Opinion BusinessMirror
www.businessmirror.com.ph
Why not ‘congestion pricing’ to solve traffic woes? Michael Makabenta Alunan
on the contrary
T
o solve the horrendous traffic problem in Metro Manila, government can try “congestion pricing” through higher parking fees slapped on private cars. However, this has to be accompanied by innovative but common-sensical strategies. These measures are urgently needed in anticipation of the gridlock created with the “Build, Build, Build” program, which is the proverbial “wheels of progress” that will ironically slow down traffic further or even grind to a halt initially owing to the construction frenzy, worsened by the continuous yearly sales of four-wheeled vehicles now hitting over 400,000 a year. In short, traffic will get worse before it gets better, unless temporary solutions are done urgently. n What’s unfair with road charges. The road user’s tax may seem fair as the bigger vehicles that put stress on roads get higher road user’s tax. Conversely, smaller private cars pay much less compared to buses or trucks. However, volume-wise, private cars dominate 80 percent of road space in Metro Manila. In principle, because public roads are funded by public funds, priority must be given to public transport instead of private cars. For using public roads, vehicles are slapped a road user’s tax, but because this is captured only during vehicle registration, it could not regulate daily road usage as a pricing policy. Abuse of public roads gets worse in many side streets, where motorists transform them into personal garages. n Congestion pricing through parking fees. Many big cities the world over apply congestion pricing through higher parking fees for cars alone to reduce traffic. High parking fees discourage motorists from bringing their cars. Part of the costs of owning cars are the costs of maintaining garages and paying parking fees. Unlike the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion’s (TRAIN) excise taxes that are regressive as they indirectly affect the poor through higher prices, parking fees only affect motorists, or only those who park in public places. Although the TRAIN’s excise taxes account less for inflation compared to the effects of global fuel prices and the peso devaluation, the mass psychology triggered its own momentum, giving everyone in the supply chain an excuse to increase prices. Parking fees are also good sources of revenues, which only affect motorists directly, more so the wealthy who can afford higher fees. Singapore, for example, collects about $6 billion in parking fees. Such fees can help fund transport infrastructure, and can also be shared with local governments. Whatever it is, congestion pricing is one strategy to ensure private cars are taxed more for using public roads built from people’s money, thus giving public transport more priority to use public roads. n ‘Standing policy’ for buses? Motorists will likely oppose congestion pricing, claiming public transport being inefficient does not offer an alternative. Trains, buses or jeepneys are too jampacked and unsafe. Buses, in particular, contribute to traffic at bus stops, as it takes time for them to unload before they could even load new passengers through a single door as both entrance and exit. A simple solution is to remove seats, but keep a few for the handicapped. From the current 60 seats, at three-seater and two-seater a row,
Parking fees are also good sources of revenues, which only affect motorists directly, more so the wealthy who can afford higher fees. Singapore, for example, collects about $6 billion in parking fees. Such fees can help fund transportation infrastructure, and can also be shared with local governments. plus 10 to 20 standing along aisles, buses can possibly carry 100-120 passengers without seats. For easier ingress and egress, two doors can be installed, and two conductors hired. Better still, automatic fare-collection systems be installed to do away with conductors. With faster loading and unloading, and lesser time at bus stops, buses can make more turnovers, which is good for bus operators. If Metro Rail Transit/Light Rail Transit passengers are made to stand, why not bus passengers? If Singapore, with its smaller population, requires most bus passengers to stand, why not here? At 1.2 passengers per car on the average, based on a Japan International Cooperation Agency (Jica) study, against 60 bus passengers seated on a bus, plus 20 more on the aisles, one busload of car owners is equivalent to 50 to 60 cars of road space. Without seats, as many as 80 to 100 cars of road space are freed to improve traffic. n Odd-even better than HOV? The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority’s High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) policy on Edsa is seen to be ineffective in spotting violators from a distance. An army of spotters and equipment to identify through tainted windshields may be needed but costlier. More effective will be distributing volume through time-sharing and spatial or space management. This is done by imposing an oddeven scheme on private cars alone during rush hours, say 6 to 7:30 a.m. for odd-ending numbers and 7:30 to 9 a.m. for even numbers, and similar system in the evening rush. Half of cars are removed from the roads during these hours, thus avoiding gridlocks. It is ironic that, for the same distance, what takes me 20 to 30 minutes before dawn from my place to the Naia, can become a three-hour trip during daytime. Motorists will therefore be free to use their cars, which is better than total ban coding, but just have to sacrifice and wait for their designated time. n Parking buildings as business? The Jica increased the estimated traffic costs from P2.4 billion a day to P4.1 billion in 2017, and before long this could balloon to P6 billion a day if nothing is done. It’s time local governments build parking buildings all over the metropolis, requiring those with no garage to park here for a fee. There are technologies now of multiple-layered carparks stacked through elevator systems. What is generated from congestion pricing can be invested here. At least congestion pricing will not hurt the poor, thus avoiding the far-reaching implications of regressive effects of revenues, such as excise taxes. E-mail: mikealunan@yahoo.com.
Regulatory relief Dennis B. Funa
INSURANCE FORUM
R
egulatory relief are measures effected by regulators to achieve administrative simplification or deregulation to reduce the burden of regulation due to some compelling reasons. Regulatory relief can take different forms for different regulatory activities, and for different objectives. Thus, it can take the form of a relaxed regulation, such as by providing exemptions from specific requirements. It can take the form of a total deregulation, meaning the suspension of certain regulatory requirements or the repeal of regulatory provisions, or the adoption of regulation that lessens the burden of regulation. To illustrate, in financial regulation, a deregulation removes regulatory constraints in order to achieve a greater efficiency. An example of an objective for regulatory relief is to reduce the amount of resources devoted to enforce obsolete or unnecessary regulations. A reduction in filing requirements, a reduction in duplication of requirement, simplification of procedures, elimination or modification of rules that are no longer relevant are often
examples of reasons for regulatory relief. It can also be by tailoring a requirement so that it still applies to certain entities but does so in a less burdensome way.
Regulatory relief in the Philippines
One form of regulatory relief is the adoption of regulation that lessens the burden of regulation. An example is the adoption of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (Republic Act 9485). Through the law, it mandated the processing of licenses and permits within a specified number of days. It also provided for the adoption of the “Citizens Charter.” These, in effect, provide relief for the general public from burdensome government regulations. In 2016 an initiative was launched
Wednesday, August 29, 2018 A7
to remove outdated and unnecessary government rules and regulations. The project focused on the repeal of outdated department orders and rules of attached agencies. It was called Project Repeal. Its objective was to reduce the cost of compliance for businesses and the cost of administration and enforcement for the government. The need for regulatory relief is most relevant, especially in overregulated industries. Indeed, while regulation is oftentimes necessary, excessive regulation can be self-defeating. In the insurance industry, strict regulation has been viewed as necessary for financial stability and increased protection for consumers.
In the Insurance Commission
The grant of regulatory relief is impliedly authorized under Section 437, paragraph 3 of the Amended Insurance Code. This provision, in effect, leaves the discretion up to the regulator itself. A question therefore is how much discretion should be given to regulator in granting relief. It is believed that relief can be given to a particular business establishment or to an entire industry. Some view legislation as unnecessary because regulators have already been authorized to tailor or provide exemptions under its rule-making powers. The Insurance Commission has lifted certain requirements in the
processing of claims during disastrous natural calamities. The objective being to expedite the payment of benefits. And insurance companies under conservatorship may be granted some form of relief to facilitate its rehabilitation.
When relief may be granted
IN granting relief, there is a need to gauge whether regulation is lacking or excessive; whether a regulation has become “unduly burdensome.” According to the Congressional Research Service of the United States, “the different objectives and potential benefits of financial regulation include enhancing the safety and soundness of certain institutions; protecting consumers and investors from fraud, manipulation and discrimination; and promoting financial stability while reducing systemic risk. The costs associated with government regulation are referred to as regulatory burden. The presence of regulatory burden does not necessarily mean that a regulation is undesirable or should be repealed. A regulation can have benefits that could outweigh its costs, but the presence of costs means, tautologically, that there is regulatory burden.” Dennis B. Funa is the current insurance commissioner. Funa was appointed by President Duterte as the new insurance commissioner in December 2016. E-mail: dennisfuna@yahoo.com.
The ‘dating app phenomenon’ of digital platforms
This is important because people are more likely to join if there are many registered users, which increases the chances of getting a match. This is like speed dating, where the number of participants is key to the success of the service. In a sense, all digital platforms are a version of a dating app where the goal is to meet and match as many people as possible. In competition parlance, this is known as “network effects,” where the value of the platform increases with the number of users or participants. The classic example is the telephone line, where the value of the service increases with every additional subscriber since more people can call each other. When there are competing telephone service providers, a potential user is likely to choose the provider with more subscribers. As the first of its kind, the dating/ride-sharing app also has the unique opportunity of getting the lion’s share of potential users, until
a new app comes along. If most of the Edsa-passing single drivers and commuters have registered with this app, and the chances of getting a match are higher, then the registered users would see little benefit in switching to a competing app. The advantages of network effects are often available to the first mover, which can take on a “winner-take-all” position. Even if a new app comes along, users will not immediately bail out, if only because the new kid in town has fewer users, if any. The second thing that came to mind about this dating/ride-sharing app is that it should consider the relevant dating preferences to ensure there are sufficient options for any registered user. However, this is tricky. Assume for a moment that the registered users are heterosexual males and females. Apart from the natural imbalance in the population, males and females may also have different appetites for dating apps. If males are less likely to join such apps, it may be necessary to incentivize them to register. With too few males, females may no longer find it worth their while to register with the app. To keep the females, the app must keep the males. At certain points, the numbers may shift, in which case the app may have to tweak incentives to maintain an appropriate ratio. So, it is not enough to have many registered users. There must also be enough participants from both sides of the platform. This is true for other platforms. Ride-hailing apps like Grab and Uber require sufficient riders and drivers, while
AirBnB must have an ample number of hosts and guests. As I pondered on these issues, it is very tempting to be selfish and aim for capturing all the Edsa-passing singles in the dating/ride-sharing app and database. The appeal of cordoning them off against competitor apps is simply irresistible. The impulse to drive away any competition is so strong that it almost feels justified given the cost of innovation. The desire to be the only dating/ridesharing app for Edsa-passing singles cannot be easily ignored. These explain why digital platforms must be guarded closely. While they represent innovation that brings benefits once thought inconceivable, these can also create monopolies that harm consumers, especially involving products that are imbued with public interest. While rapid innovation is encouraged, the market must be kept open for competition, and winner-take-all situations must be avoided. As the dating app thrives on network effects, the digital economy must live by a brand of network effects where competition is present to inspire more innovation, which, in turn, spurs competition.
Italian bishops that, when it came to potentially gay seminary applicants, “if there’s even the slightest doubt, better to not accept them.” Even so, Viganò and his allies have argued that the pope and his supporters are too accepting of gays in the church and that they willfully ignore that the vast majority of victims of sexual abuse by priests are male. Most experts reject the conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia as a dangerous route to bigotry against gays. Outside the church, the belief has been widely discredited as retrograde. But it still has traction in the Vatican. Many here believe that an investigation by three cardinals after the 2012 Vatileaks scandal—based on the leaked memos of the same Viganò who wrote Sunday’s letter—revealed a gay lobby
working in the Holy See and that their report contributed to the retirement of Pope Benedict XVI. The report remains a closely held Vatican secret, but in his letter, Viganò included a slew of names and targeted allies of Francis who share the pope’s views. He said Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago was “blinded by his pro-gay ideology.” And he took issue with the assertion of Cupich, a past president of the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People, “that the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is not homosexuality, and that affirming this is only a way of diverting attention from the real problem, which is clericalism.” In an interview Sunday, Cupich said: “I think it is wrong to scapegoat gays and homosexuals as though there is a greater likelihood that
gay people are going to offend children than straight people. That data doesn’t bear that out.” The Viganò letter also lamented that the Vatican had brought on Jesuit priest James Martin, who has written a book on how to make gay Catholics feel more welcome in the church, as a consultor of the Secretariat for Communications. The church under Francis, Viganò writes, has “chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon gather in Dublin for the World Meeting of Families,” by inviting Martin to speak there. In an interview, Martin said, “The reason it seems like all gay priests are abusers is that there are no public counterexamples of healthy celibate gay priests, because most gay priests are afraid to come out in this poisonous environment.”
Atty. Amabelle C. Asuncion
Competition Matters
T
he proposed traffic scheme banning single-rider vehicles along Edsa during rush hour has generated mixed, mostly satirical, if not downright sarcastic reactions from single drivers and commuters alike. Social-network posts range from complaints about discrimination to a mad rush for a “partner” just so they can pass Edsa. Amid the controversy, a thought crossed my mind: Could this be a golden opportunity to invent an app to top all dating apps? Talk about a dating/ride-sharing app! The idea sounds flippant but is a half-serious attempt at offering a solution to the thousands of singles passing Edsa to and from work every day. As I toyed with the idea, two things came to mind. First, the app should have many registered users. The app is a digital platform—that is, a place where participants virtually meet and match. As a platform, its value rests on having many participants. In this dating/ride-sharing app, the participants are single drivers who need a “date,” as well as single commuters who need a ride along Edsa during rush hours. For the dating/ride-sharing app to be successful, it should entice as many of these single drivers and commuters to register with the app, within the shortest possible time.
Vatican. . .
continued from A6
within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root.” In 2005 the Vatican stated that even celibate gays should not be priests, and instructed church leaders to reject seminary applications from men who “practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture.” Critics of Francis believe that a meeting in Rome of bishops from around the world in October on the theme of youth could become a battleground. They want to make sure the church’s opposition to homosexuality is on the radar should the issue of sex abuse come up, as it now certainly will. In May Francis reportedly told
Before her appointment to the Philippine Competition Commission, Commissioner Asuncion was engaged in corporate and commercial practice and served as chief legal counsel of a top company and a corporate partner of a law firm. She was also previously involved in legislative, law and policy reform, advocacy and adjudication work. Commissioner Asuncion has a master of laws degree (with distinction) in international legal studies from Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., and is admitted to the New York bar.