The purpose of this paper is to elucidate Policy, Role and Means of Local Governments to solve the mobility problem in that region by implementation of Innovative Mobility Means (IMM), like a ridesharing service. One of important issue of sustainable transport is transportation right and Loss Mobility-Chance (MC) problem, especially at rural area or small and middle town. One can solve the mobility problem in rural area without enough public transport service by IMM like a ridesharing service, autonomous mini-bus and innovative mobility information system by ICT and so on. But there are much unknown and uncertainty in IMM about security, stability, economic rationality and effect to existing transport system. Incompleteness of law and regulation is also another problem. Therefore there are many challenges to be solved to realize social implementation of IMM. Authors focus on the role and the subjectivity of local governments.
In theoretical consideration, we focus on five roles and five means of Local Government. Five roles of Local Government are Vision Maker, Launch Customer, Collaborator of technological development, Observer and Successor. 1, Vision Maker: Vision maker must define goals for sustainable mobility. That goals need to be reflected potential needs within social challenges. Local Government can find potential needs for sustainable mobility in that region at implementing by other policy sectors; 2, Launch Customer: If there are few demands, any private sector won't develop innovative technology and product, service. If Local Government becomes launch customer, many private companies and organizations might have incentive to develop innovative technology and service; 3, Collaborator of technological development: Local Government provides developers the field of demonstration experiments and cooperate to experiment for innovative traffic means. In some case, Local Government might become a member of developing groups; 4, Observer: Local Government needs to assess and monitor the effects and impact for sustainability of various innovative traffic means and technologies for sustainable mobility. Government are qualified as observer to innovative technologies for a sustainable mobility; 5, Successor: It is role to establish and sustain innovative means or technologies for sustainable mobility in our society. Local Government must reflect the results of innovation in the transportation institution, by-law and future strategy in transport plan. So Local Government are qualified as successor to innovative technologies for a sustainable mobility.
Five means are Comprehensive Local Transport Plan, Public Finance system, Development infrastructure, Authority of transport service and Public Participation and Collaboration with various stakeholders. 1, Comprehensive Local Transport Plan: Comprehensive Local Transport Plan is defined that it is a legally binding target to supply any traffic service, to invest any transport infrastructure and to allocate traffic usage as social common capital in that region, that must fulfill the criteria for environmental, social and economic sustainability bound with planning or target in each sector, that must be agreed through public participation procedures; 2, Public Finance system: That is determining total budget both ta x and fare, including transportation taxes or other tax, to define fare level and fare collector, to decide subsidy and delivery rule; 3, Development infrastructure: Local Government is the most important player to develop transportation infrastructure and equipment for new technologies for sustainable mobility; 4, Authority of transport service: Local Government must have authority of any transport service in its region as authority for any private transport operator; Local Government becomes operator itself; PPP (Public-Private Partnership), Local Government delegates operation to private operator; 5, Public Participation and Collaboration with various stakeholders: This is social consensus building, including accept of new technologies. Local Government can use various public participation procedure. The other means is a stakeholder council.
In field work part, our main case is Ridesharing in NAKATONBETSU Town (Hokkaido prefecture, Japan). NAKATONBETSU town has conducted social experiments of ridesharing service. This town faced a crisis to close main bus line and disappearance of public transportation service. This town establish an alliance with Uber Japan K.K. to introduce global knowledge and experience of Uber into the town. Implement "Nakatonbetsu Ridesharing Social Experimentation" is compliant under the current law and regulation (No fee (=free)" ridesharing is compliant in Japan). This case is non-profitable service of UBER in rural area, so this is new field to UBER Company. Implication from Nakatonbetsu Town case are these. First point is to emphasize evidence. The town have ever surveyed by questionnaire and interview to residents. The town conducted the experiment of ridesharing after understanding situation and challenge of mobility. The town feeds back the results of the additional survey in the experiment progressing. Second point is step by step approach. The town has gradually developed system of ridesharing through trial and error. Third point is to clarify responsibility and authority of the town. Uber driver in Nakatonbetsu must take a lecture opened by the Town. Fourth point is building a partnership with innovator (Uber), academic researcher and consulting agency by establishment of "Survey Council for Sharing".
What Local Governments must implement to solve the mobility problem by IMM like a ridesharing service is there. 5 roles and 5 means of Local Governments on transportation policy have been analyzed in this paper as a theoretical assumption. Actually, the importance of these roles and means varies from municipality depending on factors such as its size and level of Local Governments, relation with States. Authors analyze case study Social experiment of Uber in Nakatonbetsu Town in Japan where the legal system on transportation has not been improved. Nakatonbetsu Town established policy cycle for IMM, from Diagnosis via Co-operation in collaborative organization, experiment and to feedback. Even if small town like Nakatonbetsu conducts experiments according to the correct procedure, social implementation of IMM must success. Local Governments should implement IMM like a Ridesharing service to by correct policy cycle with establishing Local Mobility Strategy or Scenario.
The purpose of this paper is to elucidate Policy, Role and Means of Local Governments to solve the mobility problem in that region by implementation of Innovative Mobility Means (IMM), like a ridesharing service. One of important issue of sustainable transport is transportation right and Loss Mobility-Chance (MC) problem, especially at rural area or small and middle town. One can solve the mobility problem in rural area without enough public transport service by IMM like a ridesharing service, autonomous mini-bus and innovative mobility information system by ICT and so on. But there are much unknown and uncertainty in IMM about security, stability, economic rationality and effect to existing transport system. Incompleteness of law and regulation is also another problem. Therefore there are many challenges to be solved to realize social implementation of IMM. Authors focus on the role and the subjectivity of local governments. At first, authors define Roles and Policy Means of Local Governments from theoretical assumption. Second, we analyze case study of Nakatonbetsu Town, Japan that is very rural town with little population and introduces Uber Service for less-mobility person. Finally we elucidate implication policy cycle.
Background of this paper are these 3 point. The two are social context of IMM, the other is academic trend about IMM.
The first background is decentralization on transportation policy. By institutional reform on transportation policy in each country, municipalities or counties have been authorities of regional transport including establishment transportation plan, investment to infrastructure and authorization to transport operators. As a result of decentralization, Local Governments have played a proactive role for development and social implementation of IMM.
The second background is Achievement. There are many good practices of IMM by Local Governments in Europe, Northern America and Japan. In many cases, municipalities and counties have played proactive role, example French light rail cases. Social experiment of Ridesharing in Nakatonbetsu Town is advance case by Local Governments in Japan where the legal system on transport has not been improved.
Third is academic trends. Mobility technology has ever been studied in the field of the management of technology (MoT). MoT has focused on the internal and organizational aspects of companies. Recently Inter-Disciplinary study between MoT and Environmental Economics have researched about mobility technology for environmental sustainability . The focus of these study is relation between the State and companies. But in these study, Local Governments haven't been payed attention. So the originality and novelty of this paper is relationship between the local government and the IMM.
So, transportation rights include access to transport means and access to information of all persons who are not only residents but also visitor or tourist.
We defines what Mobility-Chance (MC) is the chance of people to enjoy various utilities by people's trips. The people subject to MC include all of the following: residents, workers and students in that region; people who do activities of culture, sports and social (NPO/NGO); business visitors and tourists including foreign people. The opportunity include any activities of human life: commuting to work, schools and hospital, shopping, dining out, leisure and recreation, ceremonial occasions, religious activity, meetings of community or NPO, sports, culture and tourism. The result of these activities gives not only various benefits to individuals but also various effect promoting human exchanges and contributing to economic revitalization to regional society. Specially, in low density areas (small or medium towns and depopulated areas, rural area), securing MC is essential to social and economic sustainability of regions.
One could solve the transportation rights issue in depopulated area by Ridesharing service. Especially, global common application services, like a UBER, are innovative service for transportation right.
Innovative ridesharing service might contribute to the guarantee of 3 types of transportation rights in the area without enough bus or rail service.
The first type of transportation rights is to guarantee daily trip: shopping, going to the hospital or school. This type of rights is for residences, but the others are for visitors. Already some people have ever carpooled on a voluntary basis in Japanese rural area.
The second type of transportation rights is to guarantee for tourist. There are many tourist spots in the region where public transport services are not enough or abolished. If ridesharing services are offered, tourists without car will be able to visit these spots. Ridesharing services are more economic rational than mini bus service in the depopulated area for guarantee first and second type of transportation rights.
The third type of rights is to guarantee access to information. Example foreign tourists can use UBER application by their language all over the world. Even if they can't speak French, they can use UBER perfectly in Paris. This advantage is including payment means. Tourist can pay by their credit card in application by their language. Global common application of ridesharing services is innovation for guaranty transportation right to access information.
Local Governments must responsible for introduction of ridesharing service and solving social concerns. Initially, local governments are responsible for guaranteeing Transportation rights in many countries including France, United Kingdom, United States and Japan. Local Government can solve social concern about ridesharing service by their authority of transportation policy and other policy. Local Governments can organize public consultation to deliberate about introduction of ridesharing service and evolution of all over the regional transport system among citizens, residents, communities, NGOs and economic stakeholders.
In this chapter, Authors discuss the Role and Policy Means of Local Governments for social implementation of IMM. About IMM, not only ridesharing service but also other technology or means (example: autonomous vehicle, mobility information service by using big data), despite they are very useful to solve various mobility problem and improve quality of life of less-mobility persons, there are many hurdles to overcome in order to realize social implementation. As IMM is one type of Disruptive Innovation which is not yet diffused and implemented, they have some risk and uncertainty in safety or social conflict. Many of the hurdles to overcome should be solved by the regional society as a subject. So it is hoped that Local Government plays leading role to solve these problem and realize social implementation. At first, Authors define Role and Policy Means of Local Governments from theoretical assumption. In this assumption, the level or scale of local government is not considered. Then, Authors analyze level, scale, cooperation among Local government and relation with Central Governments, application to empirical analysis.
Ridesharing service is a type of innovative transport service. For the success of innovative transport service or technology, local governments must play five roles that are to implement various innovation for Sustainable transport, especially development of new technology and service are consisted of Vision Maker; Launch Customer; Collaborator of technological development; Observer; Successor.
We need common goals for sustainable transport and transportation rights. Because any private sector won't develop or implement to IMM without common goals. That goals need to be reflected potential needs within social challenges. Vision maker must define goals for sustainable transport and transportation rights. Local Government can find potential needs for sustainable transport in that region at implementing by other policy sectors that are environment, land use and housing, economic development, education, medical and welfare, tourism, and other public utilities. Local Government must define common goals for sustainable mobility in transport strategy or Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan.
If there are few demands, any private sector won't develop innovative technology and product, service. Therefore, Local Government must be Launch Customer of innovative product or service of transport, example new vehicles, substructure technology, information utilities, application of smart phone, power supply system, etc. If Local Government becomes launch customer, many private companies and organizations might have incentive to develop innovative technology, product and service.
For success to develop new technology or service of transport, it is necessary to carry out demonstration experiments or trial run with passenger that is included paid passenger. So Local Government must provide developers the field of experiments and cooperate to experiment. In some case, Local Government might become a member of developing groups whose object is desired by Local Government itself. For ridesharing, Local Governments might become partner to carry out demonstration experiments or trial run.
Local Government needs to assess and monitor the effects and impact for sustainability of various IMM and technologies for sustainable transport. Local Government has obligation to assess or monitor in environment policy or transport policy under each law, so Local Government are qualified as observer to innovative technologies for a sustainable transport.
It is role to establish and sustain IMM technologies for sustainable transport in our society. Local Government must reflect the results of innovation in the transportation institution, by-law and future strategy in transportation plan. In Japan, National Government has ever adapted new means or rule that had been implemented and succeeded by Local Governments, in the national law. So Local Government are qualified as successor to innovative technologies for a sustainable transport.
So as to make ridesharing service to contribute security of transportation rights, Local Governments must implicate five policy means. They are: Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan; Public Finance system; Development transportation infrastructure; Authority of transport service; Public Participation and Collaboration with various stakeholders.
Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan is defined that it is a legally binding target to supply any mobility service, to invest any transport infrastructure and to allocate transport usage as social common capital in that region, that must fulfill the criteria for environmental, social and economic sustainability bound with planning or target in each sector, that must be agreed through public participation procedures. Example of that plan are PDU (Urban Mobility Plan, Plan de Déplacements Urbain) in France and LTP (Local Transport Plan) in United Kingdom . In both of France and UK, Local Governments must establish these plan under each transportation act. Also Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan concludes also strategy to introduce innovative technologies for a sustainable transport.
Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan can define any mobility service level, might be the basis for regulation to private transport operator and must include consensus-building and public participation procedure. This plan is just a vision for sustainable transport in that region. Local Government must define comprehensive and systematic local transport network by this plan.
It is the most important role of Local Government to manage Public Finance system for local sustainable transport. That is determining total budget both tax and fare, including to collect transportation taxes or other tax, to define fare level and fare collector, to decide amount of subsidy and delivery rule.
Local Government is the most important player to develop transport infrastructure. This is including infrastructure and equipment for new technologies for sustainable transport.
Local Government must have authority of any transport service in its region. There are three means to have authority: the first is to have authority for any private transport operator including NGO or community association operating non-profitable traffic service; the second is that Local Government becomes operator itself; the third is PPP (Public-Private Partnership), Local Government has responsibility of operation and delegates operation to private operator.
This is a means for social consensus building, including accept of new technologies and service. Local Government can use various public participation procedure, example procedure in environmental policy, process of developing local transportation plan. The other means is a stakeholder council consisted of local officers, transport service operator, representatives of residents and consumers, chamber of commerce and industry and tourist association, educational and medical stakeholder, labor union and Environmental NGO, academic researchers.
If there are some social conflict or problem related to ridesharing service, which are conflict with taxi companies or public transport operator, drivers moving problem and so on, Local Government and Local society can solve these problem by public participation process. It need the process of public participation to develop Comprehensive Local Transportation Plan. So we can solve problem by involving any stakeholders in participation process to develop plan.
In empirical analysis, we can't analyze without respect to deferent level of Local Governments. In many country, Local administration institute is multi-level. Example: Japan is 2 level (Municipality-Prefecture); France is 3 level (Municipality-Prefecture-Region); England is 3 level (District-County). In federal states (Ex: United States, Germany, Canada), we must take account of deference of law or institution among States or the role of States.
At first, we must focus on subsidiarity. In this principal, Municipalities should do anything first, the high-level Local Governments do what the municipality can't do, and the Central Governments or Federal Government should do only what any local governments. So municipalities should be subject to policy for innovative mobility. However we should pay attention to differences in institutions of transportation policy. In some countries, High-Level Local Governments are subject to transportation policy by law. In France, municipalities have an authority for local transport (Almost of cities or towns creates cooperate body among municipalities). In USA, there are many special administrative body for transportation equivalent to municipalities. In Japan, municipalities don't have an authority for local transport (All fundamental authority is owed by central governments), but there are some systems in which municipalities voluntarily implement policies in some transportation law. In England, the County which is High-Level Local Government has authority for local transport.
If transportation law give authority of local transportation policy to one of local governments, that local governments should be subject to policy for IMM. If the country is not decentralizing transportation policy, we must consider local governments as the subject of IMM.
Scale of Local governments is important elements that determine capacity for transportation policy. Among High-Level Local Governments, even small size governments has suitable capacity. But among municipalities there is a big disparity in capacity for IMM. Large municipality can establish a special department for each policies or technical matter. Metropolitan municipality can install even a research laboratory. In market aspect, Large Municipality have economic superpower to purchase rolling stocks and other transport instruments and investment infrastructure. Large Municipality can become Launch Customer alone.
If that municipality or cooperate municipalities body has more than 700 thousands population , it has superpower for mobility innovation for sustainability. In France, Paris and Lyon are leading city for IMM. Middle size municipality (100 thousands – 700 thousands populations) has a suitable power for IMM. In French Light Rail cases, these size cities have introduced innovative technology and been top runner, Grenoble City (330 thousand population ), Strasbourg City (480 Thousands Population), Clermont-Ferrand City(280 thousands populations) and Nice City (530 thousands population). But Small size cities or rural municipalities (Under 100 thousands population) have only small capacity and knowledge of technology, small economic power. We should take account of support by central governments or other local governments to small size municipalities.
In actuality, small size municipality is difficult to play role and implement policy of IMM. Even small local governments can succeed in mobility innovation. One example is case of UBER in Nakatonbetsu-Town, Japan (See chapter 4 in this article). So small size municipality need to be supported by Central Governments or other Local Governments. Otherwise, they will only use the IMM that other municipalities have made successful. In fact that, in even Nakatonbetsu case, he has just used global popular platform. Popular means have economic rationality due to merit of scale. In this section, authors analyze direct and indirect support for small size municipality.
Support from Central Government or Federal Government is basic means for small size municipality. If municipality doesn't have enough budget for transport, Central Government can give a subsidy. About technological matter, not only Governments but also National Research institute can support. But support from Central Government has some demerit: the standard is strict; the procedure is complicated; and there is no flexibility. Small size municipality doesn't have capacity to receive support from the central governments. It seem to be more rational support among Local Governments than support from central governments.
Another important role of central government is making "National Mobility Minimum" by law, ordinance and plan. If basis of National Mobility Minimum is established, the markets of mobility means for rural area will been born, many private innovator will start to develop.
Support from High-Level Local Government is rational means. In Japan, prefectures support to small municipalities in not only transportation policy but also any kind of policies. Nara Prefecture establish "Public Transportation By-Law" and establish "Public Transportation Council" consisted with Prefecture and all municipalities. As prefecture has more detail information about regional mobility situation than central government, support from High-Level Local Government can be rational means. But if transportation law or institution defines independent authority between deferent levels of Local Governments, this support can't be used (Example: France). High-Level Local Government can only support by indirect means or voluntary approach like a 3-4-4.
Last type is support from large or middle size municipality to small size municipality. If there are both large and small municipalities in same region, large city can help directory small municipalities. One way is to establish Greater Inter-Municipalities Body, example there are many Inter-Communes Transportation policy Body (AOM, autorité organisatrice de la mobilité) in France .
Other way is to establish National Inter-Municipalities Organization for cooperation of transportation policy. National Organization has a role of research center and information exchange. In French case, GART is National Organization for cooperation of transportation policy . GART is consisted with transportaition policy sections of prefectures and municipalities (and AOM). GART has ever published many report of transportation policy including IMM. And GART have ever held an exhibition event "Salon de transport public" every two years with UTP that is cooperate organization of public transport operator . There are many booths of manufacturers of rolling stock, traffic equipment, and infrastructure and information equipment and so on in exhibition hall. And this event have some program of seminar and conference. This event has a role of support to small size municipality as an Inter-regional cooperation.
In this chapter, authors elucidate step or system of transportation policy in small municipality by implementing innovative means like a ridesharing service from case study of Nakatonbetsu Town in Japan. What Japanese municipality must do is not only implementation of innovation but also establishment of policy step. So Nakatonbetsu case has many implications for transportation policy for small local governments.
Mobility condition in Japanese province and rural area has ever faced a serious crisis since beginning of 21th Century. As a result of deregulation in public transport, many private operators have ever abolished many bus lines and some rail lines in province. After abolishment, municipalities have begun to operate substitutional mobility service, example: "Community Bus" (New type of mini bus service); "DAITAI-Bus" (Bus service by vehicles that isn't authorized as a public transport); New Demand responsive transport (Demand-Bus or Taxi, etc.) and so on. In other case, municipalities have introduced school bus or pickup service for medical and nursing-care instead of an abolished bus. So expenditure for mobility service has ever occupied in the budget of municipalities. But, there are not enough financial resources for local mobility in Japanese Local Governments sector.
To cope with the crisis, the Japanese Government enacted new laws of transportation which are Act on Revitalization and Rehabilitation of Local Public Transportation Systems (2007, revised at 2014) and Basic Act on Transportation Policy (2013). Under the new law, municipalities are required to play a subjective role in local mobility policy. In the new law, institution of Local Public Transport Network Plan made by municipalities is introduced, but unlike France and UK law, establishment of plan is voluntary.
The Japanese Government propose the solution by innovative means . The most noticeable means is an autonomous mini-bus. Government has promoted social experience of autonomous mini-bus (Ishigaki City, Wajima City and so on). On the other hand, Sharing Economy is also important means. Ridesharing service are notices by Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) , not by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT). In White Paper of ICT, MIC pays attention to development ridesharing service and Uber (Fig.1). In fact that, there aren't any regulation or definition of ridesharing service in Japanese transportation Law or Act. So ridesharing service is difficult to deal for MLIT. So the ridesharing service is outside the legal institution. If Japanese municipality want to introduce ridesharing service to solve mobility problem, there are many hurdles to overcome in order to realize social implementation.
Most important problem in Japan is Falling Birthrate and Aging Society (Fig.2). This is very serious for sustainability in Province area. First is population decline problem. At 2055, population will decline to 70.5% of level at 2005. Second is super aging society. Old-age population will rise to 40.5% at 2055. Third is falling birthrate problem. Even if birth rate rises to 2.1 at 2030 from 1.43 (Level of 2013), population will have declined until 2090. Three problems have negative effect to regional sustainability (Fig.3).
In province area, population will decrease 10-20%. Population decli ne has a bad influence on economic activity, both labor force and consumption. The cause of the decrease consumption level is both decline of population itself and decline of working-age late. The problem of decline of city center in province has started from 1997 when working-age started to decrease (Fig.2). Cause of city center decline problem is not only increase in large-scale stores in the suburbs but also population decline.
In fact, mobility issue is deeply related to the decline of the area. Depopulation decreases transportation demand and bring down degradation of public transport service. So people overly depend on cars. MC of people that can't drive a car loses and economic activity declines. To realize a sustainable region, one must slash negative linkage between dependence on cars and decline of the area (Fig.4). IMM, example: autonomous mini-bus; ridesharing service; advance traffic information system, can solve the mobility problem in rural area.
Characteristics of public transportation policy in Japan are centralization and independent profit system. There are some special menu for rural area and province area in Japanese Road Transport Act (See Table 1). And municipalities don't have any authority for any public transport. Although municipalities are not obliged about public transport, too. So many municipalities haven't done anything about regional transport until they are announced abolishment of service by private operator authorized by central Governments.
There are not definition or regulation for ridesharing service both market and non-profit service in any Japanese transportation laws and acts. In actual regulation, ridesharing service must be authorized in only narrow area without any other public transport and taxi. There are many hurdle for municipality that wants to introduce ridesharing service like Nakatonbetsu Town.
The largest problem is what standards in each transport law that are Road Transport Act and Railway Business Act, are defined to optimize for the situation in metropolitan areas such as Tokyo and Kansai region (Osaka, Kyoto and Kobe metropolitan). In Japanese metropolitan area, many bus and rail service can be supplied by market system without subsidies. Even if municipalities don't do anything, most of public transport service will not been abolished. So Japanese Government has not need to give authority and financial resources about public transport to Local Governments until recent year. Many transportation economist in Japan have thought so.
Less condensed popularity zone in Japan, such as regional small to middle sized city serve poor public transport service. Therefore, the residents are forced to rely personal cars too much and the people without owing cars confront against the extremely fragile mobility assurance. Though Japanese regulation of public transport is partially able to cover these situation, the new mobility service becomes necessary to solve this problem. In this paper, authors show the significance of ride-sharing to sustain the MC for the regional small to middle sized cities.
On May 2018, some of ride-sharing service operates in Japan, such as Uber and notteco. However, the Japanese regulation of public transport becomes the obstacle against the realization of these kind of business and just limited operation is authorized. Uber, the US-based service operates in Japan since November 2013. The characteristic of Uber is that the all operations through the ride including payment completely done in a smartphone app. On May 2018, Uber operates in Tokyo as a taxi dispatcher, in Kyotango town, Kyoto as a fare-paying service for Nursing-care, and Nakatonbetsu town, Hokkaido as a volunteer based service.
"notteco" is one of the biggest ride-sharing platform in Japan, which provides the long range carpooling opportunity such as inter-urban transport. Teshio town, Hokkaido jointly operates the ride-sharing service for residents with notteco between Teshio town and Wakkanai city, which is the core city in the region. The opportunity of ride from Teshio to Wakkanai is sufficient, but the opportunity of ride from Wakkanai back to Teshio is insufficient, from the interview.
Nakatonbetsu town locates about 100km south from Wakkanai, which is the north end city of Hokkaido. The population is 1,777 at the end of February 2017, 38.3 per cent of population is elderly. An estimation implies that the population of the town will decline to 946 by 2040. National railway line abandoned in 1989 and replaced with bus Line operated by Soya Bus Company. In 1994, Subsidy category of Bus changed from "JNR Specified Local Line Transfer Subsidy" to "Local Bus Subsidy". The former is fully supported by the State during only 5 years. In the latter menu, municipality must pay cost. On May 2018, the bus operates only four times per day. That bus service is very long line and inter-regional service. The schedule of bus is inconvenient for internal transport. People without car-driving must depend taxi service but there are only 2 vehicle of taxi in Nakatonbetsu Town and the price is expensive (Table 2). As long distance fee is very high, many people cannot use frequently taxis for long distance. The average annual income in Nakatonbetsu is about 2.66 million yen. The situation of Nakatonbetsu is just Loss of Mobility-Chance.
It is necessary to provide sufficient MC to commute hospital and go shopping for the people with poor MC under the condition of poor public transport. Therefore, the new local transport service needs to be created through these three aspects.
Even though there are more than 60 million cars owned in Japan, the occupancy rate is just 4.5 per cent. Using the other word, there are more than 58 million idle cars. These idle social assets should be exploited to supply MC for reduced mobility people.
The transport business is less profitable in less condensed popularity zone and the supply of taxi and bus is insufficient to fulfill demands. At the same time, the price is high for frequent use. Therefore the cooperation of residents with social capital need to fulfill MC with cheaper price.
ICT and smartphone enables the new transport service through matching the demand and supply with geographical information. At the same time, smartphone becomes a secured global payment platform that eases the payment.
Authors and Corporate Authors conducted a questionnaire survey at the Nakatonbetsu town to elucidate the necessity of new mobility services alternating bus and taxi. 1,340, as much as 75 per cent of residents answered the survey. 77.1 per cent of questionee agreed that the necessity of third party means of mobility. 35 per cent of questionee strongly agreed the necessity (Fig.5). Moreover, 27.7 per cent of residents without driving license currently facing difficulty of mobility (Fig.6). At the same time, more than 20 per cent of elder people facing difficulty of mobility (Fig.7). Therefore, no small number of residents have difficulty of mobility and demand ride-sharing.
The mission of the social experiment is introducing and realizing sharing economy, especially ride-sharing into less condensed popularity zone in Japan. Through this experiment, Nakatonbetsu town expects the growth of inbound visitor, betterment of life satisfaction and rejuvenation of human capital and social capital. At the same time, authors expect to establish the model scheme of inter-policy coordination through introducing new mobility solution.
Nakatonbetsu town conclude a cooperation agreement with Uber Japan to introduce "Naktonbetsu ride-sharing social experiment", voluntary ride-sharing service that doesn't violate the current Japanese regulation.
At first, the municipality distributed flyers to introduce the launch of the ride-sharing service and to call volunteer drivers for the ride-sharing service. After that, authors, municipality, Uber Japan and volunteer drivers organized a committee named "Nakatonbetsu Local Transportation Group." The committee monthly held a meeting to prepare and coordinate the ride sharing service. The committee conducted seminar of safety driving, created a safety map of Nakatonbetsu town, and advertisement to increase users and drivers.
During the seven month of social experiment, 206 rides were made and the accumulated mileage was 2,396km. More than the half of rides were longer than 3km. Around 30 per cent of rides were longer than 10km. Average distance was 12.95km, and the median was 2.26km.
Purpose of the ride was varied such as commuting to hospital, shopping, dining out, visiting hot spring, visiting municipality office, visiting relatives or friends, and sightseeing (Fig.8).
Means to call and reserve ride were smartphone app, call to municipality office, and the agent such as shop clerk. 51 per cent of rides called by phone call. 36 per cent of ride called by application (Fig.9). Since elderly people uses this service, smartphone has not yet been much diffused among them.
A questionnaire survey done after one year from the launch revealed that 69 per cent of riders were willing to pay the actual cost or more. This implies that the riders feel some kind of uncomfortableness with riding for free and willing to show their gratitude to drivers (Fig.11).
Implication from Nakatonbetsu Town case are these. First point is to emphasize evidence. The town have ever surveyed by questionnaire and interview to residents. The town conducted the experiment of ridesharing after understanding situation and challenge of mobility. The town feeds back the results of the additional survey in the experiment progressing.
Second point is step by step approach. The town has gradually developed system of ridesharing through trial and error. Third point is to clarify responsibility and authority of the town. Uber driver in Nakatonbetsu must take a lecture opened by the Town. This rule effectively acts as a license system of drivers by the town. Fourth point is building a partnership with innovator (Uber), academic researcher and consulting agency by establishment of "Survey Council for Sharing". Nakatonbetsu Town established mobility policy cycle for IMM shown in Fig.11.
Many cities, towns and counties implement demonstration experiments of new mobility and invest infrastructure for innovative transportation system all over the world. There are both success cases and failure cases in many cases. What is point for success social implementation of ridesharing service for Local Government and innovators? How do Local Governments play roles and execute means?
The first key point is comprehensiveness. Mobility is just comprehensiveness concept. Only transport elements, mobility includes infrastructure, vehicle, service level, demand level, and physical and economic capacity of each person and so on. So Local Governments must take account of various elements about mobility and other factor including population and generation of people, economic and geographical situation, environmental regulation, tourism and so on. The successful experiment has a scenario or strategy based on the social background of the area.
The second key point is "regionality". Character of mobility is different among regions or area. So "What is best means?" is wrong question. "What is suitable means for our region?" is correct question. Therefor Local governments must understand the characteristics of their area before choice of means.
The third Key point is cycle of transportation policy and implementation of IMM. Even if small town like Nakatonbetsu conducts experiments according to the correct procedure, social implementation of IMM must success. At first local governments must investigate and make a diagnosis about mobility situation of that region. Second it must establish a collaborative organization including officials, residents and stakeholders, experts and researchers to develop a strategy of mobility and decide to conduct the experiment. Third step is implementation of demonstration experiments. Fourth Local Governments must conducts an impact assessment. Finally, Local Governments must feedback assessment to revise strategy or way of experimentation. That cycle is shown by Fig. 12.
The most important point is the third. Importance of each roles and policy means are different among region or scale of municipality. Correct cycle of implementation for IMM is just a common knowledge for all local governments. Local Governments can play each roles and use each means by correct cycle.
The Question of this paper is to elucidate what Local Governments must implement to solve the mobility problem by IMM like a ridesharing service. 5 roles and 5 means of Local Governments on transportation policy have been analyzed in this paper as a theoretical assumption. Actually, the importance of these roles and means varies from municipality depending on factors such as its size and level of Local Governments, relation with States. Authors analyze case study Social experiment of Uber in Nakatonbetsu Town in Japan where the legal system on transportation has not been improved. Nakatonbetsu Town established policy cycle for IMM, from Diagnosis via Co-operation in collaborative organization, experiment and to feedback. Even if small town like Nakatonbetsu conducts experiments according to the correct procedure, social implementation of IMM must success. Local Governments should implement IMM like a Ridesharing service to by correct policy cycle with establishing Local Mobility Strategy or Scenario.
IPSS, National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (2017), Population Projections for Japan: 2016 to 2065.
MIC, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2016), WHITE PAPER Information and Communications in Japan 2015, Language: Japanese.
Soichiro MINAMI (2009), Policy Integration with Planning and Fiscal issue on Sustainable Urban Transport - Comparison between France and United Kingdom, KSI Communications, No.2009-002,24pages, Language: Japanese.
MLIT, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2017), WHITE PAPER on Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in Japan 2016.
Nakatonbetsu Town (2017), Annual Report 2016 of Research Council for Sharing Economy.
Transport Public 2018: http://www.transportspublics-expo.com/ (see 15/05/2018).
Ueta & Shimamoto (2017), Green Innovation, Chuoh-Keizai-Sha, Tokyo, Japan.