depending on the situation, we need to discuss how to create a customer attracting system, and whether demand can be captured if cargo and passengers are consolidated.

Regarding points 1-3, since this is a self-help area, it may be considered by business operators, but I believe that we must consider measures to enable those who have made investments to recover their investments by operating their businesses permanently. In relation to points 1-2, when business models are examined by each business operator or each local government, I believe that we must provide solid support so that one model can include how finance should be based on the social impact that the visualization of where hidden beneficiaries are makes it easier to recover investment costs and that the automated driving leads to a reduction in medical care costs for the elderly.

In addition, in order to recover the investment cost, it is also an important Issue that the operation rate must be increased. As I mentioned earlier, by clarifying the area where demand is generated, resources will be invested intensively. It says "on-demand," but it is also important that each person is on-demand, and it is extremely important to understand where demand is generated from the perspective of the business operator.

In addition, I would like to point out that the term "night operation" is an example, and if there is a business model that can recover the investment cost by transporting goods and goods that are not in a hurry to a time zone where personnel expenses are high, we need to consider such a business model.

Next, with regard to cooperation in Issue, I would like to make an issue 2-1 on the development of infrastructure in cooperation between the public and private sectors. In particular, there are two ways of controlling automated driving: autonomous control and cooperative control. In the case of cooperative control, it is more efficient to consider sharing the infrastructure and utilizing it in automated driving, rather than simply passing electricity through the existing public utility infrastructure or conducting communication. I believe that this is a matter that should be examined as a common field.

Please turn to page 1 on page 8. I have just given you a talk about hardware. It is important who develops the software information that is necessary for automated driving operations. For example, in the case of autonomous operations, high-precision map information is necessary, but I believe that the issue will be how to solve the problem together, such as providing some kind of information from the public sector, including whether it is okay to leave this to the operators or whether it is more efficient to develop the information together.

The second is "realization of cooperative control and operation." There are several points mentioned here. For example, the fourth is the enhancement of the use of public data, such as accident performance data, for operation management. At first glance, it seems to be unrelated, but if we know in advance where an accident will occur, it will be possible to reduce the speed of operation at that point. Therefore, I believe that we must carefully consider how to view cooperative control from the perspective of data.

As for the fifth point, the ideal way of distributed cooperative control is a very important point. If a person is involved, it will affect the fact that the operation manager must be responsible in the event of an incident at the end. Therefore, we must firmly consider the ideal way of mobility where a person is not involved. In order to disperse the centralized risk, we must firmly establish the ideal way of distributed cooperative control as an issue and consider it in the future.

With regard to Issue 2-3, which is somewhat related to Issue 1-2, I have established several issues on how to develop and share demand-side data in order to understand and create demand. In particular, Part 5, providing services and developing infrastructure according to individual needs is important, but if it exceeds the needs of individuals, it will become a problem that the actual supplier will not be able to supply. Therefore, from the perspective of understanding and creating demand, I believe that we must thoroughly discuss the ideal way of data, security in that case, and governance.

Finally, I would like to point out the points of public assistance (public role). Although there are many overlapping points, it is difficult to determine the level of service without the decision of the public role side. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary to discuss the ideal form of mobility services in the future, such as forming a consensus on Okinawa services that utilize new technologies and sharing good examples of what level of safety is working well.

With regard to points 3-2 and 3-3, as I have explained so far, we need to support Issue from a public standpoint, or create environments that make it easier for people to participate in projects such as regulation mitigation. I have raised several points.

One example of public support for Point 3-2 is how to support the financing of the initial introduction cost of vehicles, etc., especially in terms of initial cost o-na. Although it is not direct support, in the case of cooperative control, the burden on vehicles is reduced while infrastructure is maintained. As mentioned in the last part, I believe that the issue will be how much road environments should be dealt with premised on the new social responsibilities rules.

Point 3-3 is indirect support, so to what extent will the vehicles be held responsible? In addition, if there is a person who actually caused an accident or was involved in an accident, for example, if there was a person lying on the road, it would be problematic to hold the vehicle responsible, so I believe that we must firmly consider the ideal form of the responsibility demarcation.

Although I made a quick explanation, on page 9, I have summarized the points that we must be careful about when advancing such consideration. If we consider Issue as a whole, it will be necessary to consider Issue as a product. However, some people have expressed the opinion that it is important to consider Issue as a whole and consider catalytic elements while summarizing them, rather than increasing Okinawa and its responses as a product.

As stated in (3) below, we will establish a new Mobility Roadmap Working Group under the digital society Concept Conference to eventually formulate mobility 2024. I would like to revise the points I have just raised in this working group based on the opinions I have received, but I would like to include them in the roadmap while firmly grasping the direction of specific solutions along these points, who will independently consider them, and what matters will be considered that should be supported in common.

As stated in the Director-General's address, not all such considerations will be made in Digital Agency, and various ministries and agencies have already made such considerations. I have listed several cases here, but I would like to bring about a solution in Issue as a whole while incorporating the results of such considerations.

The above is the explanation of the materials, but it is still a draft, and I believe that the issues to be discussed will be decided based on your opinions. Therefore, I would appreciate your opinions and discussions.

That's all for the explanation.

Chairman Ishida: .

Before the discussion, we received written opinions from Committee Members Saito and Koshizuka, who are absent today. Could you please introduce these to us?

Counsellor Asayama: Dear Next, I would like to introduce the comments from the two members. I would like to summarize them, but if there are any points that are missing, I would like to add them.

First of all, Mr. Saito has given us three main points of opinion.

First of all, regarding the roadmap this time, we have received opinions that it should be considered including the realization of optimizing social systems with the aim of solving social Issue by utilizing data to eliminate muri, mura, and muda in society on the demand side. Specifically, we have received opinions that it should be considered from the perspective of reducing energy, food loss, and waste toward carbon neutrality. It has been pointed out that there is a possibility that businesses will be revitalized by returning the part where the social cost decreases to the newly generated cost.

The second is the opinion that the working group should consider the construction of a database for the management and operation of mobility that handles real data for visualization and clarification.

Lastly, I would like to add the systematization of infrastructure management and operation for mobility operations to the discussion point because there is an effect of improving the business efficiency of the public and private sectors related to private sector, that is, reducing costs related to various management operations and infrastructure operation and maintenance by utilizing various mobility data.

Next is the opinion from Mr. Koshizuka. I have received both general comments and detailed comments, so I would like to introduce general comments first.

First of all, in regard to the summary of the study group this time, your opinion is that there are few references to mobility other than automated driving. In addition, you have expressed your opinion that the main pillar of the discussion should be how to expand it, and that emphasis should be placed on how to write about regions other than automated driving and establish a new vision.

To be specific, on page 1 of Handout 4, which I mentioned earlier, there are new viewpoints to be considered in the future in viewpoints 1 and 2, but it has been pointed out that there are some points that have not been made based on capturing the Issue of the demand-side, the scenes of life, and the Issue of the entire surrounding social system in viewpoint 2, and we have received your opinion that these should be considered together.

In addition, from a broader perspective than just automated driving, I would like to express your opinion that self-help services by private sector companies have been a feature of Japanese transportation, but with the declining population, there are places where this has reached a limit. There is an extreme opinion that all local transportation should be operated by the government. Therefore, it has been pointed out that discussions should be held in line with the demands of the transportation field and how the structure should be.

As a whole, there are only discussions centered on automated driving, so your opinion is that discussions should be expanded to other areas.

As for the summary, on pages 4 and 5 of the document, there are five Issue as a large Issue, and Issue from A to E are listed. As for the evaluation, the descriptions on page 5 do not necessarily match. We have heard that the general evaluation should be further elaborated based on the actual Issue.

For example, in E, the sustainable running cost is written as Issue, and in the evaluation, there is talk of security, which is a bit difficult to understand, so we should make sure to understand it. In 3 (1) below, in the punch picture, there is an opinion that Viewpoint 1 is not sufficiently reflected, and the meaning of the arrow and the difference between the solid line and the dotted line are difficult to understand without explanation, so we should summarize these in an easy-to-understand manner when actually disclosing them.

In addition, with regard to Issues 1-2 in the Detailed Discussion, we have received many opinions on visualization and creation of demand. It is said that we should properly develop a system that is driven by data on the demand side. In particular, we should visualization demand in places where demand is decreasing, visualization demand in other fields, and allocate vehicles and resources to places where demand actually occurs. On the other hand, in the case of distribution, demand is generated from individual households, and it is not enough to simply do visualization. In this regard, we should thoroughly discuss scheduling and optimizing distribution while utilizing AI. visualization

In addition, if it is difficult to establish a business in mobility alone, it is important to increase demand in other fields such as medical care. Therefore, we have received opinions that we should include re-design by changing the perspective of mobility in the discussion.

Also, with regard to data connections infrastructure, I have heard that it is important to widely cooperate with data in various fields because it is a key infrastructure for the new mobility. In doing so, it is important to consider the time frame and burden, and the ideal form of mutual assistance is to gradually shift the development of data from public entities, and I have heard that it is necessary to carefully consider this point.

Finally, throughout the report, you pointed out the perspective that is missing this time. You said that the perspective of disaster risk management, which is missing, should be discussed a little more.

It's been a long time, but that's all the opinions I've received.

Chairman Ishida: . Here you are.

Mr. Murakami: Thank you, Mr. I will present three viewpoints that I hope will be discussed from this angle, so I would like you to comment from any order.

First of all, this is a short report, but the logic is issued to make it relatively clear. Everyone stops at the point where the story of a decrease in demand density due to a decrease in population and the investment of new technology are at odds. To this end, it is necessary to come up with a service system that can be calculated back from demand while using data.

However, when we want to realize this, the various layers of Issue, self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance, are interdependent and trade-offs. How can we connect these? We will make a road map. That is the logical flow. I think it is written relatively clearly, but if each ministries and agencies does not come up with a convincing logic, it will be a story of why they are lined up like this. So, I wonder if this logic is good. That is my first point.

The second point is very simple. It is itemized, but I would like you to add whether there are any excesses or deficiencies in the points of discussion. After coordinating with each ministries and agencies a little, when the points of discussion are identified, if possible, I would like to attach a ponte picture to each point of discussion and publish them together as if there is a Issue like this. However, if the expression and content of each point of discussion are not settled, it is impossible to work on them, so I am showing them at this stage.

I think that the last point is the most important point of view. If you put out the points like this, it is easy to understand or it is natural. For example, as Professor Koshizuka said at the end, unless there is one catalyst for aggregation, such as N to 1 to M, A times B, B times C, and C times A will rapidly diverge. This is the theory of tactics and strategy. Also, although I have not written it clearly, I think that conventionally, when the population increases and tax revenue increases, public support has been provided. If possible, I would like to use the market mechanism as much as possible. If we were to narrow down the points that the public should seize, where should we seize them? This may also be related to N to 1 to M, but for example, is it a story that money is needed, or is it a story that investment moves because market ability starts moving if standards are properly decided? This is the way of using the market.

In addition, as I mentioned at the end of the previous report, while there is a desire to share data well in various aspects, there is also an aspect of whether data can be shared so easily. Then, what kind of motivation should be put in to advance the sharing of data in each necessary aspect? In fact, I think that there is a logic that is common behind the scenes in 1, 2, and 3 of the major issues. If we do not do this, we will be able to create a lot of issues like a dictionary, and it will be a discussion of whether to do each issue one by one. I think that we will probably not be able to reach an answer. So, after taking a bird' s-eye view of this, if there is a point of view from the layer of what the strategy behind it is, I would be grateful if you could give me suggestions. I would like to ask you to point out 1 about the logic of the entire report, 2 about the excess and deficiency of the issues, and 3 about the architecture, if there is a point where such strategies and tactics are not common behind divergent issues. This is my request.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

So, from now on, I would like all members and people from ministries and agencies to speak freely. What do you think?

Then, please start with Okamoto-san.

Okamoto: , I would like to follow the contents of the three points you raised as much as possible.

At first, population decline is the key, and in that context, it is necessary to maintain some kind of infrastructure and invest in it. One perspective is how money will flow in such a situation. When we think about it in various ways, even though we have a small population, if we do not increase the value we are creating, we will not be able to pay for it. Then, we will be very productive, and as a result, we will be able to export our products overseas. If we do not lead to a world in which various products are produced in various area, we will not be able to pay for it. That is my feeling at the beginning.

That being said, there is always the question of whether or not such a thing can really be done. At first, I thought a little about whether it would be necessary to increase productivity while optimizing the infrastructure so that productivity can be increased with as little investment as possible.

After that, I would like to ask if there are any additional points to the points you are making here, or if you would like to talk about another point of view, and I think that this is also very well organized, but I am a complete amateur in mobility, so I think it may be completely different, but I would like to add one point, and on the contrary, I would like to ask you, for example, in Point 2-2, to create effects by using traffic data for services other than mobility services, and I would like to ask you to make a combination with electricity supply and demand as an example. From our perspective, the opposite is also true. In short, when considering the energy system or the Internet, there are energy demands and supplies, and at that time, there is a point where mobility is considered as a part, and I am afraid that it is a little difficult to talk about it. In other words, we have to look at the energy system and the mobility system cross-sectionally, so the opposite is also true. This is what is happening between us and mobility, and I think that similar things may be happening in other fields, so I would like to ask you to emphasize the fact that there is a synergy between cross-sectionally looking at places other than mobility.

I don't know if it is an architecture or not, but I would like to add a little background. For example, in Issue 2-2, there is a discussion of centralized or hierarchical control, and there is a way of distributed cooperative control of multiple mobility. I don't know if this is a bit off the mark, but when I think about our power network, there is probably a hierarchical structure, and it is better to be distributed, but I think it will be strange if there is no hierarchical structure. I don't know if it is mobility, but for example, there is something like a trunk line, something that runs on an expressway, or something like a bullet train. There is always a concept of transfer, and the network seems to have a hierarchical structure like our network. In logistics, there is a transfer point and a hierarchical structure, so when we grasp the hierarchical structure of the network, I think it will be a hierarchical distributed system, so I wonder if that is possible as an architecture.

In that case, based on what Professor Koshizuka said about N vs. 1 vs. M, I thought that if I thought that the crossover point is, for example, a hub, I would be able to organize it if I organized my head well. In addition, I don't know how many levels there are, but there are several levels of hubs, and then a crossover occurs, and in order to organize them, I have to think about a special point called a hub. After thinking about that, I thought that if I thought about the fact that hubs are connected in a hierarchical structure, the whole thing is unexpectedly easy to organize.

The reason why I am saying so is that our energy world is actually structured in this way, so it is a problem of the same network, so there are hubs, and they are hierarchical, and they should be operated in a distributed manner as much as possible. It is the same problem, and since each infrastructure has a mutual relationship, if the same hierarchical and distributed structure is created, and if both can be controlled in cooperation, the mutual relationship of the infrastructure can be made the most of. This may be quite off the mark, but I think there is such a part from what we are thinking in our field.

In closing, I would like to add that, although I don't know if this is unnecessary, I believe that we will be thinking about data models in the future. I believe that speed is important, so if there are things that do not need to be created from scratch and are already becoming de facto overseas, I think it would be faster to create those that are insufficient after thoroughly identifying such things. I would be grateful if you could add such a perspective.

That's all from me.

Chairman Ishida: .

Mr. Suda, please.

SUDA Member: My honest impression is that it seems to be very well organized at first glance, but after thinking about various things, I have some concerns, so I would like to introduce them to you.

First of all, I have just organized the points of contention in the form of the importance of self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance. I felt that although I said that there are difficult issues such as interdependence and trade-offs, the perspective of examining them was missing. For example, I think that safety is such a story, but individual safety is quite a self-help story, but I think that total safety is a public story, so I thought it would be good to write in more detail about the story that there is a story that public assistance and self-help are doing the same thing, and raise it as a point of contention.

Another point is that recently, when we have been discussing various things about the future of mobility, I think that automobiles will be organized in terms of autonomy and dispersion. On the other hand, public transportation is about concentration and cooperation, and I think that there is a conflict between autonomy and dispersion and concentration and cooperation, but I think that it is a story that will be well balanced in the future, so I think that thinking about such a story in the form of a goal is one idea.

The other thing is, as I said last time, the discussion here is from the perspective of service cars, but I think there will be a discussion about how owner cars are. On the other hand, when we talk about service cars, we are talking about MaaS. I feel that the roadmap will change depending on whether it is a city or a so-called area, so I feel that it is better to put the perspective of the characteristics of the region somewhere.

As for the last topic, it is completely limited to Japan. I wonder if there are discussions about relations with overseas countries, what is going on overseas, or, as you mentioned earlier, standards, and we need to consider overseas expansion in consideration of standards.

So far, I have talked about 4 things. Thank you.

Chairman Ishida: .

The people who are raising their hands on the web are Mr. Hidaka and Mr. Yamamoto of ITSJapan. Could you speak in that order?

Member: I am Hidaka from MaaSTechJapan. I would like to make two remarks. I have read the report and I think it was well compiled as you said.

It may be after this summary, but I would like to point out two points.

The first is the word "road map." When you say "road map," the horizontal axis generally refers to time. I think this time refers to the next generation of mobility in general, but when you think of automated driving in particular, although it is in the diffusion period, I think there will be an extremely challenging demonstration period before the twenty twenty-five of this year, next year, and the year after next.

At the same time, after considering the business feasibility, of course, when there is a mass introduction period, we will have to produce not only 100 units at 50 locations but several thousand units, or we will have to make and fix them. After the mass introduction period, which comes after the demonstration period, it will be a period of spread and stability. During that period, who will be responsible for the necessary business and industry will be considered in the roadmap, and the working group that will be held from the autumn may be fine.

As you all know, there is a shortage of human resources, especially in the digital field, but also in the mobility field and in the transportation field, including drivers. So, for example, whether it will be handled by automobile repair shops, automobile dealers, or existing transportation operators. For example, in the case of maintenance, there are still railway vehicle repair shops at terminal stations, so whether it will be handled by such engineers or whether it will be done by a completely new player should be done. In order to speed up the switching of industries, we will define who will be responsible for this. If we do so without thinking about the roadmap, it will take five or ten years, but if we say that it will be shortened as much as possible, I think there is a possibility of industry, and I think it is very important to start up in the market for external investment. So, I would like to draw a time frame in the roadmap, and then consider how to efficiently do it. This is my first question.

The second point is, as I believe there will be a position talk as my member, I would like you to consider the perspective of MaaS. As I mentioned earlier, even in the mass introduction period, there is still no prospect of the shortage of semiconductors being resolved by operation managers and maintenance personnel in the first place, so it will take a considerable amount of time for so many vehicles and automated driving radars and sensors to cover the transportation capacity of current private cars and buses, and it may not be possible to manufacture them to that extent in the first place. As for the period in which they are mixed, it is possible that all of them will be demanded by both automated driving vehicles and automated driving. However, it is often said that vehicles with high transportation capacity and large number of vehicles can be ridden, and it is often said that it is necessary to consider which of them will be served by the existing railways and buses. Therefore, if we are to compete for users in other automated driving, the number of automobiles will increase as an industrial policy, but no one will be able to use them. I think there will be various decisions, but when there is a breakdown, the number of vehicles is insufficient, or they cannot be driven, they will be covered by other transportation. There will be various decisions, but if we switch to existing transportation-based transportation such as railways and buses and eliminate them, all the transportation means will be brought to automated driving. From that perspective, I think that the perspective of transportation and the perspective of MaaS can make a great contribution to making automated driving a business rather than driving cars. So, I made a statement. The first point is the roadmap. The second point is the perspective of MaaS, and I would like you to include the perspective of how we can expand in that context. mobility

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

Mr. Akio Yamamoto, may I speak to you?

Member: I'm Yamamoto from ITS Japan.

In order to grasp the issues in the way forward, I am somewhat concerned that if we do not proceed with the second issue that Mr. Murakami mentioned, which is a demand-side Issue that assumes more living situations, in other words, what kind of transportation and service is needed in what kind of area for what kind of people, and if we do not advance this issue after disclosing all of them to a certain extent, it will end up being a discussion just for automated driving.

SIP, the National Comprehensive Development Plan for Digital Lifelines, and public transportation's Re-Design are mentioned. I believe it was last month, July 28, that you read through the Third National Spatial Plan, which was approved by the Cabinet. In it, things like Issue in mobility are firmly organized, and after organizing them in light of demand, we will create a roadmap for these solutions. I think it would be better to add a little more to the so-called service and consumer perspectives.

This includes the perspective of how to support the formation of area Living Area and the revitalization of area, and how to move around the city, so I would like to suggest that we consider such points.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

Yamashita-san, please.

YAMASHITA Member: I'm Yamashita from the Automobile Association.

Mr. Murakami talked about the logic and story of three things. When I look at various materials at this conference every time, I am very impressed and confirm that the resolution will increase steadily. When the resolution increases, I am sorry, and I feel that my honest impression is that the sense of joy decreases. As Mr. Yamamoto said earlier, I think the human axis is a little weak. I think one point is that unless we make it a little clearer what we are doing this for, the sense of joy cannot be conveyed and the sense of acceptance cannot be aroused. As a matter of fact, in your various discussions, there will always be people's stories and many stories about the consideration of business operators. However, if you increase the resolution and organize it like this, it will be like a ToDo list, and at the point where you have to check it, you will be in a negative mode. I felt that very much.

However, to put it the other way around, the reason why I think it is very good that so many items have been organized this time is that self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance have been clarified. It has become clear what should be the point of discussion here, and while I grasp one of them, I think it would be good if we could make a handover from here to the next time with you, or maybe not this time, that it will be promised in the future that people, goods, and things can move freely. So, I would like to point out one of them, or I would like to state my impression.

Another point is that when it comes to demand, there is a lot of human data. It is written in the items from the beginning, but we should take a stance that we are forming rules from the beginning, including privacy governance, and that the usage and data collection methods are firmly incorporated from the beginning, possibly from the architecture stage. If we do this, the people will feel safe when they see it, and they will be happy when the data is circulated, so we are creating a loop mechanism in which we want to output the data. I thought it would be better to have a thorough discussion and set up the items. I have just pointed out these two points.

.

Chairman Ishida: Next, Mr. Koda, please.

Koda Member: Thank you, .

There are places that are close to what various teachers have said, but first of all, on the demand side, there are people who are already using automated driving buses, and there are many places in Issue where the existing public services are not enough. Based on such data, we can see how the existing public transportation should change in the roadmap up to 2030 in chronological order, including population dynamics. I think it will become clear that Issue must be developed from here.

Another point is that there has been quite a lot of discussion this time, and it seems that much attention has been paid to automated driving. So, as Mr. Hidaka mentioned earlier, from the perspective of MaaS, in particular, I believe that there are many cars, and the number of cars that are not used, such as vacant houses, will increase rapidly. In addition, the population is aging rapidly, and the active introduction of ride-sharing has not advanced much in Japan, so I would like to discuss without avoiding the reason why this has not advanced, and I would like to firmly face the possibility.

Going back to the topic, on the demand-side, for example, there are various services such as drones, automated driving, and ride-sharing. When we can see what kind of Issue will be solved in what kind of situations, even when these things become public, I thought that there would be more people who would be interested in and interested in the national government's measures because they would be able to solve their own lives in this way.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

Kawabata-san, could you be next?

Kawabata Member:

I was looking at it because I thought that the things that need to be done have become very clear as a result of the discussions.

It may deviate slightly from the main point, but when we discuss Issue, if we discuss Issue today, I wonder if it is actually a measure that must be formulated while looking at the traffic Issue 20 years from now. In this discussion, we discussed Issue today and Issue in the near future very well, and I thought that I was allowed to share it very much. When we are in such a summarized state, we are actually looking at this measure because we think that infrastructure, in particular, may not be realized until 20 or 25 years from now. In that case, for example, there are many more sensors on the road now, and there are many more sensors such as cameras on the road alone than before, and there is a direction in which electric vehicles are increasing, but I think that current thinking alone may not be able to catch up, so I think it is necessary to consider the future traffic environment from a perspective.

One more thing, as other members pointed out earlier, I think that it is true that if you increase the resolution and organize it neatly, emotional things will inevitably be removed. There is a phrase that I like to say, "Feelings are more important than the rice cake that has been pounded." It is important to value the feeling of the person who pounded the rice cake rather than the rice cake itself. Pounding rice cake is quite a hard work, but I think that people will move or act by valuing the feeling of the person who pounded it. Therefore, when I often think about traffic Issue, I think that the more scattered the mobility is, the more the occupancy rate is 4 to 5 percent, and there are many cars that are more than 90 percent stopped, but there are no people who actually drive them, or anyone who takes them away or gives them service, which leads to traffic Issue.

In that sense, rather than just sorting out the current situation, for example, when I was a child, it was natural to take my neighbors to a hospital, but now I think I can't suddenly ask my neighbors to take me to a hospital. In that sense, I thought it would be good if there was a word that could add the situation of service provision derived from feelings.

However, for that purpose, I don't think it can be expressed only in terms of mental cooperation. For example, although it will be dry, with the introduction of area currency and area points, 10 points that you can give as gratitude will be given in area, and you can use them to participate in events in area. I think it would be good if distribution, not money, would be created. I think it would be good if mental distribution could be done digitally. This is what I thought more after looking at the materials this time.

Of course, I think it would be dry to make it into currency or points, but I thought it would lead to traffic data by making it possible to give it away for free in area or to spend it in the area. I think it would lead to the delivery of traffic data, and I don't think it would be just to give it away, but I don't think anyone would give it away for the convenience it provides or for the accumulation of convenience. I think it is very important to be able to access the accumulated data of one's own, to be able to access the services created from the data that one has donated, and to be able to access them for free or with high convenience. It doesn't mean anything to be able to just digitalization the digitalization of mobility data, so I think it would be how much data everyone would put on it. I think it would still sound dry to have an incentive design that would lead to data delivery, but I thought it would be better to have a spirit of consideration on it than the rice cake that came with it.

One more point. I believe that the time frame will be an extremely important indicator when creating a roadmap. As Professor Hidaka said, when we need to spread it, we will be able to do quite a lot of things, although nothing will work because there is demand in large cities like area. However, I believe that what is important is transportation in Tokyo and other parts of Japan, so it is important to have a perspective not only on the time frame, which is often used in roadmaps, but also on measures for how to spread it in terms of area, rather than how many years it will be spread. Rather than making decisions at this meeting, I think it is necessary to have such a perspective when expanding it to such sub-committees and working groups.

In terms of technology, it is important to spread a very large operation in automated driving, but if we can cooperate with other transportation operations, including human support, it will be possible to expand the range and types of automated driving services provided not only in mobility but also in places where people drive or drive themselves.

I'm sorry, it's a little long, but these are the considerations I thought in the materials this time.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: . Please come in.

Akimoto: It is very easy to understand by summarizing the points of self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance. I think that if all of these issues are resolved, there will be social implementation, but I feel that the hurdles are very high.

There are three points. First of all, automated driving has a business model in which costs cannot be recovered. It is where to push costs, and how to get public assistance or various kinds of money. And in the case of drones, for example, the cost of aircraft increases rapidly as soon as Level 4 is implemented, and the business model does not work after all. For example, it is more profitable to fly a drones in a place where there is no one around and receive 100,000 yen. Social implementation will probably proceed from such a direction, so I felt that we should not suddenly set a goal at a so-called advanced implementation with high specifications, but should properly create a use cases called advanced social implementation from a simple low-level social in stages. implementation

In this context, as I said earlier, the point is that if we make a implementation for advanced things, the cost will naturally increase, so on the infrastructure side, for example, it is very easy to make a automated driving in a place where there are no people and there are wide roads, and I think it will be a low-level social implementation in which a implementation can be made quickly. If we make a social implementation in a place where there are people and various things are running, it will be very high-spec, and various liability problems will arise. Social implementation will not progress very much, so to some extent, so-called areas, or in the case of drones, areas where social implementation will take place will be designated as A, B, and C in stages. I thought that it would be one way to create an area in which various infrastructures are developed and what can be done with that infrastructure.

As I said earlier, in terms of infrastructure, if the exit point is use cases and whether it will be held in the countryside, in the city, or on the expressway is reflected in the roadmap, I thought that a system like design would be necessary for each use cases.

In addition, I have just mentioned that the business model is not viable and demand is insufficient. You are using various types of data, such as automated driving Bus, to increase efficiency and stimulate demand. I think it will be necessary to forcibly create demand. In particular, I think that one direction is to reduce CO2 emissions, not to drive your own car during the morning rush hour, and if possible, to have a bus company do automated driving, and as a stakeholder, to create a scheme in which conventional operators can properly use automated driving cars to operate their businesses. For example, if it is government agency, use it when commuting, ban commuting by car, and forcibly create demand by cooperating with companies.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: , that it might not have written the story of the cargo properly, or that it might not have written the service scene properly. I thought that it was only automated driving.

But when I think about it, I'm talking about architecture, so I don't have to write about that kind of side story.

When I think about this, I think that what we should aim for is to create a good architecture together, or to discuss the fundamental spirit of the architecture, and then to do it in each place, whether it is public, public, or common.

In that sense, I think it is well written. Unfortunately, I don't write anything about the basic idea of architecture here, so I don't know if it is common sense. But I am not very specialized in it, so when ordinary people read it, it says architecture, but what is it? Then, not only digital data architecture, but also systems are architecture. Or infrastructure, physical things, are originally words from architecture, so they are also great architectures. Then, even though it is all, I thought it would be better to write something that can be done by thinking about everything well, that is magnificent. I thought it would be quite inconsistent with what I am saying if ordinary people start reading it thinking it is digital data architecture.

In addition, when I ask what kind of role each case has, such as Issues 1 and 2, I think that the very specific persuasive material to make people understand that "I see, it would be good to do so," is a sentence that is not so systematic, but is written in an easy-to-understand manner. I think it is very well made.

Therefore, if you all agree that it is such a thing, I thought that it would be easier to understand if the nature of the text and the way of writing were a little more creative. This is my impression.

Go ahead, Izumi-san.

Director of the METI Izumi Office: I would also like to respond to Member I think Mr. Ishida has already pointed out what I should comment on. First of all, in 3. (1), I understand that the meaning of architecture in the words "mutual Issue correlations and architecture" is "architecture in the sense of the division of roles between the public and private sectors to realize a structure in which the government invests firmly in infrastructure and society or industry is revitalized."

In that case, if we discuss from Issue, it tends to be a limited discussion about the elderly. However, if we can realize a really good system, for example, a system in which young people can live sustainably in rural areas and can live in remote work and other places as well as in cities, it will be a good city for the elderly. In terms of such a sense of the whole, I think that the architecture here is written to firmly consider the division of roles between the public and private sectors toward the goal of improving the lives of the people, industries, and the people by investing in infrastructure by the government.

When these ideas are segmented into architecture and design ideas at the bottom of page 6, I understand that the context has changed to a discussion of how infrastructure will change in the digital age.

To be more specific, as I wrote around Point 2, the content that has been discussed in the form of next-generation ITS or next-generation ITS has been hidden by the word intelligent, but in short, it was a way of a reactive system for physics in which individual cars react to the color of a signal, or react because a bicycle is approaching or a person is running out. From this way of being, the development of generating better behavior by incorporating a prediction structure, such as saving power based on a prediction structure by storing data, is easy to understand when I think the expression "Muri and Muda" that President Saito said is easy to understand. The transition from physical reactions to a data-based prediction structure, which is to pursue a better structure using data, is easy to understand when it is read in the form that the I of ITS up to now is transition to something in the digital age, or is realized by data-centered or data connections. I was reading with understanding.

In this way, regarding the comment that it is specialized in automated driving, in short, it is pointed out that the infrastructure should be considered how it will change, but it is not too individualized to the phenomenon that automated driving vehicles runs on the automated driving vehicles road. As an argument, I interpret that the meaning of the signal will change. I was listening to Commissioner Okamoto's comment that a certain kind of centralized control should be developed, such as railway control, even though individual vehicles move, like traffic signals are railway signals. I think it is important to create a new operator when considering the next ITS or mobility. As part of this examination, I believe that the creation of a new operator is important, such as a provider of mobility services as an MSP, which Commissioner Yamashita was talking about, or an operator of it, or an operator of energy optimization. In the examination, I interpret that there may be a creation of a new player in public assistance or mutual assistance.

The first was in terms of architecture.

Chairman Ishida: , please.

Member of the Hatano Committee: : Mr. Izumi's explanation was very fresh, so I would like to confirm it a little. It is not just Mr. Izumi, but everyone. According to my understanding, Mr. Izumi said that he wanted to conceptually update the conventional mobility by adding new technologies such as digital or information. I think it is probably correct, but in the industry, in the context of automated driving, is there a discussion on updating the mobility I just mentioned? I think the so-called connectivity area has been tried quite a lot, and Mr. Yamashita has made such a presentation before at the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association. In terms of actual movement itself, unfortunately, the operation of mobility itself is only being replaced by machines from people, and my understanding is that it has not yet reached the point of update at all.

Fortunately, as a first step, I believe it is important to change the subject from people to machines. In that sense, I believe that mechanization is becoming acceptable from the perspective of regulation and systems.

On the other hand, in this summary of issues, from the perspective of feasibility on the business side, if we take it as a burden on the participating operators, as a result of being able to do something close to unmanned operation, the participating operators are unexpectedly required to bear extremely high technologies and a large amount of capital investment. As it is partly expressed in this document, we would like to take the opportunity to review, review, or optimize the inconsistency in the fact that unmanned operation will increase the burden, even though it should be more efficient. I hope that we will be able to obtain an efficient means of mobility so that the mobility itself can be updated as soon as possible, as Mr. Izumi mentioned. Toward that end, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association is currently working on it.

From the perspective of public assistance and mutual assistance, in short, there is an expectation that such a disproportionate burden will be leveled by balancing each other who share the transportation society. However, I hope that this will not be solved by a strange thing like a automated driving with a person in it, but that we can dig a little deeper into the optimal arrangement of roles and responsibilities.

In addition, although this is outside my area, I have heard that there have been a large number of entries into delivery apps and ride-hailing apps recently, and that these apps have also made a moderate amount of revenue. The key point here is that it is not the case that the soba restaurant that provides delivery services is using the app for less than the amount of the app, and is using the app for less than the amount of its own money, but the app has revenue, and the soba restaurant maintains the previous revenue as it is, and what is happening is that the customer is paying extra money, so it is not a scheme to make it more and more reasonable, but it is a paradigm change by updating, and I personally think that it is good to review the concept of individual burden one more time, although this is not the opinion of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, so I thought that it would be very good to discuss the update from such a perspective.

Chairman Ishida: .

Go ahead.

Mr. Murakami: Thank you, Mr. . They are very much involved in the essence, so there are two parts, one is to obtain our will, and the other is to talk about it briefly. To be honest, if I talk about it both ways, it is because we are Digital Agency that it depends on the automated driving. If only mobility services themselves are to be discussed in a flat manner, it is not the job of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, or the National Police Agency. It is generally said why Digital Agency is involved in such discussions. In fact, the order in Kasumigaseki is important, so if it should be conducted only from the perspective of mobility policy, we should not be too intrusive.

First of all, ITS has become a technology that can be put to practical use, but if I were to say that it would not become a project, I would say that it is not impossible to understand that you, who built Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap, are continuing to do so.

However, the discussion that is now taking place is, to put it bluntly, I heard a good word from Mr. Hatano about updating mobility digitally, but I think that if we go to the end, we will enter into the point that things themselves cannot be solved unless we share data architecture, considering both business and technology. That is what Mr. Suda said, and it is fine to point out, but where do we solve various trade-offs? I think that the point that you made is that if you organize it, the emo parts will disappear. I think that is what Mandala is like in the world, and I think that it is probably good architecture to arrange Issue that do not match like mountains and pop out in the midst of snarling, but I think we are entering a phase in which we actually have to create such things.

Conversely, Mr. Yamashita, I really agree that it would be boring to split up the issue into Issue. But in the end, as a government official, I would like to focus on this issue, and I would like to know which department and which division will solve the issue. Otherwise, I will not be able to work at Kasumigaseki, so I will have to do it somewhere. Today, I received a good suggestion about what it is like to update mobility digitally, and I think it would be good if I could write more about it. If we could share the nuance of this well with each ministry, why we are talking about mobility in digital Priority plan, what is the Digi-cho leading in this, and how the factorized issue will be related to the study that each ministry and agency is trying to advance. So, what did Mr. Ishida think, but when I looked back, I saw that it was well done. Mr. Izumi explained it, and Mr. Hatano expressed it as a realization. If I could write more about it, I would be able to see many common points. I would like to ask the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, the National Police Agency, and the Cabinet Office to take a look at it and give us their comments. They do not represent the ministry.

Director of the Hayashi Office of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: My name is Hayashi, and I am in charge of the Office of the Automobile Bureau of the automated driving Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Thank you very much for your various opinions today. I, personally, I think I was able to hear very useful opinions.

Our department is currently in charge of demonstration experiments and other areas, and it is difficult to make proposals at a considerably higher level, such as discussions on architecture. However, what I feel is that first of all, we are struggling with how to create a safe and secure place where people can ride with peace of mind on what is running. Unless we use actual examples of running, area people cannot understand where it is safe, where it is safe, and where it is not safe. So, we need to firmly build in such things. If we do so, area's social acceptance and area's understanding will advance, and we will finally be able to discuss business and receive opinions from various people. I would like to firmly support such efforts.

However, I am sorry to say that I have not yet caught up with the issue of how to enhance social acceptance in this regard, but I have once again felt that I would like to advance with the cooperation of people in local government so that we can firmly promote a system that can be used by elderly people in a safe and secure manner, while being fully aware of this. This is my comment.

Chairman Ishida: , please take your turn.

Kazuga, Director of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: My name is Kazuga from the Road Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

I myself have not yet been able to fully understand the concept of architecture itself. In the discussion after Dr. Ishida, I felt that there was a lack of perspective or thought.

However, there are still some points that we are not fully aware of, so I would like to ask you to organize these points and move to the Working Group to discuss them. However, since we do not see the output or the figure, I feel that it is necessary to connect them a little.

In practical terms, the term "time frame" was mentioned in the road map, but I thought it was necessary to know when and what kind of shape we would aim for and what we would do. In particular, as the members said, when it comes to infrastructure, how is it different from infrastructure in the digital age, but when infrastructure is considered to be the same development as before, it takes time. In such a case, it is necessary to make adjustments while taking into account the outlook of what will happen with technological breakthroughs, including on the vehicle side, and what will be done in this regard is what the infrastructure side is concerned about.

In addition, Mr. Ishida has given us various opinions. He said that Level 4 is technically possible, but social implementation is quite difficult when considered as a set with a business model. He asked if Level 2 could be used well. How does that apply in this context? In short, I may assume that it is the final form, but what does automated driving mean? When considering a business model at Level 4, I think it is necessary to consider when it will be, and if it is difficult to reach it soon, what steps will be taken to get there.

I just wanted to say that I had an impression of that.

Chairman Ishida: ?

This is Shimokawa of the mobility Service Promotion Division, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

I believe that you said that consideration should be given not only to automated driving but also to MaaS and new mobility services, and that the entire area public transportation should consider this. As you know, it is difficult for business operators to maintain services due to the need for public transportation redesign in area, so we would like to consider this in cooperation with other fields while utilizing what we can newly obtain, and I believe that this is exactly what we received in this study group.

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism will establish the Re-Design Conference, and I would like to proceed in cooperation with that.

That's all from me.

Chairman Ishida: .

Going back to this flow, Izumi-san, please.

Director of the METI Izumi Office: I would also like to respond to Member Hatano. As an important element of the architecture, I would like to make a detailed point, but in Issue 1-2, I think it is very important to sort out the road concept, which Mr. Ishida has been saying for a long time. If we take this in the form of a certain kind of urban design and consensus building with residents on the urban design, I think it will be connected with discussions in Europe and other countries.

When this road concept is organized, it becomes a discussion of Issue 1-1, driving conditions, driving environment conditions, and on-demand in that case. This is also important in the sense that the overall concept beyond each province hangs on the concept of a digital garden city. In particular, Japan is a special situation in the form of being long and narrow and having many mountainous areas, and I interpret that it is necessary to think differently from Europe and the United States, which have a lot of flat land. This is a kind of architectural paraphrase.

In considering this in detail, I mentioned earlier that architecture is the division of roles between public and private investment. As an analogy, as I said last time, it is like the German Autobahn. The government will lay down expressways without speed limits, and the private sector will development cars that can run stably on expressways without speed limits. Through this division of roles, good infrastructure and strong industries will coexist and prosper. It is not a good policy for us to stick our hands into such a place, saying that we are good industries. My personal preference is that the public sector should invest firmly in infrastructure and the private sector should be strong in competitive areas.

In that case, from the perspective of solving the Issue of legacy infrastructure by strategic digital infrastructure construction, isn't the viewpoint of architecture the idea of improving the Issue of inefficiency due to a certain type of population decline by adding a new digital infrastructure to the infrastructure when technology becomes advanced? The comment on architecture is that automated driving can be achieved not only because AI and the like have been developed, but also because infrastructure with instant or low delay due to high-speed communication has been developed, and there is a certain aspect of the fusion of IT and OT.

I am Ito, Director of mobility DX, Automobile Division, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. I am very grateful that Digital Agency will sort out the current Issue in a cross-sectional manner and determine the needs, including infrastructure.

You said earlier that you would update the infrastructure and update mobility itself, and that is very important, so I would like to do that. One thing is from an international perspective. Eiheiji Temple was launched at Level 4 in May this year, and if you look overseas, there is a considerable amount of robotaxis already running. This is because there is a difference like this under the situation where the infrastructure is not necessarily updated, so I think it is important to thoroughly analyze this first, and this is our own Issue, so I think we must firmly consider how to connect this to strengthening the competitiveness of the Japanese automobile industry.

From that perspective, I believe that data cooperation will lead to where we will capture value and where we will earn value in the future, and I believe it is extremely important. METI is also conducting various MaaS activities, and we are working to commercialize MaaS by connecting it with travel data, which is currently based on hypotheses, so it is spreading to energy management. Therefore, AIST is collecting data on EV energy management through the GI Fund (Green Innovation Fund), and we are discussing how to utilize the data. From that perspective, I hope we can work together.

That's all.

Counsellor, National Police Agency, Ikeuchi: My name is Ikeuchi, and I am Counsellor, National Police Agency, , and I am in charge of ITS and automated driving. Thank you for your valuable discussion today.

In terms of architecture, I don't understand all of it, but in terms of self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance, I understand that architecture is to create a mechanism that can be used optimally, develop, and create a business model by creating a mechanism that can share the burden of automated driving, MaaS, and mobility in the whole society in cooperative areas and competitive areas.

I think it is important to sort out the basic concept. From the perspective of the police, their work is very steady and they are moving forward step by step. In automated driving, as Commissioner Hatano mentioned earlier, I think we have been thinking about replacing what human drivers have been doing in the regulation of existing roads with machines. We have also been revising the law based on the idea of what should be done with traffic rules to respond to such a situation, and a permission system for specified automatic operation has been created and enforced.

I believe that you will create a road map by embodying this basic concept. As several people have said, if you could draw a picture of where and what kind of services will be introduced, it would be easier for the police to think about things. Traffic rules cannot be updated overnight, so we would like to think about the necessary regulation while drawing a concrete picture.

Chairman Ishida: , then, Kimura-san, please.

I am Kimura of the Science, Technology and Innovation Promotion Secretariat of the Cabinet Office. I am in charge of promoting the construction of the Smart mobility Platform for SIP under PD Ishida.

This time, as a study group for the road map, we were able to summarize the points of discussion, and thank you very much for your valuable opinions.

In addition, there were various discussions in the course of compiling the Smart mobility Platform's Research and development Plan, and I see that the main points of those discussions are included in this document. You have already mentioned our efforts in the draft of this document, and I would like to obtain the positioning of these specific efforts in the consideration of the roadmap.

As Director-General Murakami mentioned earlier, I heard that this roadmap will be compiled from the perspective of how to realize automated driving. In fact, the Smart mobility Platform itself is not limited to automated driving, but how to sustainably introduce mobility in area, and automated driving technology will be one of the methods to be considered. I believe that there are always points of contact, so I would like to fully cooperate with you.

In addition, there were opinions from various ministries and agencies today. Generally speaking, since it is the Smart mobility Platform and SIP, I think there are very many parts that we can cooperate with each ministry and agency in the course of considering the roadmap. I would like to ask for your cooperation.

Chairman Ishida: .

In closing, I would like to ask if Ms. Masuko Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Director of the Office of Foreign Affairs, is available.

Masuko Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Director: This is Masuko from Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, . I'm sorry to bother you from online.

I think the concept of updating mobility is very good. However, when I think about what the purpose of updating mobility is, in the end, when I think about what kind of transportation means the people will use, that is, a portfolio of transportation means, and what will be put into it as a new thing, automated driving will come in, and I think that mobility Update will be created as an infrastructure to support it.

In the world of telecommunications, I think it is at the very beginning of its development. In contrast to the iPhone, I think it is at the same time that something like an electronic notebook has appeared. In that sense, until it becomes something like the iPhone and becomes popular in the world, cutting-edge technology will wither, or become a commodity, or cost will be lowered through mass production, which will lead to it becoming a means that everyone can use.

For that purpose, I believe that we need to properly update mobility and Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications's means of communication.

Another point I would like to mention from my experience in communications is that I don't think I need to be too particular about what I will do in the future. In the world of communications, for example, 3G mobile phones appeared around 2000, and it was actually videophone that was considered to be the killer application at that time. But I don't think you have much memory of using videophone. However, the environment in which mobile phones are equipped with cameras and high-speed data communication is, as a result, widely used by everyone in the form of video mail.

In the world of mobility, I think it is also good to be like this. Not only do we have to use automated driving buses and trucks, but we may be able to combine them with the self-driving cars of the current owners and come up with something new. In that sense, I think it is important to work on things that will come up often without being so particular about them in order to create a better transportation society.

In any case, for the mobility Update, the communication environment will be the base for Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, so I would like to make it firmly. The main thing is that in the area of mobile phones, in addition to the infrastructure development, including roads, we will make steady efforts to allocate additional frequencies for ITS at 5.9 GHz, so I would like to ask for your continued support.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

In closing, may I speak to Mr. Muramatsu, who is participating online from the middle of the meeting? If he has any comments, I would like to ask him to do so.

MURAMATSU Member: I am Muramatsu of the Robofre Organization. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this initiative.

As we have discussed so far, among the design of architecture, mutual assistance, public assistance, and self-help, I think the roles played by public assistance and mutual assistance are quite large, so I would like to continue our cooperation. Thank you very much.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

I think all of you who are attending today have spoken.

Go ahead.

Mr. Hasui: Thank you, Mr. .

I thought that a killer word would come out somewhere and killer contents would come out, so I thought that it would be architecture, but to be honest, I haven't been able to get down on architecture. As you all say, people from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry may not be able to say such a thing, but in architecture, as you said earlier, what is digital Issue, including non-digital parts, and recently I have finally started to study what programs are, but words such as hierarchical structure and structure have come up. Such words have come up in the previous discussion, and perhaps until now, for example, if a car is made, demand for it will grow rapidly, and it will be a world where someone will eat it, but it will not be so, and the population will rather decrease, as President Saito commented, against the fact that there are various surpluses, gaps, and wastefulness, when I think about how to consider the whole world with solutions, including them, the order of the hierarchical structure will change, I think, but I have just done it.

I understand that how we can create such a way will be a bigger discussion at the working group in the future, and I understand that we must work hard to update this paper.

.

Mr. Murakami: Thank you, Mr. .

After this, while I would like to leave the matter to the chairman to decide, I would like to briefly talk about what I thought I would add in this direction, and although it will no longer be held in the form of a conference, I would like to once again hear your comments, including those from each ministry.

The first is that I cannot imagine the time frame without a standard, including my own opinion, so I will write about it after I explain it to you and obtain your understanding. The biggest reason why I decided to do this was that it was proposed to do it in 100 places in 2027, and I thought that if I did it in 100 places as it is now, there would be only three places left in the next fiscal year. Therefore, assuming that one benchmark was done in 100 places in 2027, how many places will be left in three years will be quite a challenge for the administration, so I think that is why I think there is such a thing.

In 2027, after 100 places started in some way, we will look at the situation and if necessary, we will revise the rules in earnest. If there is a necessary revision of the rules to launch 100 places by then, I think it is a market feeling that we will go to a sandbox or a special district, so if you feel uncomfortable, please let me know.

The second point is that I am very afraid to add a few points of discussion other than the commercialization of autonomous driving, but since you pointed out a lot, I would like to ask you to allow me to expand the focus and make a balanced description of the issues that should be discussed head-on by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the National Police Agency, while taking care not to violate national airspace.

Finally, I would like to talk about the tactics of the description. I will tell you three points, but it is very easy to understand that Mr. Izumi said that in the Showa period, there were good infrastructure and strong industry. What is happening is that there are three things: good infrastructure, strong industry, and demand with understanding. To put it the other way around, in order to successfully absorb society, which is declining in population and requires new investment, probably more diverse players are simply supported by public assistance and the automobile industry, which is equal to drivers and services. I think that is why the investment cycle went around when the population increased, but in order to maintain the scale of domestic industry itself in a state where the population is decreasing and the scale of domestic industry is probably shrinking, it is necessary to draw a picture by involving all people, including how the Social welfare Corporation treats drivers from the beginning. That is why I think there is a discussion of a layer like mutual assistance. That is the first point. I would like to say that mutual assistance or drawing involving various players is necessary.

Second, if that is the case, as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is also in the country, there should be no shortage of roads. So far, I think that the government, prefectures, and cities, as well as agricultural roads in some cases, have had to stand in front of the system. This time, unless we consider the road concept organized from the demand side, whether or not to make it a system, at least the problem will not be solved in order to involve various players. In other words, in each road concept layered from the demand side, some kind of data architecture will probably create something to smell of. I don't know if I can write such a thing, but that's the second point.

Finally, my third point is that Dr. Suda says that the keyword "safe" cannot be removed from mobility, but on the other hand, I think that the characteristic is whether or not the social acceptance of trial and error will be raised to some extent. I think that the issue is whether or not finance will really follow as a project behind the scenes. Simply saying that we should raise social acceptance probably does not mean anything because we do not get finance. On the other hand, relying on safety and zero accidents are not zero, but if people who want to use it to run a project do not follow, it is probably a failure in terms of social acceptance. I think that is probably the same thing. In particular, the National Police Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade may be difficult to say. If there is any part that Digital Agency can help those who are responsible for the system, I think it is a part of how to make a gap in social acceptance and total rearrangement of such parts. I think that I will try to be creative to the extent that I will not be fired.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: I really think so. I think it is a strange country that the government will not allow anything to be done by the government unless it receives 100 points from the opening day and is sold out. I strongly believe that it is impossible, so I would like to say.

I had a really good discussion today. I myself think that my understanding of architecture has improved a lot. Thank you very much.

In addition, I would like to say something. What we should aim for is the same as Mr. Hatano, but we will fundamentally update mobility services by digital. To that end, I understand that architecture is a basic policy that seriously considers various ways of engagement under the grand policy and grand strategy on a case-by-case basis.

In addition to digital data, we need to understand how to use the huge common asset of the road network, which Mr. Izumi was grateful for. In addition, we need to talk about how to coordinate based on our way of life, for example, how to improve travel speed and transfer. Or in terms of freight, there is a problem that a food company never uses the T11 pallet because it does not fit the size of its factory. If possible, we will call on them to do so. Then, we will make good products while taking into consideration that various benefits will come out in various places.

However, it is not something that anyone can create by God, so I believe that you have reconfirmed today that you will work hard in each place after understanding the basic strategy, the main policy, and the philosophy. In addition, I believe that you will make this proposal in an easy-to-understand manner on the important points, and that the power of architecture can be demonstrated properly. Although we have to make it in a short time, I would appreciate if you could give us a lot of opinions to the Secretariat, and then leave the creation of the draft to me and the Secretariat.

Before the announcement, I would like to send an e-mail, but I would like to confirm it. I would be grateful if I could proceed in that way. Today, I spent a little more time than usual, but this is the final discussion.

I really learned a lot and I think I had a good discussion. In that sense, I am very grateful to many people. Thank you very much.

Counsellor Asayama: Dear , thank you very much for your very valuable opinions today.

Today is the last day, but I would like to ask for your continued cooperation, although I have learned a lot from your intensive discussions about two months from the end of May, and I think it will be difficult to summarize the results from now on.

This is the end of this Study Group, but as the Working Group starts full-scale operations from the beginning of autumn, I would like to continue to receive advice from the members of this Study Group on the points that cannot be discussed by the Working Group. Therefore, I would like to continue to receive your opinions and cooperation on how to proceed as a whole.

In addition, I would like to ask each ministry to participate in the last two meetings and listen to the discussions directly. I would also like to ask for your continued cooperation in making the Road Map more solid.

Thank you very much for your time today.

End