Rethinking road pricing

When Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) was first introduced in Singapore in 1998, the naive journalist that I was believed it would be a suitable intervention for Metro Manila. Congestion in high-traffic areas could be minimized if motorists were made to pay to use certain streets during specific hours.

ERP essentially turned Singapore’s regular roads into tollways, with pricing determined by congestion and time of use, rather than distance traveled. Fees were higher during peak hours. The system used gantries equipped with sensors at entry and exit points and automatically collected fees via in-vehicle units.

ERP is similar to the electronic toll collection system we have locally — except that in ERP, fees are charged for using public roads during peak hours. If applied to EDSA, for example, motorists would pay a fee for using the road during high-traffic times. Outside these hours, EDSA would remain toll-free.

For the sake of discussion, let’s use a base fee of P100 for all motorists using EDSA between 6-9 a.m. and 5-9 p.m. If traffic volume spikes by 7 a.m., the fee could increase to P200 to P300. During pricing hours, fees would be dynamic — rising or falling depending on traffic levels.

The idea is to discourage motorists from using EDSA during rush hour and to encourage them to take alternative routes. The goal is to decongest EDSA, which is the main artery for public transport and commuters using the train system. By setting different rates for private vehicles and public utility vehicles, ERP can also benefit public transportation.

To an extent, I believed ERP was a logical solution for EDSA. After all, it has worked well in Singapore (since 1998) and London (since 2003). Singapore is now transitioning to a next-generation, satellite-based ERP system that uses GPS to charge motorists more precisely, rather than relying solely on gantry sensors, as we do with our current tollways.

Singapore’s ERP system features dynamic pricing that varies by time, location, and traffic volume. It is fully automated, with no toll booths or barriers. Enforcement is seamless. Fees are reviewed regularly and adjusted based on real-time congestion data.

Available information indicates that ERP in Singapore led to a 30% reduction in traffic volumes in congested areas. Peak-hour travel speeds in the city center improved from 20 km/h to 30 km/h. Air quality improved due to fewer idling vehicles, and public transport usage increased. ERP fees also help fund public transport infrastructure and road maintenance.

In London, the congestion charge system has been in place since 2003. It uses a flat-rate model: the equivalent of about P1,100 per day per vehicle entering central London between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays. Cameras and license plate recognition systems monitor entry points. Emergency vehicles, taxis, electric vehicles, and persons with disabilities enjoy exemptions or reduced rates.

London has reportedly seen a 15% to 20% drop in traffic volumes within the charging zone, reduced congestion delays, improved air quality, and a rise in cycling and walking — especially after the addition of bike lanes and pedestrian zones. Most of the collected fees are reinvested in London’s transport system.

Stockholm (since 2006) and Milan (since 2012) have also implemented time-of-use pricing on city roads. Stockholm uses time-based pricing, while Milan combines time- and pollution-based pricing. Both cities have reported improvements in traffic flow and public health outcomes.

In January, New York City began charging drivers a $9 fee to enter Manhattan below 60th Street during peak hours, with reduced rates at other times. Early data shows a 13% drop in vehicle entries, shorter travel times, more people using public transit, and increased pedestrian activity. In just three months, the program collected around $160 million earmarked for transit upgrades.

However, in March, the US federal government revoked its prior approval of the NYC program, claiming it imposed financial hardship on working-class commuters. The programs also lacked toll-free alternatives for the public. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) sued to challenge the decision, and the case is now pending in court.

I consider ERP a form of usage-based taxation. It taxes motorists for using a specific road at a specific time. This “usage tax” is conceptually similar to the excise taxes that Filipinos pay on gasoline, cars, jewelry, tobacco, and alcohol. The revenue collected can be earmarked for public transport infrastructure and road upkeep.

In Singapore and London and Stockholm, driver education is arguably more advanced than in the Philippines. Public infrastructure is better. Their mass transit systems — trains, subways, buses — are far more efficient. These cities have shown that congestion pricing works because of three things: effective public transport, transparent use of funds, and well-informed drivers and commuters.

More importantly, road pricing in these places perhaps does not significantly impact the cost of living. Here, the typical argument is: “We already paid taxes to build the roads — why pay again to use them?” An ERP here would add to the existing burden of taxes and fees already imposed on car owners.

Moreover, I reckon cities like Singapore, London, and Stockholm do better than us at planning and implementation. Their systems are relatively reliable. Their citizens are more accustomed to following rules. And they are ahead of us in fighting corruption. Most importantly, they have efficient, reliable, and comfortable public transport systems.

These, I believe, are the essential ingredients that made ERP a “success” in Singapore, London, Stockholm, Milan, and New York. That said, I understand the criticism that ERP could be financially burdensome for the working class, especially if toll-free alternatives aren’t available.

In EDSA’s case, I suspect congestion pricing would simply divert traffic to other roads, without significantly decongesting EDSA itself. Worse, the additional costs from ERP could be passed on to commuters as higher fares (except for trains) and higher vehicle operating costs.

Clearly, our public transport system still has major gaps. Only when we have efficient, affordable, and comfortable light rail and bus rapid transit options — especially on EDSA — will people willingly leave their cars at home. That’s when road pricing can genuinely work, with or without ERP.

For policymakers considering ERP for EDSA or other major Metro Manila roads, this effort must be part of a broader traffic management plan. ERP cannot be a one-off fix. It must complement plans to upgrade public transportation, modernize roads, automate traffic management, and reform vehicle taxes and registration policies.

Without these supporting elements, ERP will simply become another burden — an additional cost for private motorists and public utility vehicle operators. Worse, it may not solve congestion at all but merely redistribute it to surrounding streets.

The government cannot keep building more roads. Land is finite, and only so much can be allocated to road infrastructure. Vehicle ownership will continue to rise. Road pricing is only effective if implemented alongside a comprehensive suite of solutions to manage traffic and transportation demand.

An efficient, comfortable, and cost-effective mass transit system remains the most viable solution to congestion. Without it, road pricing cannot be implemented fairly — or effectively. It shouldn’t be considered at all. Leave the fees to the tollways.

Source: Business World

PHL jumps to 20th place in Global Gender Gap Index

The Philippines jumped five spots in the 2025 Global Gender Gap Index of the World Economic Forum (WEF) to 20th out of 148 countries and retained its position as the highest-ranking Southeast Asian country.

“Compared to the previous year, the economy has climbed five positions in the ranking, with a 0.2-percentage-point increase in its overall gender parity score,” the WEF said in a report released on Thursday.

The Philippines had a score of 78.1%, well above the average global gender gap score of 68.8% and Eastern Asia and the Pacific average of 69.4%. A parity score of 100 indicates full parity, while the gender gap is the distance from full parity.

The country had the highest ranking among Southeast Asian economies, followed by Singapore (47th), Thailand (66th), Vietnam (74th), Timor-Leste (86th), Laos (96th), Indonesia (97th), Cambodia (106th), Brunei (107th) and Malaysia (108th). Myanmar was not included in the study.

The Philippines remained in third spot in the Eastern Asia and the Pacific region, behind New Zealand (5th) and Australia (13th).

The WEF’s Global Gender Gap Index grades four key dimensions: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.

According to the report, the Philippines scored 79% in the economic participation and opportunity subindex this year, the highest in Eastern Asia and the Pacific and 13th globally.

“In 2025, slight improvements in the scores for wage equality and estimated earned income have brought its economic parity score to 79%, the highest in Eastern Asia and the Pacific this year,” it said.

It achieved full parity when it comes to professional and technical workers.

In the educational attainment subindex, the Philippines dropped to 87th spot from last year’s first place, when it achieved full parity.

This subindex includes literacy rate, enrollment rate in primary, secondary, tertiary education.

“Despite strong performances in educational attainment, the gender parity in education has slightly declined. For the first time, the primary school net enrollment rate for boys surpasses that of girls, resulting in a 1.2-percentage-point drop in the education parity score from previous years of full parity,” WEF said.

The report showed the Philippines had gender parity in the literacy rate, as well as enrollment in secondary education and tertiary education.

For political empowerment, the Philippines improved from 30th place from 34th last year.

This subindex includes women in parliament, ministerial positions, years with female or male head of state.

“The Philippines’s political parity score is buoyed by nearly 16 years of female leadership under Presidents Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. This contributes to a 46.2% score in the head-of-state indicator, the second highest in the region,” the WEF said.

Despite this, progress in female representation in parliament is described as “modest” with a score of 38.9%.

“The score for ministerial positions has declined to 21.1% in 2025, down from over 30% in both 2006-2007 and 2023,” it added.

For the health and survival sub-index, the Philippines rose a notch to 85th spot this year.

“The Philippines has faced growing sex imbalances at birth over the past decade. The sex ratio at birth (females to males) has declined from 0.944 in 2016 to 0.926 in 2025,” the WEF said.

Reinielle Matt M. Erece, an economist at Oikonomia Advisory and Research, Inc., said the Philippines’ improved ranking in the gender parity report was mainly driven by gains in wage equality, but noted that the “country still has a long way to go.”

“This is a good indicator of improvements in job opportunities and reduction of gender discrimination,” Mr. Erece said in a Viber message to BusinessWorld on Thursday.

However, he pointed out that female enrollment in primary education remains below 90%. “Thus, improvements in education accessibility and also childhood health are equally important to ensure that students have proper access to education,” he added. 

Mr. Erece also urged the government to improve the quality of education to help reduce dropout rates, especially among female students.

In the report, the WEF said that no economy has yet achieved full gender parity.

Iceland ranked first with a score of 92.6%, keeping the top spot for 16 consecutive years. It is the only economy to have closed more than 90% of its gender gap since 2022.

The rest of the top 10 include Finland, Norway, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sweden, Moldova, Namibia, Germany and Ireland.

“Despite decades of progress, efforts to achieve gender parity remain constrained, imposing a hidden but heavy tax on global growth and weakening the foundations of economic resilience — expressed in underutilized talent, lost productivity, slower innovation and frayed social cohesion,” WEF said.

“As the global context evolves, challenges and opportunities emerge for economies that seek to close gender gaps and adopt gender parity as a strategy for growth: expanding women’s participation in the workforce, strengthening leadership pipelines, improving skills-to-work transitions, enhancing policy implementation, and ensuring inclusive outcomes in global trade.”

WEF_GGGR_2025.pdf

Download PDF • 60.07MB

Source: Business World

Airbnb scams: criminal activity on big tech platforms

Big tech sharing economy platforms like Airbnb and Uber are marketed as trustworthy, but a new book by a South African media scholar argues that they are highly vulnerable to scammers who spread delusive speech (a form of disinformation, designed to deceive by criminal intent).

Julie Reid draws from first-hand accounts and over 600 cases from around the world of victims lured into scams or physical danger by fake Airbnb reviews and listings, providing a detailed case study. We asked her five questions about her book.

HOW DO THE SCAMS WORK?

Airbnb is the world’s largest accommodation-sharing platform. It connects property owners who want to rent out their homes with travelers looking for alternatives to traditional hotels. The company recently expanded its offering and now facilitates the booking of other services like personal trainers or caterers along with accommodation rentals.

Airbnb scams happen in several ways. The most obvious is the phantom listing scam. The scammer constructs a fake but attractive listing on Airbnb and accepts payments from unsuspecting guests. It’s only when guests arrive at the address that they discover the property doesn’t exist. Scammers have also learned to navigate around Airbnb’s review system. Fake positive reviews are produced by scam host networks, making them appear to be authentic.

Bait and switch scams are also common. Here the scam “host” contacts the guest on check-in day claiming the reserved property is suddenly unavailable. They offer alternative accommodation, which the guest later discovers is not as good as the original property they’ve paid for (which is often fictional). The guest pays for a premium rental but is forced to stay in a property that might be unsafe, unclean, or missing amenities.

Scam hosts use misleading, plagiarized, or artificial intelligence (AI)-generated property images and fake descriptions along with fake personal profiles and aliases.

Delusive tactics also redirect guests away from the secure Airbnb payment portal to alternative payment methods. The scammer disappears with the money.

But the danger isn’t limited to financial crimes. The platform’s business model is premised on staying in a stranger’s private property, which can put guests’ personal safety at risk.

Criminal hosts can lure targets into dangerous environments. Once checked in, guests are isolated from public view, housed in a property to which the host has access.

I’ve assessed multiple cases where Airbnb guests were assaulted, robbed with no signs of forced entry, raped, murdered, made victims of sexploitation, extortion or human trafficking, or held hostage.

HOW DOES THE DISINFORMATION WORK?

I consider delusive speech a subset of disinformation because it presents intentionally misleading content at scale. But it differs from disinformation in its intentions. It isn’t done to promote a particular cause or gain ideological, military, or political advantage. Delusive speech is motivated purely by criminal intent or nefarious financial gain.

Delusive speech works by hiding in plain sight on platforms we think we can trust, like Airbnb, Booking.com, Uber, and others. Often, it’s indistinguishable from honest and genuine content. When users browse Airbnb listings for holiday accommodation, they’re presented with numerous options. A fake property listing looks, sounds, and feels exactly the same as a genuine one.

This happens on a platform that has built its brand narrative around the concept of trust. Scammers exploit these digital contexts of pre-established trust. When users log on to popular e-commerce or sharing economy platforms, they’re already primed to pay for something. It becomes relatively easy for scammers to delude targets into parting with their money.

WHAT CAN AIRBNB DO ABOUT IT?

Airbnb already has several trust and safety mechanisms in place. They include rapid response teams, an expert Trust and Safety Advisory Coalition and travel insurance for guests. The company claims to be trying to stop fake listings with machine learning technology.

Sadly, none of these mechanisms work perfectly. While Airbnb promises to verify properties and host identities, my analysis exposes flaws in these systems. Scammers easily bypass verification tiers through aliases, forged documents and AI-generated material. Airbnb has admitted it needs to address the failures of its verification processes.

My analysis uncovered how scammed guests are routinely denied the opportunity to post reviews of problematic rentals. Opaque terms of service and content policies allow Airbnb customer service agents and executives to justify censoring negative but honest guest reviews.

This means dangerous and fraudulent activity goes publicly unreported and unreviewed, leaving future guests vulnerable. I argue that Airbnb’s review curation mechanisms should be revamped according to internationally recognized human rights frameworks that protect freedom of speech. This would allow for more honest accounts of guest experiences and create a safer online environment.

Perhaps the most common complaint I encountered was that Airbnb doesn’t remove offending listings from its platform, even after a scammed guest provides evidence that the listing was posted by a fraudster. Airbnb must develop an urgent protocol for swiftly removing offending listings when discovered, to protect future guests from falling victim to the same scam trap.

WHAT CAN USERS DO TO PROTECT THEMSELVES?

Travelers can protect themselves by being extra cautious. Ask around. Seek recommendations from people you know and trust, and who can verify that the property you are booking actually exists and that the host is trustworthy.

If that isn’t an option, consider an established hotel instead, but book directly with the hotel and not via third party sites like Booking.com where listings can easily be faked. Check on Google Street View to make sure the property is where it claims to be.

Either way, have a Plan B in case things go wrong. Prepare ahead of your trip by deciding what you will do if you find yourself in an unsafe situation. And always, always, buy travel insurance.

IS IT PART OF A BIGGER PROBLEM?

I assessed several digitally initiated scam categories in this book. While my main case study focused on Airbnb, the problem of delusive speech online isn’t unique to this platform. Delusive speech is now carried by all major tech platforms integral to everyday life. In the book, I also highlight how scammers operate in every corner of the internet, including dating apps like Grindr, Tinder and Hinge; ride-sharing services like Uber, Lyft, and Bolt; travel sites like Booking.com and Hotels.com; and social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, among others.

I hope that these examples will boost awareness of the risks of using these apps and sites.

Julie Reid is a professor at the University of South Africa.

Source: Business World