The Village Bus and the Shared Taxi
Shiwa Village sits in a mountain basin in Iwate Prefecture. Its population fell from 4,100 in 1985 to 2,380 in 2020, and 41% of residents are now 65 or older. The village runs a bus line with four round trips a day to the nearest city, 28 km away. In 2023 the line carried 96 passengers a day and lost 8.5 million yen. The village assembly is considering two plans. Plan A replaces the bus with a shared taxi that runs only when booked, using a smartphone app and a dispatcher. Plan B keeps the bus but cuts service to two round trips and uses the savings to fund a small clinic in the village. A residents' survey shows that 62% of bus users are over 70 and that 18% do not own a smartphone. The village also has a small station on a JR line, but it is 6 km from the largest hamlet.
1. Using the figures, explain what the survey and the 2023 ridership suggest about the likely effects of Plan A on different groups of residents.
Read the worked answer
Plan A is likely to help some residents and exclude others. The bus carried only 96 passengers a day across four round trips, so average use is low and a booked taxi could match demand more cheaply. But 62% of current users are over 70, and 18% do not own a smartphone, so an app-only booking system would create a barrier for a group that is already a large share of riders. The 41% elderly share in the village means this is not a small exception. A reasonable inference is that Plan A would serve younger, smartphone-owning residents well, while older residents without phones would lose mobility unless a telephone booking option and a dispatcher are kept. The data do not prove that the taxi would fail; they show that the design of the booking system, not the vehicle type, decides who is included.
2. A villager says, "The bus is a right, not a business." Evaluate this statement using the data and one idea from civics about the role of local government.
Read the worked answer
The statement expresses an equity claim: public transport lets residents reach hospitals, shops, and work, and local governments are expected to maintain services that markets will not provide at a profit. The 8.5 million yen loss shows that the line is not commercially viable, which is exactly why the village runs it. But calling it a "right" does not settle the question. Local governments must also use tax revenue efficiently, and the low ridership of 96 passengers a day means that other services, such as the proposed clinic, compete for the same money. A balanced judgement is that the village has a public responsibility to keep basic access, but the level of service can be adjusted. The strongest position is not "keep the bus at any cost" or "treat it as a business," but "guarantee a minimum level of access for those who cannot drive, and choose the cheapest way to do it."
3. Which plan would you recommend, and what condition would you attach? Use at least two figures from the setup.
Read the worked answer
I would recommend Plan A, with conditions, because the bus is expensive relative to use: 96 passengers a day and an 8.5 million yen loss mean the current four round trips are hard to justify. A booked shared taxi can adjust to actual demand. The condition is that booking must remain possible by ordinary telephone, with a dispatcher, because 18% of riders lack a smartphone and 62% are over 70. Without that condition, the plan saves money by excluding the people most dependent on the service. I would also keep a fixed morning and afternoon trip so that residents without any phone can still travel. Plan B is less attractive because it cuts service to two round trips and spends the savings on a clinic, which treats transport and health as rivals rather than connected needs; the clinic is valuable, but losing bus trips may make it harder for elderly residents to reach it.