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 sixth workshop on the "Mobility Roadmap"

Last Updated:

Overview

  • Date and time: August 9, 2023 (Wed) 15:00 to 17:00
  • Place: Kioi Conference Seminar Room A, 4th floor, Tokyo Garden Terrace Kioi-cho (used online)
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Contents
      • "Secretariat Summary"
    3. Closing

Meeting video

The meeting is available on YouTube (Digital Agency's official channel).

Material

Minutes

Director Asayama: Now, we are going to hold the 6th "Study Group on the Ideal of the' Mobility Roadmap'".

As in the past, this study group is conducting a live streaming. Also, please note that after the meeting, the recording will be released on Digital Agency's website.

Today, unlike the past five study meetings, the topic of discussion will be the summary. The topics are fewer, but we expect that the content and discussions will be wide-ranging, so we are planning to spend two hours. Thank you for your attention today.

First of all, I would like to say a few words from Mr. Murakami of Director-General, Group of Service for Citizens, Digital Agency. Thank you.

Director-General Murakami: Thank you for Today, I would like to have a lot of talk from everyone, and there are less than 10 explanatory materials. This will be the last time for the study group. I will also report to Minister Kono, and finally, I will create a mobility working group under Meeting for the Promotion of a Digital Society, and the work there will be directly linked to the Cabinet decision. I think we will move to this stage.

However, as I mentioned at the end, the CSTI (Cabinet Office Council for Science, Technology and Innovation), the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) are all working on cross-ministerial frameworks, so I would like to comprehensively describe all the issues in the roadmap, but I would rather prioritize the bulky parts of each ministry and coordinate them in the Cabinet decision.

However, as you are participating today, at that time, I would like to ask you to leave it to the chairman, including the terminology, because I would like to make it comfortable when I submit it after receiving a lot of opinions today, and I would like to make it out to the world after coordinating with each ministry on what is good if it is this expression, even if it is a point of discussion.

To put it the other way around, I would like to ask for your frank opinions today, and I would like to proceed with the creation of a roadmap in a pleasant manner, so I would like to have frank discussions.

That's all.

Director Asayama: , I have asked the chair to handle the proceedings from now on. I would like to ask Professor Ishida. Thank you in advance.

Chairman Ishida: I look forward to working with you today as well. As Mr. Murakami has just mentioned, today we are focused on discussions.

Now, I would like to ask you to explain today's main topic, the draft report.

Director Asayama: Now, the secretariat will explain the materials.

Handout 4 is a draft report compiled by the study group. Although the amount is quite small, with about nine papers, we would like to enrich it based on what we discussed today, so we would like you to discuss it.

First, the overall structure is composed of three parts. The first page is "Background and Objectives," and the flow of discussions so far is summarized in about three pages. Next, on page 4, the secretariat's analysis of the reasons why autonomous driving has not been developed as a business is summarized. And on page 6, based on this analysis, what specific discussions should be conducted by the working group in the future is raised as a point of discussion.

Then, I will explain in order.

Please take a look at page 1. Based on the public-private ITS concept and roadmap, and with the efforts of each ministry and agency, we have been working on system reform and technological development, and as a result, operation services utilizing autonomous driving technology have started all over Japan.

However, many of these initiatives rely on special road environments suitable for autonomous driving and are still in the demonstration stage, and I recognize that there are still many issues to be addressed in terms of whether they are established as a business or an industry. Given this situation, in fiscal 2022, we conducted a study group on the ideal digital transportation society and compiled a report that two perspectives will be important in the future.

The two points of view are as written here, but in terms of driving automatic driving, I think we should consider not only the supply-side point of view, but also the actual demand-side issues in an integrated manner. That is one of the points I summarized.

In addition, from the viewpoint of the supply side, we have summarized that we should consider in the future not only initiatives centered on vehicle technology but also issues of the entire surrounding social system.

Moving on to the second page, we will establish a study group to examine the conditions and measures necessary to establish the business as an industry. The aim of establishing the study group is as I just explained, but there are also things that have become clear through the past five study groups. There are three main points. These are (I), (ii), and (iii). One is that although Japanese society has turned to a decline in population, in order to implement mobility services as a business, it is not possible to do so unless we carefully grasp various demands. In addition, although we have been thinking a lot about it from the standpoint of actual use, the resources on the supply side such as vehicles and drivers are also quite limited, so the point of discussion is that we need to look at on-demand from the demand side 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 way. In addition, although we tend to focus only on passenger traffic, in order to capture various demand, we need to capture not only passenger and cargo traffic, but also demand generated by self-driving vehicles, service robots, and drones. Furthermore, by counting backwards from demand, we have found that we need to firmly work on what kind of service combination is the best.

The third point is that in order to advance such initiatives, it will be essential to make investments in digital infrastructure in the future. In terms of who will bear the cost, it will be necessary to coordinate efforts among participants, self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance.

However, if we sort out these issues, they are not issues that can be solved one by one. As stated below, in particular, these issues are likely to be intricately intertwined, and there are issues that are interdependent and have a trade-off relationship, so it has become clear that we must solve them through the whole.

On the third page, we summarize that these problems will not be solved unless the people concerned share them softly as a big Architecture in terms of business and information. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, in order to include these in the roadmap as measures to be taken by all ministries and agencies working together, from the beginning of autumn, we will revise the Public-Private Sector ITS Initiative and Roadmap and compile the viewpoints and issues necessary to restart it as a mobility roadmap. We would like to hear frank opinions from the members and the ministries and agencies on the points I will explain later.

The main section is from page 4. Page 4 summarizes the current situation and the factors that make it difficult to develop autonomous driving as a business. (1) and (2) are the current situation, and based on that, the factors that make it difficult to develop autonomous driving as a business are summarized in (3). I will omit (1) and (2) a little, but as I have explained so far, regarding Level 4 of autonomous driving, I believe that the basic technology necessary to supply services has already been established. In addition, as a result of various deregulation initiatives promoted by various ministries and agencies, I believe that the physical environment for unmanned vehicles on roads is in place.

However, I have written the current procedures on the ponte paintings that followed, and I am aware that not only autonomous driving but also drones and service robots are technically operable if necessary procedures such as permission to use roads and permission to fly are taken.

However, there are still issues that need to be addressed in order to turn these things into actual services, and they are summarized in (3). As major issues, there are five issues that need to be addressed in order to utilize new technologies for sustainable business. The current status of these five issues is summarized in the "General Assessment of the Current Situation" section below.

Regarding the first issue, the first is whether or not the technology is established enough to be implemented in the real world. Although it is not underlined here, the current autonomous driving has been technically established up to Level 4, and I believe it has been almost completed at this point.

As for B, I would like you to compare it with page 5 in terms of whether or not environmental improvements have been made to apply it in the real world. In order to apply it in the real world, there is a question of whether the prevention of collisions will be handled by the vehicle side or by providing some kind of information from the road side, but I believe that the market price has not been established.

The third point, C, is that there is a continuous need in the real world for the use of this technology, so it has been covered by usage fee revenue until now, but in order to actually operate it, it is important that the need to use it continues. In relation to this, as written at the bottom, in order to use it in hilly and mountainous areas, it is natural that various demands must be captured, so it is necessary to firmly establish a vision of what kind of movement demand in real life will be captured, but at present, there are not necessarily many cases where such a vision has been established.

The fourth point is that the hurdles for introduction (initial costs, etc.) are low. There are quite a few motivated companies, but the introduction costs are very high. In addition, as the demand for public transportation is expected to decline, the number of business operators who can bear the costs themselves is extremely limited, and I believe that we must give careful consideration to this point.

Finally, regarding E, it is important whether or not the running costs are sustainable after the service is actually started, and if this cannot be achieved, whether or not the burden mechanism has been established. This is not just the running costs in the sense of operating costs, but as described in E, if the vehicle side or the operator side assumes all responsibility in the event of an accident, unexpected costs will arise. Therefore, a consensus on social requirements must be firmly obtained, but at present, this point is not always sufficient, and the risks on the vehicle side and the level of technology that must be secured in that case are not always clear, so I wonder if we should carefully consider these points.

Furthermore, other than A to E, as written below, even if we solve only one of these problems, it will not lead to the commercialization of new technologies such as autonomous vehicles, drones, and service robots, so the point is to solve them as one.

Then, I would like to summarize how we will consider this in detail from page 6 onward. There are quite a lot of overlapping descriptions, but as I have explained so far, the issues of self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance are intricately intertwined. Therefore, it is necessary to properly link the relationships of sometimes interdependence and sometimes trade-offs to solve the overall issues. Self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance are intricately intertwined in this way, and I have written examples from (I) to (vi) below. For example, in (I), support for the initial introduction cost of vehicles, which is in the lower left of the punch picture above, when we talk about the degree of support for this part, of course, it is related to the degree of efforts to ensure the business of self-help, and we have to consider the "off-balance of vehicle initial costs" as indicated by the arrow above in an integrated manner.

In addition, as I have given several examples from (ii) to (vi), various elements work together and lead to efforts to ensure the viability of the project. Therefore, as a whole, it has become extremely important to share the concept of Architecture and its design, as well as the issues and measures to be taken at each level of business, information, and technology. This point has been confirmed in the discussions of the study group so far.

We have to consider these issues comprehensively, but when we consider each issue individually, we first need to sort out what issues there are for self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance, and what issues we need to consider in the future. These issues are summarized from page 7. In the "Outline of each issue," we have set out three issues for self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance.

First of all, regarding self-help, as Point 1-1, without lowering the cost of introducing vehicles, autonomous driving will not spread easily, so I will summarize the issues for specific recommendations and the points that need to be considered in the future. In particular, as for the first point, depending on what level of service level is required, how much performance is required for the vehicle will change. Of course, if the level required for the vehicle is low, the introduction cost will decrease, so in general, what level of service level is required must be clarified, and it is necessary to reduce the actual introduction cost, which is a big point of discussion.

Also, the second item 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 grant support, but we need to carefully consider the system design for such a place.

Point 1-2 is "visualization and creation of demand." As I mentioned earlier, demand will inevitably taper off, but there is still more hidden demand. By categorizing roads to organize the concept of roads, what kind of traffic demand will be generated on which roads, and by optimizing means, whether service cars can secure demand and whether services centered on owner cars will run, by clarifying demand, I think we can capture new demand, so I think we need to carefully consider this as well. It is written in the second page, but I think we need to carefully consider how to visualize demand related to each road and how to convert it into data, and by aggregating where and what kind of traffic and logistics demand is there, depending on the situation, we need to discuss how to develop a customer attraction system and how to create demand by combining freight and passenger.

Issues 1-3 are, if anything, in the area of self-help, which may be considered by business operators, but for those who have invested, I think we need to consider measures that can recover the investment by making the business run permanently. In relation to Issues 1-2, when each business operator or each local government examines a business model, I think we need to provide solid support so that we can include as a model how finance should be based on the social impact of visualizing where hidden beneficiaries are located, making it easier to recover investment costs, and reducing medical expenses for the elderly by autonomous driving.

In order to recover the investment cost, it is also important to raise the operation rate. As I have been saying, by clarifying the areas where demand is generated, we will intensively invest resources. Although it is written as "on-demand", it is important that each person's on-demand is also important, but it is very important to understand where the demand is generated from the perspective of the business operator in on-demand.

In addition, the phrase "night operation" is an example. In the case of night operation, labor costs are very high. If it is possible to create a business model that recovers investment costs by transporting cargo and other goods that are not in a hurry to places where labor costs are high, I would like to raise the issue of whether such a business model should be considered.

Regarding the issue of mutual assistance, I would like to mention Point 2-1, "development of infrastructure in collaboration between the public and private sectors or between the public and private sectors." In particular, there are two types of control methods for autonomous driving: autonomous and cooperative control. In the case of cooperative control, it would be more efficient to consider sharing the existing public utility infrastructure and utilizing it for autonomous driving, rather than simply transmitting electricity or communicating, and I believe this is a matter that should be considered as a common area.

I would like to turn one page into eight pages. As I have just mentioned hardware, it is important who maintains the software information necessary for autonomous driving. For example, in the case of autonomous driving, high-precision map information is required, and I believe that the point of discussion will be whether it is OK to leave this to business operators, whether it is not more efficient to maintain it together, whether the public sector will provide some information, and how to solve the problem together.

The second point is "realization of coordinated control and operation." There are several points written here. For example, the fourth point is to strengthen the use of public data for operation management, such as accident record data. At first glance, it does not seem to have much to do with this, but if we know in advance where an accident will occur, it will be possible to reduce the operation speed a little at that point. Therefore, I think we need to give careful consideration to the data aspect of coordinated control.

As for the fifth point, the ideal way of decentralized cooperative control is a very important point. If there are people involved, it will spread to the fact that the person in charge of operation management has to take responsibility in the event of an accident at the end. Therefore, we have to think carefully about the ideal way of mobility that does not involve people under normal circumstances. In order to disperse concentrated risks, we need to consider the ideal way of decentralized cooperative control as a point of discussion in the future.

Regarding Point 2-3, which is slightly related to Point 1-2, I have set up several points on how to organize and share data on the demand side in order to grasp and create demand. In particular, Point 5, the provision of services according to individual needs and the development of infrastructure are important, but if it is too much due to individual needs, it will be a problem that the actual supplier cannot supply it easily, so from the perspective of grasping and creating demand, I think we need to firmly discuss the ideal way of data, security at that time, and governance.

Lastly, I would like to mention the points of discussion as a public assistant (public role). There are many overlapping points, but it is difficult to determine the level of service without a decision by the side that plays a public role. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to discuss what should be in the future, such as forming a consensus on mobility services that utilize new technologies, sharing good examples of safety levels if there are any, and whether we need to firmly establish such points.

In terms of Issues 3-2 and 3-3, I would like to raise several issues that we need to support the issues I have explained so far from a public standpoint, or create an environment in which it is easier to participate and operate as a business through deregulation and other means as a system.

As an example of public support for Point 3-2, I would like to discuss how to support the financing of the initial introduction cost of vehicles and others, especially the initial cost ona, and how to reduce the burden on vehicles while developing infrastructure in the case of cooperative control, which is not a direct support, and how far we should respond to the road environment on the premise of the new rules of social responsibility, which is mentioned in the last part.

Point 3-3 is about indirect support, so how much responsibility should be given to the vehicle side? In addition, if there is a person who actually caused an accident or was involved in an accident, for example, if there is a person lying on the road, it may be a problem to give responsibility to the vehicle side. Therefore, I think we need to carefully consider how the responsibility boundary should be.

As I explained quickly, on page 9, I summarize a few things that we need to pay attention to when proceeding with such considerations. When we look at these issues as a whole, it comes out that we need to consider the issues as a multiplication. However, we received some opinions that it is important to consider the issues as a whole and consider catalytic elements while aggregating them, rather than increasing the issues and responses as a multiplication.

As for the "way of future consideration," which is written in (3) below, in order to finally formulate the Mobility Roadmap 2024, a new Mobility Working Group will be established under the Digital Society Initiative Council. Based on the opinions I have received, I would like to revise the issues that I have just raised in this Roadmap, but I would like to include them in the Roadmap while firmly grasping the direction of specific solutions in line with these issues, who will independently consider them, and what matters should be considered in common support.

As stated in Director-General's address, not all of these considerations will be considered by Digital Agency, and various ministries and agencies have already done so. I have listed several examples here, and while including the results of such considerations, I would like to lead to the resolution of issues as a whole.

The above is the explanation of the document, but it is still a draft, and I believe that the points of discussion will be decided based on your opinions, so I would appreciate your opinions and discussions.

That's all for the explanation.

Chairman Ishida: .

Before the discussion, I received written opinions from Committee Members Saito and Koshizuka, who were absent from the meeting today. Could you please introduce them to me?

Director Asayama: Next, I would like to introduce the comments I have received from the two members. I would like to summarize and explain it, but if there are any missing points, I would like to add them.

First of all, Mr. Saito gave us three main opinions.

First of all, regarding the roadmap this time, we received your opinion that we should consider optimizing social systems with the aim of solving social issues such as using data to eliminate excess, unevenness, and waste in society on the demand side. Specifically, we received your opinion that we should also consider from the perspective that it will lead to reducing energy, food loss, and waste for carbon neutrality. We received your opinion that if we return the part of social costs that will decrease in this way to new costs, it may revitalize business.

Second, we received an opinion that the working group should also consider building a database for managing and operating mobility that handles real data for visualization and understanding.

Lastly, in order to improve the efficiency of public and private sector operations related to mobility, in other words, to reduce the costs of various management operations and infrastructure operation and maintenance by utilizing various types of private sector data, we would like to include the systemization of infrastructure management and operation for mobility-related operations as a point of discussion.

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

First of all, regarding the summary of the study group this time, I received your opinion that there are not many references to mobility other than autonomous driving. Then, how to expand it should be the main focus of the discussion, and how to write about things other than autonomous driving and how to establish a new vision should be emphasized.

Specifically, on page 1 of Handout 4, there are new viewpoints to be considered in Viewpoints 1 and 2. However, in Viewpoint 2, it was pointed out that there were issues that were not discussed in light of capturing demand-side issues, life scenes, and issues of the surrounding social system as a whole, and we received your opinion that these should be considered together.

In addition to autonomous driving, from a broader perspective, one of the characteristics of transportation in Japan has been self-help services by private companies. However, with the declining population, this has reached its limit. There is an extreme opinion that all local transportation should be run by the government. It was pointed out that discussions should be held in line with the demand in the transportation sector and what the structure should be.

All in all, there is only talk about autonomous driving, so I believe that we should expand the discussion to other areas.

As for how to summarize, from page 4 to page 5 of the handout, there are five major issues, and the issues from A to E are listed. As for the evaluation, what is written on page 5 is not necessarily the same. Based on the actual issues, this general evaluation part should be explored a little more carefully.

For example, in E, sustainable running costs are described as an issue, but in the evaluation, safety is mentioned, and it is a little difficult to understand, so it is said that it should be made clear so that it can be understood. Below that, in 3 (1), the punch picture, there is an opinion that the previous 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 when it is actually announced, it is said that these points should be summarized in an easy-to-understand manner.

With regard to Points 1-2 of the detailed discussion, we received many opinions on the visualization and creation of demands. We believe that data-driven demand-side needs should be well developed. In particular, demand-driven demand-side needs should be visualized, and demand-driven demand-side needs in other fields should also be visualized. The allocation of vehicles and resources to demand-driven demand-side needs can only be visualized. On the other hand, in the case of physical distribution, demand-driven demand-side needs arise from individual households, so it is not enough to simply visualize the demand-driven demand-side needs. In this regard, we received opinions that scheduling and optimizing physical distribution using AI should be thoroughly discussed.

Also, if it is difficult for mobility alone to be established as a business, it is important to increase demand including in other fields such as medical care, so we should change the perspective of mobility and include redesigning in the discussion.

In terms of data collaboration infrastructure, as it is a key infrastructure for new mobility, it is important to widely collaborate with data from various fields. In doing so, the time frame and the concept of burden are important, and finally, the way of cooperation is to gradually shift data development from public entities, and I am asking whether it is necessary to firmly consider that point.

Lastly, in general, you pointed out the missing points. You suggested that the missing points, such as the perspective of disaster prevention, should be discussed more.

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

Chairman Ishida: . Please come in.

Director-General Murakami: Thank you for I would like to present three points of view that I hope you will discuss from such an angle, so I would appreciate your comments in any order.

First of all, this report is a short report, but the logic was put out in order to make it relatively clear. Everyone stopped at the point where the story that the demand density will decrease due to the population decrease and the investment of new technology are different. For that, I think it is necessary to come up with a service system that calculates backward from the demand using data.

However, when we try to realize it, the issues at various layers of self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance are interdependent and trade-offs. How should we tie them together? The flow of logic is that we will make a roadmap. I think it is written relatively clearly, but after all, if each ministry and agency does not get mad at the logic that they agree with, they will ask why they are lined up like this, so the first question is whether this logic is good.

The second point is very simple. It is listed in bullet points, but I would like you to add whether there is any excess or deficiency in the points of discussion. I will coordinate with each ministry and agency a little bit, and when I see the points of discussion, when I actually publish them, if possible, I would like to add a punch picture or something like that to each point of discussion, and I would like to publish them collectively as if there are such issues. However, there is nothing I can do if I am not satisfied with the expression and content of each point of discussion, so I am presenting them at this stage today.

I think the last point is a point of view to use the head of the brain the most, but when I put it out as an issue like this, I feel that it is easy to understand or natural. For example, in the last point, Professor Koshizuka's opinion was a tactical and strategic theory that A times B, B times C, and C times A will continue to diverge unless a catalyst like N to 1 to M is set somewhere. Also, although it is not written very clearly, in the past, when the population increases and tax revenues increase, I think that public support should be provided as much as possible. I would like to use the market mechanism as much as possible. If we narrow down the points that the public should focus on, where should we focus on? 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 will move because market ability will move as long as standards are properly decided? It is like how to use the market.

Also, as I mentioned at the end of the last report, there is a desire to share information effectively in various aspects. On the other hand, there is also the question of how easy it is to share information. What kind of motivation should be given to promote information sharing when it is necessary? In fact, I think that there is a kind of logic behind the big points 1, 2, and 3. If we don't do this, we can make many points and discuss them one by one, but I don't think we will be able to come to an answer. So, I would appreciate it if you could give me some suggestions from the perspective of what the underlying strategies are. I would appreciate it if you could give me some suggestions on the logic of the report as a whole. I would appreciate it if you could give me some suggestions on the excesses and deficiencies of the points in the report. I would appreciate it if you could give me some suggestions on the divergence of the points in the report. I would appreciate it if you could give me some suggestions on the strategies and tactics behind the divergence of the points in the report. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you. This is what I would like to ask you Architecture

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

So, from now on, I would like you to speak freely, regardless of whether you are a member or a person from a government agency. What do you think?

Then, please start with Okamoto-san.

Mr. Okamoto: , I have three points to make, and I would like to follow them as much as possible.

At the beginning, I think that the decline in the population is the key factor, and it is necessary to maintain and invest in a certain type of infrastructure. How money will flow in such a situation is one point of view, and when I think about it in various ways, even though the population is small, I think that money cannot be provided unless the value that is being created is increasing. In the beginning, I think that money will not flow in the end unless the productivity is greatly increased and the resulting products and things are exported overseas, leading to a world in which various products are created in various regions.

That said, I don't know if we can really do such a thing. In the beginning, I thought that it would be necessary to increase productivity by optimizing the infrastructure so that it can be used with as little investment as possible.

After that, I would like to ask you if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here, or if there is something to add to the points you mentioned here. From the point of view of our world, the opposite is also true. In short, when I think about the energy system or the Internet, there is demand and supply of energy. At that time, I understand mobility as a part of it, and I am afraid that I am making it 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 happening between us and mobility, and I thought that similar things might be happening in other fields as well. Therefore, I thought that it would be better to emphasize the point that there will be mutual synergy in cross-sectionally looking at things other than mobility.

Also, I am not sure about Architecture, but I thought it would be a good idea to add something in the background. For example, in Point 2-2, there is a discussion about whether it is centralized or hierarchical, and there is a way of decentralized cooperative control of multiple mobility. I don't know if this is off the point, but when we think about things like our electric power network, there is probably a hierarchical structure, and it would be better to make it decentralized, but I think it would be strange if we don't have a hierarchical structure. I don't know about mobility, but for example, there are trunk lines that move on expressways or bullet trains, and there is always the concept of transfers, and I feel that the network has a hierarchical structure like our network, and in terms of distribution, there are transfer points and a hierarchical structure, so if we try to capture the hierarchical structure of the network, it will be a hierarchical decentralized structure after all, and I think that's possible for Architecture.

Then, Professor Koshizuka mentioned something like N to 1 to M, and I thought that if I thought that the transfer point was, for example, a hub, I would be able to sort it out if I thought about it well. Also, I don't know how many levels there are, but there are several levels of hubs, and if I think about it, something like a transfer will occur, and in sorting it out, I have to think about a special point called a hub, but after thinking about it, I thought that if I think about the hubs being connected in a hierarchical structure, the whole thing might be unexpectedly easy to sort out.

The reason why I am saying so is that, after all, our energy world is actually structured in such a way, and it is a problem of the same network, so there are hubs and it becomes hierarchical, and it is the same problem of moving it in a decentralized manner as much as possible. Each infrastructure has a mutual relationship, so we create something like the same hierarchical decentralized structure, and if it is possible to coordinate both and control it instead, is it possible to make the most of the mutual relationship of the infrastructure? This may be quite off the point, but from what we usually think in our field, I think there is such a part.

Lastly, I would like to add, I don't know if this is unnecessary, but I think you are going to think about data models and such, but I think speed is important, so if there is no need to create something from scratch, and if there is something that has already become a de facto thing overseas, I think it would be faster to thoroughly analyze it and create only the things that are insufficient, so I would appreciate it if you could add such a viewpoint.

That's all from me.

Chairman Ishida: .

Dr. Suda, please come in.

Member Suda: At first glance, I have an honest impression that it is very well organized, but after thinking about various things, I would like to introduce some points that I am concerned about.

First, the points of discussion were summarized earlier in the form of the importance of self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance. There were difficult issues such as interdependence and trade-offs, but I felt that the viewpoint of examining them was missing. For example, I think that safety is such a topic, but individual safety is a fairly self-help topic, but I think that total safety will be a public topic, so I thought it would be good to write in more detail about the story that public assistance and self-help are doing the same thing, and raise it as a point of discussion.

The second point is that I have recently been discussing the future of mobility in various ways, and I believe that automobiles will be organized from the perspective of autonomous and decentralized. On the other hand, public transportation is centralized and coordinated, and there seems to be a conflict between autonomous and decentralized and centralized and coordinated, but I think that it is a story that will be well balanced in the future, so I thought it would be one idea to consider such a story in the form of a goal.

Another point is, as I said last time, the discussion here is from the perspective of service cars, but what about owner-driven cars? On the other hand, when we talk about service cars this time, we are talking about MaaS. I feel that the roadmap will change depending on whether it is a city or a so-called rural area, so I felt that it would be better to include the perspective of such regional characteristics somewhere.

Lastly, I would like to say that the discussion is entirely confined to Japan, and I would like to ask about the relationship with other countries, what is happening in other countries, and, as you mentioned earlier about standards, I think we need to think about expanding our business overseas in consideration of standards.

I have talked about the above four points. Thank you.

Chairman Ishida: .

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

Mr. Hidaka: I am Hidaka from MaaSTechJapan. Thank you very much. I would like to make two remarks. I have read the report and I think it was well compiled as Mr. Director-General said.

As a possibility, I would like to point out two points, maybe after this summary.

The first is the term "roadmap." The term "roadmap" generally has a horizontal axis and a time axis. I think this time refers to next-generation mobility in general. In particular, when we think about autonomous driving, it will be a period of widespread use from now on, but I think there will be a very challenging demonstration period until 2025, this year, next year, and the year after next.

In addition, after that, of course, after considering the business, when there is a mass introduction period, not just 100 units at 50 locations, but several thousand units have to be made or made and corrected. After the demonstration period, the mass introduction period comes, and after the introduction, there is a diffusion and stabilization period. In the roadmap, who will be in charge of the necessary businesses and industries during that period may be a working group that will be established in the fall, but I think it would be good to think about it.

In particular, as you all know, there is a shortage of human resources in the digital field, the mobility field, and the transportation field, including drivers. For example, in the case of maintenance, whether it is carried out by people in automobile maintenance factories, by car dealers, or by existing transportation companies. For example, in the case of the railway business, there is still a railway vehicle maintenance factory at the terminal station, so whether it is carried out by such engineers, or if there is no such factory at all and a completely new player should do it. In order to speed up the switching of industries, we will define the players. If we say that the roadmap will shorten even a little the time it takes five or ten years if we do it without thinking about it, there is a possibility of the industry, and I think it is very important to start up in the market of external investment. The first point is whether we can consider players involved in how to efficiently do it after drawing a time line in the roadmap.

The second point is that I think there will be a position talk as a member of my team, but I would like you to consider the perspective of MaaS. As I mentioned earlier, even in the period of mass introduction, there is probably no prospect that the shortage of semiconductors will be solved by the operation managers and maintenance staff. Considering that it will take quite a long time for such a large number of vehicles and autonomous driving radars and sensors to cover the transportation capacity of current private cars and buses, and that it may not be possible to manufacture them to that extent in the first place, it is possible that all of them will be self-driving vehicles with a sense of demand, but when we consider which of the vehicles with high transportation capacity, which are fast and can be ridden in large numbers, and the trunk and branches, which are often called, will be in charge, I think that the existing railways and buses and the service by self-driving will probably need to be well linked or separated. If we compete for users by other mobility while driving with self-driving, even though we have increased the number of vehicles as an industrial policy, I think that no one will be able to use them. I think that there are various decisions on that, but when there is a breakdown, a shortage of vehicles, or when it becomes impossible to drive, it will be covered by other transportation, or it will be linked, and there are various decisions, but if we switch to the existing transportation main bodies such as railways and buses and do away with them, I think that all of the means of transportation can be brought to the self-driving side. From that point of view, I thought that making it a business rather than just driving cars could make a great contribution from the viewpoint of transportation and MaaS. The first point was about the roadmap, and the second point was from the viewpoint of MaaS, and I said that I would like to see how self-driving can be expanded from that viewpoint included in the consideration elements.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

Mr. Akio Yamamoto, can you help me?

YAMAMOTO: This is YAMAMOTO from ITS Japan.

I would like to capture the points of discussion in the way forward. In the second point mentioned by Mr. Murakami, Director-General, there are more demand-side issues based on life situations. In other words, what kind of transportation means and services are there for what kind of people in what kind of areas? It may not be possible to do everything, but I am a little worried that if we do not proceed with this after giving a solid presentation to some extent, it will end up being a discussion only for autonomous driving.

You mentioned SIP, the National Comprehensive Development Plan for Digital Lifelines, and Re-Design for Public Transportation. I read the Third National Spatial Development Plan, which was decided by the Cabinet on July 28 last month. In the Plan, issues such as mobility are well organized, and after organizing them in light of demand, a roadmap will be drawn up to solve them. I think it would be better to add a few more points of discussion on the so-called service and consumer perspectives.

This includes the perspective of how to support the formation of local living areas and the revitalization of the region, and how to move around the city, so I would like to suggest that you consider such aspects.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

Yamashita-san, please.

Member Yamashita: I am Yamashita from the Automobile Manufacturers Association.

Mr. Murakami talked about the logic and story of three things. Every time I look at the various documents from this meeting, I am deeply impressed by the fact that the resolution is constantly increasing. However, when the resolution increases, I feel that my honest impression is that I am less happy. As Mr. Yamamoto mentioned earlier, I think the human axis is a little weak. I think one of the points is that if we don't clarify why we are doing this a little more, the happiness will not be conveyed and the receptivity will not be aroused. Since this is a good opportunity, in your various discussions, people are always talked about, and there are many talks about the consideration of business people. However, when we organize them in this way with a higher resolution, it becomes like a to-do list, and when we have to check it, it goes into a negative mode, which I felt very much.

However, in other words, what I thought was very good about the arrangement of these items was that the points of discussion on self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance were clarified, so I held on to one point. In terms of the excitement and receptivity that I mentioned earlier, I thought that the free movement of people, goods, and things would be guaranteed in the future, and I thought that it would be good if we could pass the baton to the next meeting, which may not be discussed this time, so I pointed out one point, or rather, I gave my impression.

Another point is that when it comes to demand, there is a large amount of information about people. This is written in the items from the very beginning, but we are taking a stance that we are firmly establishing rules, including privacy governance, from the very beginning. At the same time, we are presenting that the usage and data collection methods are firmly incorporated from the very beginning, perhaps even from the Architecture stage. This will make the people feel secure when they see it, and they will be happy when this information is circulated. Therefore, I thought it would be better to thoroughly discuss that we are properly creating a loop mechanism in which we want to publish information. I just pointed out those two points.

.

Chairman Ishida: , next, Mr. Koda, please.

Member Koda: Thank you .

There are some points that are close to those mentioned by various teachers. First, on the demand side, we have data on people who are already using self-driving buses, etc., and there is a lot of data on issues that are not in time with the existing public transportation. Based on such data, when we can see how the existing so-called public transportation should change over time, including population trends, in the roadmap up to 2030, I think it will become clear that there are issues that need to be improved from here.

The other point is that while there have been quite a lot of discussions this time, there has been a lot of focus on autonomous driving. Just like Mr. Hidaka mentioned earlier, from the perspective of MaaS, in particular, I believe that there will be more and more cars that are not in use like empty houses, and the aging of the population will continue to progress, so Japan has not made much progress in actively introducing ride-sharing in various countries, so I would like to discuss without avoiding the reason why this has not advanced, and firmly face the possibility.

Going back to the demand side, for example, there are various services such as drones, autonomous driving, and ride-sharing, and when we see what kind of situation and what kind of issues will be solved, even when these services are made public, it is obvious that it is someone else's business, and I thought that the number of people who are interested and interested in the government's measures will increase as citizens wonder if their lives will be solved in this way.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

Kawabata-san, can I talk to you next?

Kawabata members:

After organizing various things, as a result of the discussion, what we have to do has become very clear.

It may be a little off the point, but when discussing the current issues, I thought that the measures should be formulated while looking at the traffic issues 20 years from now. On the contrary, when I looked at what you summarized today, I thought that. In this discussion, the current issues and the issues in the near future were discussed very well, and I thought that I was able to share them very much. In this state of summary, I thought that the measures, especially infrastructure, could be realized in 20 or 25 years from now. In that case, for example, there are quite a lot of sensors on the roads now, and there are many more sensors such as cameras on the roads alone than before, and electric vehicles are on the way to increase, and I thought that it might not be possible to catch up with the current idea alone, so I thought that it would be necessary to think about the future traffic environment from a viewpoint.

One more thing, as I was pointed out by other committee members earlier, I think you are right that when the resolution is raised and organized neatly, sentimentality inevitably disappears. There is a phrase I like that says, "The feeling is more important than the sticky rice cake," and I try to value the feeling of the sticky rice cake rather than the sticky rice cake itself. Pounding the rice cake is quite a hard work, but I think that by valuing the feeling of the person who pounded it, people will move and act. Therefore, when I often think about traffic issues, in fact, there is more mobility as it is scattered. The operation rate is around 4-5%, and there are many cars around there that are stopped at more than 90%, but I think that there are no people who actually ride them, who take them away, or who provide service, which leads to traffic issues.

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 the hospital, but now I don't think I can suddenly tell my neighbors to take me to the hospital. In that sense, I thought it would be good to have a word that can add things like the state of service provision that comes from feelings.

However, in order to do that, I don't think it can be expressed only in terms of mental cooperation. For example, although it may be dry, by introducing a local currency or local points, you can give 10 points as gratitude to the local community, and you can use them to participate in local events. I think it would be good if distribution, not money, could be created. I think it would be good if mental distribution could be done digitally, which is what I thought more after seeing this material.

Of course, I think it would be dry to use currency or points, but I thought it would lead to traffic data by giving them away for free or allowing them to be consumed in the area. I think it would also lead to traffic data delivery. I don't just ask people to send me the data, but I don't think there is anyone who would send me the data for one time convenience because of the convenience gained from it or the accumulation of convenience, but I think it is a big thing to be able to access my own accumulated data or to access a service created from the data I delivered, or to be able to access it for free or with a high degree of convenience. It is meaningless to make a digitalisation for something that requires mobility data digitalisation, so I think it will depend on how much people put their data on it. I think it would sound dry to design an incentive that leads to data delivery, but I thought it would be better to put a spirit of spirit on it than the sticky rice cake I mentioned earlier.

Another point is that I think the time frame will be a very big indicator when making a roadmap. As Professor Hidaka mentioned, when we have to spread it, in Japan, there is demand in big cities like Tokyo, so no matter what we put in, it will not work well, but I think we can do a lot of things. However, I think the important thing is regional and local transportation, so the way of thinking when spreading it in terms of aspects is not just the time frame that is often used in roadmaps. Rather than deciding at this meeting, I think it is important to have a perspective on measures to spread it in terms of aspects, rather than in terms of how many years it will be spread. Rather than making a decision at this meeting, I think it is necessary to have such a perspective when spreading it to such subcommittees or working groups.

In terms of technology, the penetration of very large operations is an important technology in autonomous driving, but not limited to that, if we can coordinate operations with other transportation companies, including human support, it would be possible to expand and increase the types of mobility services by using not only autonomous driving but also human driving and self-driving.

I'm sorry, it's a little long, but it's something I thought about in this document.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: . Here you are.

Acting Member Akimoto: , you summarized the points of discussion on self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance, and it is very easy to understand. If all of these are solved, I think they will be implemented in society, but I feel that the hurdles are very high.

There are three points. First, there is a business model in which the cost of autonomous driving cannot be recovered. That is, where to push the cost, or how to put public support or various money into it. In addition, for example, in the case of drones, as soon as level 4 is achieved, the cost of the aircraft rapidly increases, and the business model does not work. For example, it is more profitable to fly a drone in an empty space and receive 100,000 yen. Probably, social implementation will proceed from such a direction, so instead of suddenly setting a goal at high-spec so-called advanced implementation, I felt that we should properly create a use case from a simple low-level social implementation to an advanced social implementation in stages.

In that situation, as I said earlier, the key point is that if you implement something sophisticated, the cost will naturally rise. On the infrastructure side, for example, it is very easy to do autonomous driving in a place where there are no people and the roads are wide, and I think it will be a low-level social implementation that can be implemented quickly. However, if you implement it in a place where there are people and various things are running, it will be very high-spec and there will be various liability issues. Social implementation has not progressed very much, so to some extent, so-called areas, or as in the case of drones, areas to be implemented in society will be designated in stages as A, B, and C. I thought it would be one way to create a place where various infrastructures are developed and what can be done with those infrastructures.

As I said earlier, in addition to infrastructure, when the exit is a use case and the roadmap reflects whether it will be done in rural areas, in cities, or on highways, I thought it would be necessary to design a system for each use case.

In particular, I think it is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, avoid using one's own car during the morning rush hour, and, if possible, ask bus companies to provide automated driving. As a stakeholder, I think it is necessary to create a scheme that allows conventional operators to operate using automated driving cars. For example, government offices should use them during commuting hours, commuting by car should be banned, and companies should be asked to cooperate in order to forcibly create demand.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: When I first looked at the draft report, I had a little bit of a feeling that it was all about autonomous driving, with things like the cargo story not being written properly and the service scene not being written properly.

But when I think about it, this is talking about Architecture, so I don't have to write about those branches and leaves separately.

When I think about these points, what are the implications of the points 1 and 2, the black dots, and the squares here? 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 say, "I don't know if it's public, or if it's private, or if it's joint, but please do it in each place." This is probably the main line.

In that sense, I think it's well-written. Unfortunately, I didn't write anything about the basic idea of Architecture here, so I don't know if it's common sense, but I'm not really an expert 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. And physical infrastructure is also a splendid Architecture because it originally came from the word architecture. Then, it's all, but I thought it would be better to write it more clearly that it's something that can be done by thinking well about everything. I didn't write that much, and when ordinary people start reading it thinking it's about digital data Architecture, I thought it's quite inconsistent with what I'm saying here.

On top of that, when I asked about Issues 1 and 2 and the role of each case, I thought that the very specific persuasive material to make people understand "I see, it's good to do that" was written in an easy-to-understand way, although I don't know if it was very systematic, and it was very well done.

If that is what you all agree on, I thought it would be easier to understand if the nature of the text and the way it is written were devised a little more.

Go ahead, Mr. Izumi.

Mr. Izumi Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Director of the Policy Division: I would also like to reply to Mr. Hatano , I think Professor Ishida has already pointed out what I should comment on. First of all, regarding 3. (1), the meaning of "Architecture" when it is written as "correlations between issues and Architecture", I interpret it as "Architecture in the sense of a structure in which the government firmly invests in infrastructure and society or industry is revitalized, and the division of roles between the public and private sectors to realize that".

When discussing the issues, the discussion tends to be limited to the elderly. However, as a really good system, for example, if we can realize a system where young people can live sustainably in rural areas and where they can live in remote work in the same way as in the cities, it should be a good city for the elderly as well. In terms of that overall feeling, I think Architecture here is writing that the government should invest in infrastructure and firmly consider the division of roles between the public and private sectors toward the goal of improving the lives of the private sector, industries, and people.

I understand that when these ideas are subdivided into the ideas of Architecture and its design at the bottom of page 6, the context has changed to the discussion of how infrastructure will change in the digital age.

Specifically, as I wrote in the vicinity of Point 2, the content that has been discussed so far in the form of next-generation ITS or next-generation ITS has been hidden by the term intelligent, but in short, it was the ideal form of a reactive system against physics, in which an individual car reacts to the color of a signal, or reacts when a bicycle approaches or a person jumps out. From such an ideal form, the development of creating better behavior by incorporating a predictive structure, such as saving power based on a predictive structure by storing data, is, in short, the development of creating better behavior by incorporating a predictive structure, and I think it is easy to understand the phrase "impossible and wasteful" that President Saito said, but the transition from a physical reaction to a data-based predictive structure, in which a better structure is pursued using data, is probably easier to read in the form of shifting from the conventional ITS I to something in the digital age, or being data-centered or realized by data linkage. I was reading it with an understanding.

Looking at it in this way, regarding the comment that it may have specialized in autonomous 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 autonomous vehicles run on roads for autonomous vehicles, and the point of contention is that the meaning of traffic lights may change. I heard from Committee Member Okamoto that traffic lights should be like railway traffic lights, and control systems should be like railway control, which is a kind of centralized control that individual vehicles can move, and I thought that was what he was saying, but I think it is to firmly decide what it should be like. As part of such consideration, the creation of new operators may be a provider of mobility services like MSP, which Member Yamashita mentioned, or an operator of that, or an operator of energy optimization, and I think it is important to create new operators in consideration of the next ITS or mobility. When considering that, I interpret that it may be possible to create a new player in the form of public assistance or mutual assistance.

First, it was from the viewpoint of Architecture.

Chairman Ishida: , please come in.

Hatano: Mr. Izumi's explanation was very fresh, so I would like to confirm it a little. Not only to Mr. Izumi, but also to everyone. What Mr. Izumi just said sounded like he wanted to update the concept of conventional mobility by adding new technologies such as digital or information. I think it is probably correct, but in terms of whether the industry has discussions on updating the mobility I just mentioned in the context of autonomous driving, I think the field of so-called connectivity has been tried quite well, and Mr. Yamashita gave a presentation on this in the JAMA before, but in terms of actual mobility itself, unfortunately, the main body of the mobility operation itself is still in the process of being replaced by machines, and it is my understanding that the update has not arrived at all.

Fortunately, as a first step, I think it is important to change the subject from people to machines. In that sense, I think that mechanization is being permitted from the viewpoint of regulations and systems.

On the other hand, in the summary of these points of contention, from the perspective of feasibility in terms of business, as a result of being able to do something close to unmanned, it has become a situation where the entrant has to bear the burden of surprisingly high technology and a lot of capital investment. As some of these points are expressed as such in this document, I would like to take the opportunity to reexamine, review, or optimize the inconsistency in this point, which is that the efficiency should be improved by unmanned, but in fact the burden will increase, in the consideration of this roadmap, and I hope that we will be able to obtain an efficient means of mobility that can quickly update the mobility itself as Mr. Izumi mentioned. For that, the JAMA is currently considering it, albeit in a small way.

From the perspective of public support and mutual assistance, in short, there is an expectation that such a biased burden will be leveled by balancing each of the people who share the transportation society, but in the end, it will not be solved by something strange such as a person riding in an automatic vehicle, and I hope that it will be possible to further deepen the optimal allocation of roles and responsibilities more effectively.

Also, this is out of my domain, but for example, there have been a lot of recent launches of delivery apps and ride-hailing apps, and I have heard that these apps have been generating decent revenue. The key point here is that the delivery apps, in other words, the soba restaurants do not use the apps by deducting the app, in other words, by cutting their own pocket money. The apps generate revenue, and the soba restaurants maintain their previous revenue at the soba restaurants, and what is happening is that in the end, the customers are paying more and more. Considering this, rather than a scheme to make the prices more and more reasonable, in order to update and change the paradigm, I think it would be good to review the concept of individual burden once again. This is not the opinion of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, but I personally think a little, so I thought it would be very good to discuss it from the perspective of updating.

Chairman Ishida: .

Here you go.

Director-General Murakami: Thank you for , but they have come to the point where they really point out the essence of the issue, so there is a part where they get their own will, and there is also a part where they simply say something like that, and honestly speaking, the reason why we are using autonomous driving is because we are Digital Agency. If we are really going to discuss mobility services in a flat manner, isn't it the job of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, or isn't it the job of Mr. National Police Agency? In general, we are talking about why Digital Agency is involved in such discussions. In fact, order in Kasumigaseki is important, so if it is something that should be done only from the perspective of mobility policy, we should not be too pushy.

So, first of all, the most reliable thing is that ITS can be put to practical use as a technology, but it will not become a business. It is understandable that you, who have done the public-private ITS concept and roadmap, are continuing to do it as it is.

However, I would say that the discussions that have been taking place right now were based on the good word from Mr. Hatano that mobility should be updated digitally, but if we go all the way to the end, we will probably get to the point where things themselves will not be solved unless we share the Architecture of data after considering both business and technology. That is what Mr. Suda said, it is okay to point out, but where various trade-offs will be solved. If you take the trouble to point out, if you organize it, the emo part will disappear. I think that is what Mandala is like in the world, but I think it is probably a good idea that it pops out in the midst of groaning after arranging a mountain of inconsistent issues, but I think we are entering a phase where we actually have to create such things.

To put it the other way around, Mr. Yamashita, as long as I am a government official, I would like to say that it would be boring if I just mention it as an issue. That is true, but in the end, as long as I am a government official, I would like to focus on this issue. I would like to say that if I do not address this issue in a certain department of a certain ministry, I will not be able to move forward with my work in Kasumigaseki, so I will have to address this issue somewhere. Today, I was given a good suggestion about what it means to update mobility digitally, and I think it would be better if I could write a little more, but I think that I can share that nuance with each ministry well. I also think that I can see why I am talking about mobility in digital Priority Plan, what the digital agency is leading in that context, and how the issues that have been factored out there are related to the discussions that each ministry and agency is currently trying to advance. I thought that Mr. Izumi would explain the part that Mr. Ishida thought was exactly what I thought, but when I looked back on it, he said it was well done, and I would like Mr. Izumi to write a little better about the part that was expressed as Mr. Hatano's findings. I think that I can see the points that Mr. Ishida pointed out in common. But I thought that I would like Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Mr. National Police Agency, and Mr. Cabinet Office to take a look around here, and I would like them to comment on it, as it does not have to be an opinion on behalf of the ministry.

Mr. Hayashi, Director of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: My name is Hayashi, and I am in charge of the Autonomous Driving Office of the Automobile Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of . Thank you for all your opinions today. I personally think that I was able to hear a lot of useful opinions.

Currently, our department is in charge of verification test and other areas, and it is difficult to make a proposal for discussions at a higher level such as Architecture, but what I feel is that first of all, we are worried about safety and security, or how to create a place where people can ride trains with peace of mind. If we do not use actual examples of running trains, local people will not be able to understand where it is safe, where it is safe, and where it is not safe. Therefore, we need to firmly build in such points, and we need to do so. If we do so, local social acceptance and local understanding will advance, and we will finally be able to receive discussions on commercialization and opinions from various people, and I would like to firmly support such points.

However, I am sorry that I have not yet caught up with the discussions in Architecture on how to increase social acceptance in that sense, but I felt again that I would like to proceed with the cooperation of various local governments so that I can firmly promote a system that can be used by elderly people safely and securely, while being fully aware of that. I will make a comment.

Chairman Ishida: .

Mr. Kazuga, Director of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: I am Kazuga from the Road Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.

I myself have not been able to fully grasp the concept of Architecture. In the discussions after Professor Ishida, I somehow felt that there was a lack of perspective or ideas.

However, there are some issues that have not been fully understood yet, so I would like you to sort out these issues and then move on to a working group to discuss them. However, since I do not see the output of the working group, I feel that it is necessary for you to continue the discussion.

In practical terms, the term "time frame" was mentioned in the roadmap, but in the end, I was wondering when and what we should aim for and what we should do. In particular, as the committee members mentioned, when we talk about infrastructure, there is a difference from infrastructure in the digital age, but if infrastructure is considered to be the same level of development as before, it will take time. In such a case, it is necessary to coordinate while taking into account the prospect of what will happen with technological breakthroughs, including on the vehicle side. What we should do about these things is a concern for the infrastructure side.

In addition, Dr. Ishida told us that while Level 4 is technically feasible, it is quite difficult to implement it in society as a set with a business model, and that it would be good to use it well even at Level 2. How does this apply in this context? In short, we may be assuming the final form first, but what does autonomous driving mean here? When I asked whether we should consider a business model at Level 4, I thought it would be necessary to consider when it would be possible, and if it would not be possible to reach it immediately, what steps would we take toward that?

I would like to share with you my impressions of the meeting.

Chairman Ishida: , can you please speak to Mr. Shimokawa, Deputy Director-General of the Policy Bureau?

Assistant Shimokawa, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport: This is Shimokawa from the Mobility Service Promotion Division.

In addition to autonomous driving, consideration should be given to MaaS and new mobility services, and I believe that there was a talk that this should be considered for regional public transportation as a whole. As you know, it is difficult for operators to maintain services due to the necessity of redesigning regional public transportation, so we would like to consider such matters in cooperation with other fields while utilizing what we can newly obtain, and I believe that this is exactly what the study group received.

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) will launch a "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.

Mr. Izumi Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Director of the Policy Division: I would also like to reply to Mr. Hatano , a member of the Policy Board. I would like to make a detailed point as one of the important elements of Architecture. I think it is very important to sort out the concept of roads, which Mr. Ishida has been talking about for a long time, as Points 1-2. If we consider this in the form of a certain type of urban design and building a consensus with residents on the urban design, it will be connected with the discussions in Europe and other countries.

When we sort out these concepts of roads, we come to the discussion of driving conditions in Point 1-1, driving environmental conditions, or on-demand at that time. This is important in the sense that the overall concept beyond each ministry hangs on the concept of a digital garden city. In particular, Japan is long and narrow, and there are many mountainous areas. Due to these special circumstances, we have to think differently from Europe and the U.S., where flat areas are very large. This is a kind of paraphrase for Architecture.

In considering this in detail, I mentioned earlier that Architecture is a division of roles between the public and private sectors for investment. As an analogy, as I mentioned last time, it is like the German Autobahn, where the government lays freeways with no speed limit and the private sector develops cars that can run stably on freeways with no speed limit. It is not good policy for us to say that we are a good industry and to put our hands in such areas. It is my personal preference that the public sector should invest in infrastructure and the private sector should be strong in the competitive field.

In this regard, from the perspective of resolving legacy infrastructure issues through strategic deployment of digital infrastructure, I believe that the perspective of Architecture is to improve the issue of inefficiency caused by a certain type of population decline by adding a new digital infrastructure to the infrastructure when technology becomes more advanced. My comment on Architecture is that it is not necessarily the case that autonomous driving is possible only because AI and other technologies are available, but that it is possible only because an immediate or low-latency infrastructure with high-speed communication is available, or because IT and open technology are integrated.

Mr. Itoh Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, General Manager: I am Itoh, General Manager of Mobility DX Office, Automobile Division, . I am very grateful that Digital Agency will sort out the current issues in a cross-sectional manner and address the needs including infrastructure.

As you mentioned earlier, we would like to update the infrastructure and mobility itself, which is very important. One is from an international perspective. In Japan, Eiheiji Temple started at Level 4 in May this year. Looking at overseas, there is a track record that robot taxis are already running quite a lot. This is because the infrastructure has not necessarily been updated yet, and such a difference is emerging. Therefore, I think it is important to thoroughly analyze it first. This is our own issue, but we must also carefully consider how to connect it to strengthening the competitiveness of the Japanese automobile industry.

From that perspective, I believe that data collaboration will lead to where we will gain value and where we will earn money in the future, and I think it is very important. METI is also involved in various MaaS projects, and we are currently working on a hypothetical basis with the aim of commercializing such data by combining it with mobility data. This has also spread to discussions on energy management. At present, AIST is collecting data on energy management for EVs under the Green Innovation Fund (GI Fund), and discussions are currently underway on how to utilize that data. From that perspective, I hope we can work in close cooperation.

That's all.

Director Ikeuchi, National Police Agency: I am Ikeuchi, in charge of ITS and autonomous driving at Director, National Police Agency Secretariat, . Thank you for your valuable discussion today.

As a Architecture, I do not understand all of them, but I understood that in terms of self-help, mutual assistance, and public assistance, in the areas of cooperation and competition, in the entire society, what kind of mechanism should be created for autonomous driving, MaaS, and mobility in general to share the burden so that it can be used optimally, whether it will develop, and whether a business model can be created, is Architecture.

I think it is very important to sort out the basic idea, but from the police's point of view, the work of the police is very steady and is progressing step by step. In terms of autonomous driving, as Commissioner Hatano mentioned earlier, I think we have been thinking about replacing human drivers with machines in the current road regulations. In order to respond to such a situation, we have been revising the law based on the idea of what to do with traffic rules, and we have just created and implemented a system of permission for specified automated driving.

From now on, I believe that a road map will be created by materializing this basic idea. As some people have mentioned, if you could draw a more detailed 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 necessary regulations while drawing a specific picture.

Chairman Ishida: , Kimura-san, please.

Director Kimura, Cabinet Office: This is Kimura from the Cabinet Office Science, Technology and Innovation Promotion Office. I am in charge of promoting the construction of the SIP Smart Mobility Platform under PD Ishida.

Thank you very much for listening to your valuable opinions as we were able to summarize the points of discussion as a study group for the road map.

There were various discussions in the process of compiling the R & D plan for the Smart Mobility Platform, and I see that the key points are included in this document. You have already mentioned our initiatives in this draft document, and I hope that we will be able to position these specific initiatives in the consideration of the roadmap.

As Director-General Murakami mentioned earlier, I have heard that this roadmap will be compiled from the perspective of how to realize autonomous driving. In fact, the smart mobility platform itself is not only autonomous driving, but also how to continuously introduce regional mobility, and among them, autonomous driving technology will be considered as one method, but I believe that there are always points of contact, so I hope that we can fully cooperate there.

In addition, we received opinions from ministries and agencies today, but since it is a smart mobility platform, SIP, in general, I think there are many parts that we can cooperate with ministries and agencies in the consideration of the roadmap, so I would like to ask for your cooperation.

Chairman Ishida: .

Lastly, I would like to ask if Mr. Masuko Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Director of the Policy Division of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, who is attending today, is there?

Office Manager Masuko Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications: This is Masuko from Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, . Please excuse me from online.

I think the concept of mobility update is very good. However, when we think about the purpose of mobility update, what kind of means of transportation will the people of Japan use? In other words, when we think about a portfolio of means of transportation and what new things will be added to it, we will consider the introduction of autonomous driving in the future, and we will create mobility update as an infrastructure to support it.

In the field of communications, I think we are now at the dawn of a new era. In contrast to the iPhone, I think we are at a time when something like an electronic pocketbook has just been released. In that sense, until something like the iPhone becomes popular, cutting-edge technologies will die out in a sense. In other words, they will be commoditized. In addition, they will be mass-produced to reduce costs. In this way, I think it will lead to a situation where it will not be easy for everyone to use them.

In order to do so, mobility needs to be properly updated, and we in Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications also need to consider updating communication methods in the future.

In terms of my experience in communications, I don't think I need to worry too much about what I do in the future. In the communications world, for example, 3G mobile phones came out around 2000, and what was considered to be the killer application at that time was actually video phones. But I don't think many people remember using video phones. However, the environment in which mobile phones are equipped with cameras and are capable of high-speed data communication has resulted in widespread use by everyone in the form of photo-mail.

In the world of mobility, I think it would be good to do something like this. It's not just something that we have to do with self-driving buses and trucks now. It's something that can be combined with the self-driving of the current owner's car, and something new may come out. In that sense, I think it's important to work on things that come out without being so particular about them in order to create a better transportation society.

In any case, for the mobility update, the communication environments will be the base for Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications as well, so I would like to firmly make it. The main thing is that for mobile phones, in addition to properly developing the infrastructure including roads, I would also like to firmly allocate additional frequencies for 5.9 GHz ITS, so I would appreciate your continued support.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

In conclusion, may I speak to Mr. Muramatsu, who has been participating online since the middle of the meeting? If you have any comments, please do so.

Member Muramatsu: I am Muramatsu from the Robore Organization. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this initiative.

As we have discussed so far, I believe that public assistance and mutual aid play significant roles in the design of the Architecture and mutual aid, public assistance, and self-help, and I would like to ask for continued cooperation.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

I think I've talked to all the people who are here today.

Here you go.

Hasui Deputy Director-General: Thank you for .

At some point, a killer phrase came out, and I thought there would be a killer contents, so I thought we would be talking about Architecture. But to be honest, I have not been able to settle down in Architecture. Everyone is saying this, and people from METI may not be able to say such things. However, in Architecture, as you mentioned earlier, what are the digital issues, including those that are not digital, and I have only recently started to study what a program is like little by little, but there are words such as hierarchical structure and structure. Such words came up in the discussion earlier, and it is probably that until now, for example, cars were built anyway, and then demand grew rapidly, and it was a world where someone would eat them, but that is no longer the case, and the population will rather decrease, as President Saito commented. In response to the fact that there are various surpluses, gaps, and wastes, I have a shallow understanding that the order of the hierarchical structure will change when I think about how to think about the world as a whole, including that, in terms of solutions.

I understand that how to create such a system will become an even bigger discussion in the future working group, and in response to that, I understand that I have to do my best to update this paper.

.

Director-General Murakami: Thank you for .

After this, I would like to make a request at the discretion of the chair of the meeting, but I briefly explained here what I thought I would add in this direction. I will no longer be holding the meeting in the form of a meeting, but I would like to hear your comments, including from each ministry.

The first one is that I don't have a clear idea about the timeline, including my own opinion. I will explain it to you and ask for your understanding before I write it. The biggest reason why I decided to do this was that there was a plan to do it at 100 places in 2027, and I thought that if I did it at 100 places as it is now, there would be only three places left in the next fiscal year. If one benchmark runs automatically at 100 places in 2027, how many places will be left in three years will be quite a challenge for the administration, so I think there is such a point.

In 2027, after the 100 sites start in some form, we will look at the situation and revise the rules in earnest if necessary. If there is a revision of the rules necessary to launch the 100 sites by then, I think it will be a market feeling of going to the sandbox or special zone, so if you feel uncomfortable, I would like to hear from you.

As for the second point, I am very afraid to say that I am adding a little bit of discussion points other than autonomous driving and commercialization. As you pointed out a lot, I would like to strengthen my position a little bit. I would like to include MaaS, human factors, and cargo issues from the front. The second point is that I would like to ask for your permission to expand the focus a little bit and write a balanced description while being careful not to invade Japan's airspace, which is an issue that should be discussed directly by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Mr. National Police Agency.

Lastly, I would like to talk about the tactics of description. I would like to break it down into three points, but it is very easy to understand that Mr. Izumi said that in the Showa era, good infrastructure and strong industries were all. What is happening to this is that the third point, good infrastructure, strong industries, and understanding demand, is coming in. To put it the other way around, in order to successfully absorb things that require new investment as a society under a declining population, I think that more diverse players were simply called good public assistance, the automobile industry, or drivers and services, and when the population increased, the investment cycle went around. But in order to maintain the situation where the population decreased and the scale of the domestic industry itself decreased, I think that from the beginning, social welfare corporations would have to take care of drivers and draw pictures with everyone involved. That is why I think there is a layer of discussion such as mutual assistance. That is the first point. I would like to say a little more about mutual assistance or drawing pictures involving various players.

Second, if that is the case, although I am not sure if I can write anything like this, I think that up until now, the government, prefectures, cities, and even farm roads had to be at the forefront of the institutional setup because there should be no shortage of roads. This time, without considering the road concept organized from the demand-side, leaving aside whether or not to make it a system, in the sense that at least the problem would not be solved in terms of involving various players, I think that the conclusion would be to create something that has some kind of data-related Architecture for each road concept layered from the demand-side. How many trade-offs will come out in a heap can be swallowed, and how the emo part will be somehow solved there. I am not sure if I can write something like this, but that is the second point.

Finally, the third point is that while Professor Suda has repeatedly said that safety is a key word in mobility, I don't think we can move forward with this characteristic without raising the social acceptance of trial-and-error to some extent. I think the issue is whether or not financing will really follow behind the scenes. Simply saying that social acceptance should be raised will probably not result in financing, so it probably doesn't make any sense. On the other hand, relying on safety and saying that accidents must be zero will not be zero, but if there are no people who are willing to use it, it will probably be disqualified as a social acceptance. I think the same thing will happen. In particular, Mr. National Police Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will probably find it difficult to say, and if there are some parts that Digital Agency can help those who say that we are the ones who will be held accountable in the end, I thought it would be about how to create a gap between the total reorganization of those parts and social acceptance, so I thought I would try to devise a little so that I would not be fired.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: I think that's really true. I think it's strange that a country would not allow anything to be done by the government unless it was sold out to 100 points from the day of opening. I strongly think that's impossible, so I'd like to say it.

We had a really good discussion today. I think I have a much better understanding of Architecture myself. Thank you very much.

On top of that, I would like to say something. What we should aim for is to fundamentally update mobility services through digital, which is exactly the same as Mr. Hatano, and I understand today that Architecture is a basic policy that seriously considers various ways of involvement under the grand policies and strategies for that purpose on a case-by-case basis.

In addition to digital data, we also need to understand how to use the huge common asset of the road network, which Mr. Izumi was grateful to say, and how to make adjustments based on the way we live in such a situation. For example, how to endure in order to improve things such as moving speed and how to change trains, I think. In terms of freight, there is a problem that a food company never uses a pallet called T11 because it does not fit the size of its own factory. If possible, we will call for such a problem. If we do so, we will create good products while keeping in mind that various benefits will come out in various places.

However, it is not something that can be created by someone like a god, so I think it was reconfirmed today that you understand the basic strategies, broad policies, and philosophy, and work hard in each area. Also, I believe that you will be able to understand the important points in an easy-to-understand manner, and that the power of Architecture can be fully demonstrated. We need to create this document in a hurry, but I would appreciate it if you could leave the drafting of the draft to me and the secretariat after receiving many opinions from the secretariat.

Before making it public, I would like to send an e-mail, but I would like to confirm it, and I would appreciate it if we could proceed in that way. Today is also a little over time, but this is the final discussion.

I really learned a lot, and I think we had a good discussion. In that sense, I would like to thank all of you. Thank you very much.

Director Asayama: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your valuable comments today.

Today will be the last day, but I learned a lot from the intensive discussions that took place in about two months from the end of May. I think it will be a lot of work to compile the report in the future, but I would like to ask for your continued cooperation.

This is the end of the Study Group. As the Working Group starts in earnest from the beginning of autumn, I would like to continue to ask the members of the Study Group for their advice on the points that cannot be discussed by the Working Group. I would like to continue to ask them for their opinions on how to proceed as a whole and for their cooperation.

In addition, I would like to ask each ministry and agency to attend the last two meetings and directly listen to the discussions, and I would like to ask them to continue to cooperate in making the roadmap solid.

Thank you very much for today.

Or more