CC BY
19The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies Year: 16 - Number: 94, p. 359-382, Spring 2023
Financing of Urban Rail System Investments: Analysis of Underground
Rail Projects in Ankara*
Sevilay Bostanci ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6930-4430 PhD Student / Ankara University, Institute of Science, Department of Real Estate Development and Management,
Ankara - TURKEY
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yeçim Tanrivermi§ ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0859-7150 Ankara University, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of Real Estate Development and Management, Ankara
Artcile Histor
Submitted: 10.02.2023 Accepted: 22.03.2023 Published Online: 30.03.2023
Keywords
Urban Rail Systems Financing Methods Infrastructure Investments Metro Ankara
Jel Codes: G10, G12, H00, R11, R4
Research Article
* This article was checked by Intihal.net. This article is under the Creative Commons license. Ethics committee approval is not required for this article.
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/JASSS.68283
Reference Information / Atif Bilgisi
Bostanci, S. & Tanrivermi§, Y. (2023). Financing of Urban Rail System Investments: Analysis of Underground Rail Projects in Ankara. Jass Studies-The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 16(94), 359-382.
- TURKEY
Abstract
This study aims to establish solutions to the financing methods and examine the associated problems within urban rail system investments in Ankara Province as a case study. Through analyzing the resource research data and Ankara Metropolitan Municipality infrastructure projects data, the financing methods used in transportation investments were examined and the need for project financing models was defined. It is impossible for the private sector with build operate transfer or other transportation investment financing models and many municipalities will fail to finance such projects with internal and external financial resources given the technology, the demand for financing resources, and the size of investments.
In this study, literature review was conducted, primary data sources, quantitative data were used, and Ankara Province was examined as a case study. The urban rail systems currently operated in Ankara was partially constructed by the General Directorate of EGO, a subsidiary of ABB, but could not be completed on time due to financial reasons, and the remaining parts were completed by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. It is noteworthy that the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure collects the costs incurred for metro projects from ABB's shares transferred by the central government, while in many other cities such projects are financed by either domestic borrowing, external borrowing, or owner's equity. In addition, a survey was conducted with 131 people using public transportation. The financing of urban rail systems of the respondents was 29.2% for the central government, 20.8% for the local government, 4.6% for the private sector, 12.3% for local government-private sector cooperation, 37.7% for the central government. -local government-private sector cooperation and 33.8% answered that it should be done in the form of central government-local government cooperation. It should be emphasized that local governments cannot realize expensive infrastructure investments such as urban rail systems on their own due to the fact that the central government has higher and various income sources compared to the local government and the income sources of the local governments are not sufficient.
Consequently, local and central governments must develop urban rail system investment projects in ccooperation and present their business models which will address the urban transportation problems. Alternative financing models should be developed in this regard. Real estate development and management experts are needed in project development, valuation and implementation processes in local governments, transportation, and infrastructure works.
The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies Yil: 16 - Sayi: 94 , s. 359-382, Bahar 2023
Kent içi Rayli Sistem Yatirimlarinin Finansmani: Ankara ili Örnegi*
Sevilay Bostanci
Doktora Ögrencisi / Ankara Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Gayrimenkul Geli§tirme ve Yönetimi Anabilim
Dali, Ankara - TÜRKIYE
Doç. Dr. Yeçim Tanrivermi§ Ankara Üniversitesi, Uygulamali Bilimler Fakültesi, Gayrimenkul Geli§tirme ve Yönetimi Bölümü, Ankara -
TÜRKiYE
Makale Geçmiji
Geliç: 10.02.2023 Kabul: 22.03.2023 On-line Yayin: 30.03.2023
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kent içi Rayli Sistemler Finansman Yöntemleri Altyapi Yatirimlari Metro Ankara
Jel Kodlari: G10, G12, H00, R11, R4
Ara§tirma Makalesi
Öz
Bu çali^manin amaci, Ankara'da kent içi rayli sistem yatirimlarinin finansman yöntemlerini incelemek ve sorunlara ili^kin çözüm önerileri sunmaktir. Literatür ara^tirmasi verileri ve Ankara Büyük^ehir Belediyesi altyapi projeleri verileri analiz edilerek, ula^im yatirimlarinda kullanilan finansman yöntemleri incelenmi^ ve proje finansman modellerine olan ihtiyaç tanimlanmi^tir. Özel sektörün yap içlet devret veya diger ula^im yatirimlari finansman modelleriyle ve birçok belediyenin iç ve di§ finansman kaynaklariyla bu tür projeleri teknoloji, finansman kaynaklarina olan talep ve yatirimlarin büyüklügü göz önüne alindiginda finanse etmesi mümkün degildir.
Bu çali^mada literatür ara^tirmasi yapilmi^, birincil veri kaynaklari, nicel veriler kullanilmi^, Ankara ili örnek olay olarak incelenmi^tir. Ankara'da mevcutta i^letilen kent içi rayli sistemlerin yapiminin bir kismi ABB'nin bagli Kurulu^u olan EGO Genel Müdürlügü tarafindan yapilmi^, ama finansal nedenler ile süresinde tamamlanamamami^, kalan kisimlar ise Ula^tirma ve Altyapi Bakanligi tarafindan tamamlanmi^tir. Ula^tirma ve Altyapi Bakanligi metro projeleri için yapmi§ oldugu maliyetleri ABB'nin merkezi hükümetce aktarilan paylarindan tahsil etmekte diger birçok §ehirde ise ya iç borçlanma ya da di§ borçlanma veya öz kaynaklar ile bu tür projelerin finanse edildigi dikkati çekmektedir. Ayrica toplu ta^imadan yararlanan 131 kiçi ile anket çali^masi yapilmi^tir. Ankete katilanlarin kent içi rayli sistemlerin finansmanini %29,2 oraninda merkezi yönetim, %20,8 oraninda yerel yönetim, %4,6 oraninda özel sektör, %12,3 oraninda yerel yönetim-özel sektör i^birligi, %37,7 oraninda merkezi yönetim-yerel yönetim-özel sektör birligi ve %33,8 oraninda ise, merkezi yönetim-yerel yönetim i^birligi ^eklinde yapilmasi gerektigi cevaplarini verdikleri tespit edilmi^tir. Merkezi yönetimin yerel yönetime göre daha yüksek ve çeçitli gelir kaynaklarina sahip olmasi, yerel yönetimlerin gelir kaynaklarinin yeterli olmamasi nedeniyle yerel yönetimler tek badina, kentsel rayli sistemler gibi pahali altyapi yatirimlarini gerçekle^tiremedikleri vurgulanmalidir. Sonuç olarak, yerel ve merkezi yönetim i^birligi içinde kent içi rayli sistem yatirim projeleri geli^tirmeli ve kent içi ula^im sorunlarini çözecek modeller ortaya koymalidir. Bu konuda alternatif finansman modelleri geli^tirilmelidir. Yerel yönetimlerde, ula^im ve altyapi çali^malarinda proje geli^tirme, degerleme ve uygulama sü^lerinde gayrimenkul geli^tirme ve yönetimi uzmanlarina ihtiyaç duyulmaktadir.
* Bu makale, intihal.net tarafindan taranmi§tir. Bu makale, Creative Commons lisansi altindadir. Bu makale için etik kurul onayi gerekmemektedir.
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/JASSS.68283
361
INTRODUCTION
Transportation investments in metropolitan areas and especially urban rail investments, project development, project financing, and project appraisal require special expertise and applications must be in accordance with project management in the provision of financing from international organizations. In many countries including Turkey, there are different approaches regarding project development, project evaluations and appraisals, land acquisitions, financing, and appraisal studies.
In terms of the development and diversification of urban transportation services, the importance of urban rail system projects has increased in large cities with an increasing population, but due to the lack of financing for projects in this area, their commissioning is delayed in many instances. Since the costs of rail system investments are very high, there are some problems associated with the financing of these systems. Since financial resources from municipalities' revenues are not sufficient to finance such investments, municipalities are forced to choose internal or external source borrowing methods.
Methods such as tax increment financing are more commonly used in many countries to finance infrastructure projects such as metro/subways, but it is seen that these methods and approaches have not yet been implemented in the context of Turkey. Studies on the economic, social, and environmental impacts of transportation investments in Turkey and developing countries are not very well explored. At the same time, it is observed that studies on the analysis and management of urban rail system investments are very few.
In the study, Ankara Province was examined as a case study. The urban rail systems currently operated in Ankara was partially constructed by the General Directorate of EGO, a subsidiary of ABB, but could not be completed on time due to financial reasons, and the remaining parts were completed by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. It is noteworthy that the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure collects the costs incurred for metro projects from ABB's shares transferred by the central government, while in many other cities such projects are financed by either domestic borrowing, external borrowing, or owner's equity. In addition, other studies examined in the literature were mostly evaluated in an engineering point of view rather than financial evaluation, and this reveals the originality of this study.
Within the scope of the study, literature research was conducted and quantitative data were used. In addition, data was obtained from the General Directorate of Ankara Electricity, Gas and Bus Enterprises (EGO) as the primary source of information and a face-to-face questionnaire was applied to passengers residing in Ankara. Since the survey was conducted during the pandemic period, it was limited to 131 people, which is approximately half of the sample. The frequency of the investigated event in the sampling process was taken as (0.5), the theoretical value found from the t-chart at a certain degree of freedom and the detected error level was taken as (1.96), and the sampling error accepted according to the incidence of the event was taken as (0.05).
IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH
Transportation infrastructure at regional and national level contributes positively to economic growth. It is observed that there are studies examining the impact of the transportation infrastructure on economic growth in Turkish economy again at regional and national level (Kara and Cigerlioglu, 2018).
The impact of public capital stock on the income levels of the provinces of Turkey were examined for the period of 1987-2001 using the method of panel data rassal effects in the study conducted by Pirili and Lenger (2011), one of the abovementioned studies. The used public expense types in their study and determined that the coefficient of transportation-communication expenses, one of the abovementioned expense types was statistically meaningless. One of the studies targeting at determining the impact of infrastructure expense types on output at regional level in Turkey was conducted by Kara, Ta§ and Ada (2016).
Transportation and communication expenses among the infrastructure expense types were taken into consideration in the applied study conducted with the method of panel data fixed effects using 2004-2008 data. While it was expressed that the infrastructure of transportation and communication generally increased
the regional output, the coefficient of transportation-communication expenses was determined to be higher in relatively developed regions such as West Marmara, East Marmara, West Anatolia and in relatively underdeveloped regions such as Black Sea, Southeast Anatolia, Central Anatolia compared to the regional average. Ku§tepeli, Gulcan and Akgungor (2012) analyzed the impact of highway infrastructure investment expenses on international trade and economic growth in Turkey with time serials, using the data for the period of 1970-2005. According to the results of the study, there is no relation between transportation infrastructure expenses and economic growth and foreign trade whereas it is expressed that there is weak causal relation only between export and highway infrastructure expenses in the short run. Eruygur, Kaynak and Mert (2012) estimated the impact of transportation and communication infrastructure on economic growth for Turkish economy using the vector error correction model (VECM). They state in their studies where they used the data of the period of 1963-2006 that the increase in transportation and communication infrastructure increased the output in the long run by 0,59 and that those infrastructure types are a significant element of economic growth in the long run. Badalyan, Herzfeld and Rajcaniova (2014) examined in their study the impact of the types of transportation infrastructure on economic growth for the economies of Armenia, Georgia and Turkey using the data of the period of 1982-2010. They concluded in the study conducted using the method of dynamic panel data that the highway and railway infrastructure investments and commodity transport in the selected counties contributed significantly to the process of economic growth. Artar, Uca and Ta§gi (2016) used the method of smallest squares in their study where they estimated the impact of airway transport in Turkey on economic growth using the data of the period of 1980-2014. According to the results of the study, airway transport in Turkey affect economic growth positively.
Comparison of Metro Costs With Istanbul, Izmir and European Countries
The metro costs of certain metro lines in USA per km are given in Table 1. The metro line the costs per km of which are the highest is Los Angeles North Hollywood Extension Metro while the metro with the lowest cost per km is Atlanta Marta metro (Table 1).
362
Table 1. Metro costs of certain metro lines in USA per km (Flyvbjerg et al. 2008)
Washington, DC Atlanta Baltimore Metro Los Angeles North
Metro MARTA Section A&B Hollywood Extension
Opening year 1985 1986 1983 2000
Length (km) 97.3 43.1 12.2 10.1
% Tunnel, Lifted, at
ground level 57% tunnel 42% tunnel 56% tunnel unknown
Number of stations 57 26 9 3
Stopping distance (km) 1.7 1.7 1.4 3.4
Capital costs (million) 7968 2720 1289 1311
Cost/km (million) 81.9 63.1 105.7 129.8
Cost/km (million) 2002-
US$ 114.3 88 147.5 131.6
The metro costs of certain metro lines in Asia and Latin America countries per km are given in Table 2. The metro line the costs per km of which are the highest is Caracas line 3 while the metro with the lowest cost per km is Singapore (Table 2).
Table 2. Metro costs of certain metro lines in Asia and Latin America countries per km
(Flyvl njerg et al. 2008)
Singapore Seoul Calcutta Caracas Hat 3
Opening year unknown unknown unknown 1994
Length (km) 67 116.5 16.5 4.4
% Tunnel, Lifted, at ground
level 30% tunnel 80% tunnel 95% tunnel 100% tunnel
Number of stations unknown unknown unknown 4
Stopping distance (km) 1.6 1.1 1 1.1
Capital costs (million) 2500 5240 684 372
Cost/km (million) 37.3 45 41 84.5
Cost/km (million) 2002-US$ 54.5 65.8 59.9 98.4
The metro costs of metro lines in certain countries and Turkey per km are given in Table 3. The metro line the costs per km of which are the highest is Caracas Line 3 while the metro with the lowest cost per km is Madrid extension (1995-1999) (Table 3).
363
Tablo 3. Km costs of certain metro lines in the world and in Turkey in US dollar (Kirs, 2021)
Cost/km Cost/km
Opening Length Number of (million (million dollar)
year %Tunnel (km) stations dollar) 2002 US Dollar
Madrid
extension 68% tunnel, 32% at
1995-99 1999 ground level 56.3 38 26.7 26.7
25% tunnel, 20%
Mexico City lifted, 55% at
Hat B 2000 ground level 23.7 21 43.8 43.8
Caracas Line
3 1994 100% tunnel 4.4 4 98.4 98.4
Darica-Gebze 91% tunnel, 9%
Metro 2023 open line 15.4 11 36.2 31.9
Göztepe-
Umraniye
Metro 2022 100% tunnel 14 11 47.4 45.1
Kadiköy-
Kartal Metro 2012 100% tunnel 23.2 11 48.2 33.1
The routes, lengths, total costs and km costs of A1, M1, M2, M3, M4 Metro lines of the urban rail systems in Ankara (Table 4). The metro line with the highest km cost is Ml Metro Line (Table 4).
When the examples from other countries and the metro lines in the province of Ankara are compared in terms of km costs, the km costs of the examples from other countries are within the range of 26,7 million $ and 98,4 million dollars. On the other hand, the km cost of metro lines in the province of Ankara is within the range of 34 million dollars 62 million dollars (Table 3; Table 4). As Kirs (2021) indicates, the total bid price of Darica Gebze Metro Line is TRY 2 billion, the total bid price of Goztepe Umraniye Metro Line is TRY 2 billion, the total bid price of Kadikoy Kartal Metro Line is TRY 751 million Euros. The km cost of Darica Gebze metro is 36 million Euros, the km cost of Goztepe Umraniye
metro line is 47 million Euros, the km cost of Kadikoy Kartal metro is 48 million Euros (Kirs, 2021).
Line Route Length (km) Total $ Cost per km ($)
A1 A§ti Dikimevi 8,527 396,834,187.60 46,538,546.69
Ml Kizilay Batikent 14,661 915,387,264.29 62,436,891.36
M2 Kizilay Çayyolu 16,59 893,587,367.93 53,863,011.93
M3 Batikent Sincan Torekent 15,36 527,613,116.15 34,349,812.25
M4 Keçioren AKM 9,223 368,400,033.17 39,943,622.81
LITERATURE REVIEW The models of financing the transportation investments were discussed by Alageyik (2014) in the thesis with the subject of "Examination of the Models of Financing the Transportation Investments and Search for Model Convenient for the Conditions of Turkey". The alternatives of developing models of financing convenient for Turkey were examined. Models of provision of financing fully by the public or private sector etc. were proposed.
Arslan (2019) examined in the thesis with the subject of "Financing the Infrastructure Investments through Capital Market Instruments and the Role of Institutional Investors" the financing of the infrastructure investments through capital market instruments and use of the same in infrastructure investments through funds including retirement investment fund, national asset fund etc. The thesis assumed that the legal legislation is convenient for infrastructure investments, that the state cannot make decisions restricting investments, the interest rates shall not excessively increase and affect the asset valuation negatively, that the inflation rates shall not excessively increase, collaboration with the private sector shall be provided and there are no political obstacles. 364
Saito (1998) examined the public-private partnerships in development and operation of -
infrastructure services in the doctorate thesis titled "Public private partnerships in providing rail infrastructure: the Japanese case".
Ayan (2018) performed studies related to feasibility reports in rail systems in the thesis titled "Assessment of Feasibility Reports in Rail System Projects"; Goktürk (2007) performed similar studies in the thesis with the subject of "An Assessment on the Difficulties with Cost Estimations and Solution suggestions in the Feasibility Phase in the Construction Sector", Murteza (2010) performed similar studies in the thesis with the subject of "Feasibility Surveys of Rail System Investments and Construction Methods". Ayan (2018) focused in the thesis with the subject of "Assessment of Feasibility Reports in Rail System Projects"on how to prepare a reliable, sensitive and effective feasibility report for rail system projects.
Oguzalp (2011) calculated in his thesis the cost of metro investment cost and the number of passengers required for return of investment. Ugurel (2010) made suggestions in his thesis with the subject of "Suggestions for Determining the Period of Return of the Metro Project Investments in Turkey and Optimization of this Period" for determining the period of return of the metro project investments and optimizing this period.
As suggested by researchers such as Aliefendioglu and Tanrivermi§ (2011; 2016; 2017), Aliefendioglu (2017), Aliefendioglu and Bostanci (2018), Tanrivermi§ (1997), Tanrivermi§ and Aliefendioglu (2019), Tanrivermi§ (2019), Ünal (2021), a necessity emerges to focus on income-generating activities in the financing of infrastructure investments, especially transportation, offered by local governments, to evaluate existing real estates in asset management and corporate social responsibility, to analyze the possibilities of using the increase in value that may be caused by
infrastructure investments such as metro in project financing, and to make necessary arrangements in the legislation in this direction.
The subjects of financing transportation investments and financing infrastructure investments were generally discussed as a consequence of the literature review. The subject of financing the urban rail systems was not mentioned much in the literature. This study is different from other studies in this respect.
METHODOLOGY The objective of this study is to outline the financing methods and problems of urban rail system investments based on the example of Ankara Province in Turkey and to propose solutions. There are differences in various issues such as project development, project valuation, land acquisition, financing and valuation in many countries and Turkey. In terms of the development and diversification of urban transportation services, the importance of urban rail system projects has increased in large cities with an increasing population. However, the commissioning of some projects in this area is delayed due to lack of financing. Due to the high costs of rail system investments, certain issues are encountered in the financing of these systems. Since municipalities' own revenues are not sufficient to finance such investments, municipalities are forced to seek domestic or international borrowing instruments. Studies on the economic, social and environmental effects of transportation investments in Turkey and several developing countries are very limited. What is more, there are hardly any studies on the analysis and management of urban rail system investments.
Within the scope of the study, literature research was conducted and quantitative data were used. In addition, data were obtained from the Ankara Electricity, Gas and Bus Operations Organization (EGO) General Directorate as a primary source of information. Financing methods used 365 in transportation investments in general, and specifically, the financing methods of Batikent-Kizilay
- (M1), ^ayyolu-Kizilay (M2), Batikent-Sincan-Tórekent (M3) and Kegióren-AKM (M4) metro lines in
Ankara are discussed. In addition, an economic and financial analysis of the M3 Batikent-Sincan-Tórekent Metro Line has been made. He/she/they should explain why they chose the Ankara case.
The method determined in this study for the purpose of examining the financing models of the investments of urban rail systems in Ankara could be indicated as follows;
i. A review of local and foreign sources related to the subject conducted previously was performed, ii. The data related to the subject were collected from EGO General Directorate, iii. A survey was applied to the passengers who live in Ankara. The number of participants is 131 individuals. Why 131 participants are included the survey that is a giant gap of the research based on validity and reliability.
The metro investments made in the province of Ankara generally started in local administration at first sight and were subsequently assigned to the central administration and the rail system projects were implemented. This study analyzed the rail system projects started by local administration at first sight comparing at which proportion, how long and with how much cost were borne to the period and cost for the remaining part of the project after transiting to the central administration. The costs of the rail system projects in the province of Ankara were compared to the examples of other countries and the costs of other rail systems in Turkey.
The investments for urban rail system should be financed by the central administration or in collaboration of central administration-local administration.
Actually, I cant understand why he/she or they talk about the result of the survey in this section. This is an unnecessary sentence. he/she or they should remove this part. He/she or they sould join(s) this section with previous part.
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
The expenditures of consumers on assets such as white goods, houses and automobiles to meet their daily needs are defined as consumer-based investments (Yalginer and Aksoy, 2011:7). The concept of infrastructure is divided into two as narrow and broad in the economics literature. In the narrow sense, infrastructure includes financial opportunities such as water, communication, energy and transportation sought in the place of investment. When infrastructure is considered in a broad sense, it includes facilities such as water, communication, energy, transportation and sewerage, institutions and organizations in the fields of health and education, as well as social fixed capital, which includes the knowledge and ability in these issues (Vural, 2005:11).
Infrastructure investments are high-cost investments (Geng and Ertugrul, 2019). The classification of transportation investments according to the sector in which they are made is divided into sub-headings as highway, airway, railway, maritime, and port investments. Transportations that start from a point within the country and end in another country are defined as international road transportation (Kogmen, 2019:3).
Airline transportation is an effective system for passengers to travel long distances comfortably, safely, and quickly, with the ability to overcome long distances between terminals in a short time with its superior speed feature, generally by transporting valuable and small packaged commercial goods (Kurt, 2010; 44).
Rail transportation is used to transport large volumes of goods over long distances. Besides, in cities; factors such as the expansion of the urban area, population growth, distribution of the population to different regions, environmental effects, transportation costs, preference for safe, comfortable, and fast travel; necessitate the development of rail systems by ensuring that transportation is out of the highway monopoly (Evren and Ogut, 2019:309-310). Today, maritime transport is a system used especially for the transportation of large volumes of products, semi-finished products, and raw materials. The scale of use in passenger transportation remains weak compared to freight transportation (Birdogan, 2004:46-47).
The resources to be used in the financing of investment projects are financing with own resources and financing with foreign resources. Foreign capital is the capital that the owners and partners of the business borrow at a price from third parties for a certain amount of time. As the two main reasons for financing with foreign resources can be summarized as
i. supplying the capital need of the investment that cannot be met by own resources,
ii. increasing the rate of profit (Tatar, 1993:228-229).
Financing methods of infrastructure investments can be explained as; 1-methods of public financing;
a. financing with budgetary resources,
b. financing through outsourcing; World Bank, European Investment Bank, Asian Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank,
c. Financing through the issue of securities; Financing methods based on securitization of investment incomes (income share certificates),
2. Private Sector Financing Methods (Public-Private Cooperation Method); Public-private partnership financing models, BOT, one of the public-private partnership financing models.
366
EVALUATION OF ANKARA URBAN TRANSPORTATION STRUCTURE AND FINANCING
Minibus, bus and rail systems are among the types of public transportation used to meet the transportation demands in Ankara (Table 1). Numerical Data for Bus, Ankaray, Metro (M1, M2, M3,
M4), Téléphérique, Private Public Transport, Private Public Bus and Bagkentray Lines (December 2020) are summarized in Table 1. When the journeys made in Ankara in 2020 are examined, it is seen that the highest number of passengers is in the EGO buses, and in the metro lines, the minimum number of passengers is on the M4 metro line and the highest number of passengers are on the M1 metro line (Table 5).
The total number of passengers in Ankaray, M1, M2, M3 and M4 metro lines in 2020 is 67.097.189 individuals. The total number of passengers of rail systems in 2021 is 83.093.214 individuals. The total number of passengers of rail systems in 2019 is 144.314.425 individuals. When the number of passengers in 2020 and 2021 was compared to 2019, it is observed that the number of passengers in 2020 and 2021 decreased. The reason for this is that the number of passengers decreased because of the COVID-19 pandemic which affected all the countries of the world. The number of passengers decreased because people preferred to use private vehicles rather than mass transportation. As researchers including Atasoy et al. (2021), Erbag (2020), Guan et al. (2020), Haas et al. (2020), Oum and Wang (2020), Shen et al. (2020), Tirachini and Cats (2020), Wilbur et al. (2020), Chang et al. (2021), Kartal et al. (2021) etc. mentioned, the COVID-19 pandemic had negative impact on mass transportation (Table 5).
Table 5: Number of Public Transport Passengers in Ankara in 2020 References (EGO General _Directorate)_
367
Lines Number of Passengers (December 2020)
Bus 112.916.590
Ankaray 16.071.522
Metro (M1) 22.736.027
Metro (M2) 13.921.594
Metro (M3) 9.590.152
Metro (M4) 4.777.894
Rail Systems Total 67.097.189
Cable Car 458.481
EGO Total 180.472.260
Private Vehicle 18.369.164
Private Public Bus 38.983.302
BAGKENTRAY 7.840.907
Grand Total 245.665.633
The features of the rail systems in Ankara, length, route, number of stations, and number of vehicles are summarized in Table 6.
The properties, length and route of the rail systems in Ankara, the number of stations and vehicles are summarized in Table 2. Ankaray is 8 km long, M1 Metro Line is 14 km long, M2 Metro Line is 16 km long, M3 Metro Line is 15 KM long and M4 Metro Line is 9 km long. The total rail system line length is 64 km. the total number of stations in the rail systems is 54 (Table 6).
Table6: Features of Rail Systems in Ankara references (EGO General Directorate)
Name Length (m) Route Number of Station Number of Vehicles
Ankaray 8.527 Agti-Dikimevi 11 33 (11 sets of triple series)
Metro (M1) 14.661 Kizilay-Batikent 12 294 (49 sets of senary series)
Metro (M2) 16.590 Kizilay-^ayyolu 11
Metro (M3) 15.360 Batikent-Torekent 11
Metro (M4) 9.220 Kegioren-AKM 9 24 (8 sets of triple series)
TCDD Bagkentray Commuter Train 37.000
PROJECTS IN PROGRESS
AKM- station- Kizilay metro project
Kegioren Metro, the 4th phase of Ankara Metro, will be extended from Ataturk Culture Center to Station, Sihhiye and Kizilay by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. It is approximately 3.3 km. The tender was made by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure on 14-15 November 2017, and the construction works are in progress (Table 7).
Planned projects
(M5) airport metro project
Airport metro (Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure)
The pre-tender works for the line between Yildirim Beyazit-Kuyubagi (the station adjacent to the M4 Kegioren Line Kuyubagi Station) have been completed and have been included in the investment program. It is expected to go out to tender. The project tender between Kuyubagi-GAR has been completed and the projects are in the delivery phase (Table 7).
Etlik Hospitals region project
The study project tender of the YHT (High-Speed Train) Station-Etlik Hospitals Region-Yozgat Boulevard Metro Line is carried out by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure plans this line as a continuation of the Airport-GAR line to Ovacik. Project work for this continues (Table 7).
Dikimevi-Natoyolu light rail system project
The tender of "Final Project Services Based on Implementation" along with a line, which was previously transferred to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, a station between A§TI-Sogutozu and a 0,788 km length of line was made on 12.10.2020, and Metro Istanbul A.§ won the tender with the price of 6.565.900,00 TL (Table 7).
368
Table 7: Rail System Lines Planned to be Built and Estimated Costs (EGO General Directorate)
Examined Projects Building Construction (1.000 $) Warehouse Workshop (1.000 $) Electrical Signalizatio n (1.000 $) Other (1.000 $) Approximate Total Cost (1.000 $)
Airport-Train Station 206.161 5.924 73.246 25.308 387.417
Airport-Kuyubagi 135.377 5.924 48.084 16.611 263.579
North Ankara-Kuyubagi 20.935 0 7.436 2.569 37.664
AKM-Train Station-Sihhiye-Kizilay 24.424 0 8.675 2.997 45.693
Gazino Ovacik 30.844 4.739 10.955 3.785 59.920
Dikimevi Natoyolu 66.991 4.739 23.795 8.221 121.768
Sogutozu-100.Yil 23.726 0 8.427 2.912 41.996
369
According to the results of the examination, the investment costs of urban infrastructure and rail systems vary from country to country, from city to city, and even from one part of the city to another. Especially in many developing countries, the establishment of lines for new residential areas (such as Tunisia and Recife (Brazil-Pernambuco State capital)) causes a decrease in project costs, while in countries such as Turkey, Japan and the Netherlands, the cost may be higher in fully built-up parts of cities. In order to reduce the investment cost, it is seen that lines are built under boulevards, avenues and streets in many countries, and by this way, the cost of land acquisition and expropriation is eliminated (Tanrivermig and Aliefendioglu, 2019).
It is clear that the unit investment cost for the metro lines examined in the example of Ankara is 1/4 to 1/5 lower compared to developed countries and that metro investments should be more attractive for foreign and domestic private sector. It has been determined that A§TÎ-Dikimevi consists 12,79%, Kizilay-Batikent 29,51%, Kizilay-Çayyolu 28,81%, Batikent-Sincan-Torekent 17,01% and Tandogan-Keçioren 11,88% of the total investment cost of the metro lines built in Ankara, and it was confirmed that lines with the highest cost are Kizilay-Batikent and Kizilay-Çayyolu (Table 8).
Table 5: Amounts Spent by the General Directorate of EGO and the Ministry of Transport and
Infrastructure (EGO General Directorate)
Line Route Amounts Spent by EGO General Directora Amounts Spent by Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure
Construction (EGO) ($) Consultant (EGO) ($) Construction (MTI) ($) Workshop warehouses (MTI) ($) Vehicles (MTI) ($) Electromecanic al (MTI) ($) Consultant (MTI) ($) Total ($)
A1 A§TI-Dikimevi 389.400.000,00 7.434.187,60 - - - - - 396.834.187,60
M1 Kizilay-Batikent 778.800.000,00 15.891.734,83 - 60.858.455,95 18.861.576,77 40.975.496,74 - 915.387.264,29
M2 Kizilay-Çayyolu 424.560.660,11 22.532.228,92 71.757.654,83 54.377.880,18 231.847.069,94 76.548.740,31 11.963.133,6 4 893.587.367,93
M3 Batikent- Sincan- Törekent 168.842.735,04 - 60.148.765,35 - 193.205.985,14 105.415.630,62 - 527.613.116,15
M4 Tandogan -Keçiôren 169.097.711,80 - 149.337.972,35 - 39.373.609,22 10.590.739,81 - 368.400.033,17
TOTAL 1.930.701.106,9 5 45.858.151,35 281.244.392,53 115.236.336,14 483.288.241,07 233.530.607,47 11.963.133,6 4 3.101.821.969,1 5
The debts of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure for the M2, M3 and M4 Metro Lines is total of $31,768,905.59. The expenses are $47,294,360.41 for M2 Line, $18,253,047.99 for M3 Metro Line, $51,468,569.63 for M4 Metro Line and the common expenses are $214,752,927.56 for the M2, M3 and M4 Metro Lines (Table 9).
The total debt of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for M2, M3 and M4 Metro Lines is TRY 331,768,905.59. The shared expenses for M2 Line is $47,294,360.41, it is $18,253,047.99 for M3 Metro Line, $51,468,569.63 for M4 Metro line and $214.752.927,56 for M2, M3 and M4 Metro Lines (Table 5). M2 Metro Line remaining construction works cost is 21 million $, M2 metro line bonded warehouse field construction and electro-mechanic works cost is 20 million $, Necatibey station completion works and construction works cost is 5 million $, M3 Metro Line cost is 18 million $, M4 Metro Line construction works cost is 46 million $, M4) Metro M1-M4(AKM) connection line emergent completion works cost is 4 million $, M2, M3, M4 Metro Lines electro-mechanic works cost is 85 million $, M4 additional electro-mechanic works cost is 16 million $, vehicle purchasing costs is 109 million $, cost of control, consultancy and engineering services is 4 million $. The cost of vehicle purchasing is 33% of the total cost (Table 9).
Table 9: Debt Amounts to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure for M2, M3, M4 Metro
Lines (EGO General Directorate)
Project Name Accrued Amount ($)
1-Kizilay-^ayyolu (M2) Subway Line Remaining Construction Works 21.114.977,66
M2 Line 2-^ayyolu warehouse site construction and electromechanical works 20.423.990,59
3-Necatibey station completion Works construction works 5.755.392,16
M3 Line 1-Batikent-Sincan(M3) Metro Line 18.253.047,99
M4 Line 1-Tandogan-Kegioren (M4) Subway Line Remaining Construction Works 46.781.300,53
2-Tandogan-Kegioren (M4) Metro M1-M4(AKM) connection line emergency completion works 4.687.269,10
Electromechanical works of Ankara Metros (M2, M3, M4 Lines) 85.280.494,41
Addiotional Electromechanical works of Ankara Metros (M4, Ankaray-Sogutozu Lines) 16.054.117,34
Vehicle Purchases for Ankara Metros (M2, M3, M4 Lines) 109.466.699,62
Supervision, consultancy and engineering services for Ankara Metros (M2, M3, M4 Lines) 3.951.616,19
Total 331.768.905,59
370
The unfinished construction works of the M2 Kizilay- ^ayyolu, M3 Batikent-Sincan, M4 AKM-Kegioren, A1 A^TI-Sogutozu, AKM-Kizilay lines were transferred to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure with the protocols drawn up on 25.04.2011 based on the provisions of the 15th and temporary 5th articles of the Decree-Law dated 26.09.2011 and numbered 655. The amount of deduction made by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure as of May 2019 is $21.435.430,40, in 2020 it is
$33.159.788,46 and until September 2021 it is $29.741.285,21.
The total deduction made by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure for the years 2019, 2020 and 2021 is $84.336.503,98. If this amount had been deducted according to the Council of Ministers Decision numbered 2015/1115, the total amount paid would have been $3.938.807,08, and this arrangement would result in higher repayments by metropolitan municipalities and a decrease in the amount of resources required to be allocated for new investment projects (Table 10).
371
Table 10: Deductions Made by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure (EGO General Directorate)
Year 2019
Deduction made by the Ministry of 15% Deduction from the revenues of lines
Months Transport and Infrastructure for the M2, M3, M4 as per the council of Ministers
M2, M3 and M4 Lines ($) decision numbered 2015/1115 ($)
May 2.030.206,56 194.060,64
June 2.793.112,04 156.628,89
July 2.111.351,01 194.567,60
August 2.362.503,56 157.926,25
September 3.136.513,94 258.253,79
October 2.039.451,23 250.200,63
November 2.374.984,37 284.994,03
December 4.587.307,70 284.681,80
Total 21.435.430,40 1.781.313,63
Year 2020
January 2.967.740,03 238.672,06
February 3.693.357,78 233.482,12
March 4.644.341,22 163.689,68
April 1.151.764,38 72.147,64
May 1.830.697,90 31.102,57
June 2.498.706,96 79.244,38
July 1.753.117,59 84.747,53
August 2.417.012,88 97.612,13
September 4.208.075,70 84.390,64
October 2.248.703,04 96.667,72
November 2.394.662,83 80.812,28
December 3.351.608,16 63.146,27
Total 33.159.788,46 1.325.715,00
Year 2021
January 3.012.701,04 64.910,16
February 3.306.686,00 75.527,04
March 4.813.200,31 117.644,41
April 2.884.429,32 67.092,13
May 2.582.531,66 40.835,77
June 3.298.158,85 99.440,35
July 2.617.748,17 99.868,93
August 2.504.515,77 121.554,45
September 4.721.314,08 144.905,20
Total 29.741.285,21 831.778,45
Total 84.336.503,98 3.938.807,08
(M1) Ankara Metro-1 (15 Temmuz Kizilay Milli irade-Batikent) public rail transport system
When the number of passengers, energy consumption and journeys made on the M1 Metro Line in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 are examined, the number of passengers did not change much in 2017, 2018, 2019, but there was a decrease of approximately 50% in the number of passengers in 2020 due to the pandemic (Table 11).
The number of passengers in 2017 is 46 million individuals, approximately 47 million individuals in 2018, approximately 46 million individuals in 2019 and 22 million individuals in 2020. The number of passengers decreased by 50% as a consequence of the negative impact of COVID-19 pandemic (Table 11).
Table 11: Numerical Data on Line M1 (EGO General Directorate)
Years Number of passengers (persons) Spent energy (Kw) Number of trips (Rounds)
2017 46.087.321 40.887.984 57.060
2018 46.981.933 38.026.240 56.590
2019 45.982.600 34.729.715 56.135
2020 22.736.027 26.447.043 46.505
(M1) Batikent-Kizilay Metro; The construction of the Metro Line was started in 1993. It was put into operation in 1997. Initially, the metro was decided to be built with the Build-Operate-Transfer model. However, later on, the Build-Operate-Transfer model was abandoned and it was decided to proceed with the turnkey delivery method. Financing was provided by obtaining a loan. The project 372
was financed by borrowing from abroad. The total tender price of the M1 metro line is $585.89.878. The -
mileage cost is $62,436,891.36 (Table 12).
The total bid price of M1 metro line is 585 million $, the total investment cost is 915 million $, cost per km is 62 million $, the total bid price is 585 million $ (Tablo 12).
Table 12: Numerical Data on Line M1 (EGO General Directorate)
Total tender price 585.889.878 $
Total investment cost including the Kizilay joint 915.387.264,29 $
Cost per km 62.436.891,36 $
Total tender price 585.889.878 $
(M2) Ankara Metro (15 Temmuz Kizilay Milli irade-^ayyolu public rail transport system
When the number of passengers, energy consumption, and journeys made on the M2 Metro Line in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 is examined, the number of passengers did not change much in 2017, 2018, 2019, but there was a decrease of approximately 55% in the number of passengers in 2020 due to the pandemic (Table 13).
The number of passengers of M2 metro line in 2017 is 27 million individuals, 29 million individuals in 2018, 31 million individuals in 2019 and approximately 14 million individuals in 2020. The number of passengers decreased by 55% in 2020 compared to 2019. Despite the decrease in the number of passengers, there is no serious decrease in the amount of energy consumed and the number of voyages in 2020. The energy consumed decreased by 7% in 2020, and the number of voyages decreased by 14%. There is decrease in the number of passengers, energy consumed and the number of
voyages in 2020 because of lockdown at the weekend in the period of COVID-19 pandemic, special restrictions imposed on individuals younger than 20 and older than 65 etc. (Table 13).
Table 13: Numerical Data on Line Ml (EGO General Directorate)
Years Number of passengers (persons) Spent energy (Kw) Number of trips (Rounds)
2017 27.409.693 24.294.568 42.432
2018 29.785.743 26.188.894 44.884
2019 31.659.077 29.815.811 54.451
2020 13.921.594 27.670.904 46.505
(M2) Ki/ilay-Cayyolu Metro; Its construction started in 2002. Until 2011, building and construction works were carried out by the EGO General Directorate. Afterward, the project was transferred to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure with a protocol for the completion of the remaining works. It was inaugurated and put into service in 2014.
Financing method
Part of this metro was built by the General Directorate of EGO, and the rest by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure has been collecting the amounts it has spent for the metro line since May 2019, through deductions from the shares of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality transferred in accordance with the Law No. 5779 on Granting of Shares from General Budget Tax Revenues to Municipalities and Special Provincial Administrations. 100% of the 1st stage and 81.94% of the 2nd stage have been completed by the EGO General Directorate. The remaining part was completed by 373 the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure.
--When the cost of the M2 Metro Line is analyzed, the construction cost by EGO General Directorate is
424,560,660.11 $, the consultancy expense is 22,532,228.92 $, the total cost is 47,092,889.03 $. The total cost spent by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure is $446,494,478.86. The total cost is $893,587,367.89 (Table 14).
Looking through the cost of M2 Metro Line; the cost of construction by EGO General Directorate is 424 million $, the consultancy expense is 22 million $ and the total cost is 447 million $. The expenses incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure are as follows: construction expense: 71 million $, workshop warehouse expense: 54 million $, vehicle cost: 231 million $, electro-mechanic expenses: 76 million $, consultancy costs: 11 million $. The total cost incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is 446 million $. The total cost is 893 million $. 50% of the total cost was incurred by EGO General Directorate and 50% was incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Table 14).
Table 14 Cost of the (M2) Ki/ilay-^ayyolu Metro (EGO General Directorate)
Cost incurred by the EGO General Directorate ($) Expenditures made of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure ($)
Construction Cost 424.560.660,11 Construction Expenses 71.757.654,83
Consultancy Expenses 22.532.228.92 Workshop-Warehouse Expenses 54.377.880,18
Vehicle Costs 231.847.069,90
Electromechanical Expenses 76.548.740,31
Consulting Costs 11.963.133,64
Total 447.092.889.03 446.494.478.86
Total Cost 893.587.367,89 $
When the number of passengers, energy consumption and journeys made on the M3 Metro Line in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 are examined, the number of passengers did not change much in 2017, 2018, 2019, but there was a decrease of approximately 50% in the number of passengers in 2020 due to the pandemic (Table 15).
The number of passengers of M3 metro line in 2017 is 12 million individuals, 15 million individuals in 2018, 18 million individuals in 2019 and 9 million individuals in 2020. The energy consumed in 2017 is 16 million Kw, 20 million Kw in 2018, 25 million Kw in 2019, 9 million Kw in 2020. The number of voyages in 2017 is 44 thousand, 50 thousand in 2018, 56 thousand in 2019 and 46 thousand in 2020 (Table 15).
Table 15: Numerical Data on Line M3 (EGO General Directorate)
Years Number of passengers (persons) Spent Energy (Kw) Number of Trips (Rounds)
2017 12.885.661 16.232.878 44.365
2018 15.391.516 20.862.288 50.605
2019 18.174.750 25.836.498 56.135
2020 9.590.152 19.236.096 46.505
(M3) Batikent-Sincan-Torekent Metro
Building and construction works of the metro line started in 2001. With a protocol executed in 2011, the remaining works were transferred to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. The metro line was inaugurated and put into operation in 2014.
Financing method 374
Part of this metro was built by the General Directorate of EGO, and the rest by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure has been collecting the amounts it has spent for the metro line since May 2019, through deductions from the shares of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality transferred in accordance with the Law No. 5779 on Granting of Shares from General Budget Tax Revenues to Municipalities and Special Provincial Administrations. The percentage of progress realized by the EGO General Directorate is 71 percent.
While the total costs incurred by the EGO General Directorate for the M3 Metro Line are 168,842,735.04 $, the total cost made by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure is 358,770,381.11 $. The total cost of the metro line is $527,613,116.15 (Table 16).
The total cost incurred for M3 Metro Line by EGO General Directorate is 168 million $ while the total cost incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is 358 million $. The total cost of the Metro line is 527 million $ (Table 12). The construction cost incurred by EGO General Directorate is 168 million $, the construction expense incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is 60 million $, the vehicle cost is 193 million $, the electro-mechanic expense is 105 million $. 32% of the total cost was incurred by EGO General Directorate and 68% was incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Table 16).
Table 16: Cost of the (M3) Batikent-Sincan-Torekent Metro (EGO General Directorate)
Cost incurred by the EGO General Directorate ($) Expenditures made of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure ($)
Construction Cost 168.842.735,04 Construction Expenses 60.147.765,35
Vehicle Costs 193.205.985,14
Electromechanical Expenses 105.415.630,62
Total 168.842.735,04 358.770.381,11
Total Cost 527.613.116,15 $
375
(M4) Ankara Metro Rail System Line (Keçioren-AKM)
When the number of passengers, energy consumption and journeys made on the M4 Metro Line in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 are examined, the number of passengers did not change much in 2017, 2018, 2019, but there was a decrease of approximately 55% in the number of passengers in 2020 due to the pandemic (Table 17).
The number of passengers of M4 metro line in 2017 is 7 million individuals, approximately 9 million individuals in 2018, 9 million individuals in 2019 and approximately 5 million individuals in 2020. While no serious change was observed in 2017, 2018, 2019 while there is no decrease in the number of passengers at the proportion of 55% in 2020. The energy consumed in 2017 is 13 million Kw, 13 million Kw in 2018, 13 million Kw in 2019, and 10 million Kw in 2020. The number of voyages in 2017 is 47 thousand, 49 thousand in 2018, 48 thousand in 2019, and 38 thousand in 2020. Although the number of passengers decreases, the number of voyages decreases very much. The number of passengers decreased by 55% in 2020, the energy consumed decreased by 19% and the number of voyages decreased by 19% (Table 17).
Table 17 Numerical Data on Line M4 (EGO General Directorate)
Years Number of passengers (persons) Spent Energy (Kw) Number of Trips (Rounds)
2017 7.728.561 13.227.962 47.901
2018 8.940.708 13.282.362 49.667
2019 9.068.070 13.549.999 48.364
2020 4.777.894 10.963.906 38.856
(M4) Kegioren-Ataturk Kultur Merkezi (AKM)-Kizilay Metro
Building and construction works of the Metro Line started in 2003. The line was transferred to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure with a protocol signed in 2011. It was inaugurated and put into operation in 2017.
Financing method
Part of this metro was built by the General Directorate of EGO, and the rest by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure. The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure has been collecting the amounts it has spent for the metro line since May 2019, through deductions from the shares of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality transferred in accordance with the Law No. 5779 on Granting of Shares from General Budget Tax Revenues to Municipalities and Special Provincial Administrations. The construction progress realized by the EGO General Directorate is 41 percent.
While the total costs incurred by the EGO General Directorate for the M4 Metro Line are 169,097,711.80 $, the total cost made by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure is 199,302,321.38 $. The total cost of the metro line is $368,400,033.17 (Table 18).
The total cost of construction incurred for M4 Metro Line by EGO General Directorate is 169 million $, the construction expense incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is 149 million $, the vehicle cost is 39 million $, the electro-mechanic expense is 10 million $. 46% of the total cost was incurred by EGO General Directorate and 54% was incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (Table 18).
The total cost incurred for M4 Metro Line by EGO General Directorate is 169 million $ whereas the total cost incurred by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is 199 million $. The total cost of the metro line is 368 million $ (Table 18).
Table 18: Cost of the (M3) Batikent-Sincan-Torekent Metro (EGO General Directorate)
Cost incurred by the EGO General Directorate ($) Expenditures made of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure ($)
Construction Cost 169.097.711,80 Construction Expenses 149.337.972,35
Vehicle Costs 39.373.609,22
Electromechanical Expenses 10.590.739,81
Total 169.097.711,80 199.302.321,38
Total Cost 368.400.033,17 $
Ankaray (A1) Ankaray (Dikimevi- A§ti) Public Rail Transport System
When the number of passengers, energy consumption and journeys made on the Ankaray in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 are examined, the number of passengers did not change much in 2017, 2018, 2019, but there was a decrease of approximately 50% in the number of passengers in 2020 due to the pandemic (Table 19).
The number of passengers of Ankaray light rail system is 37 million individuals in 2017, 37 million individuals in 2018, 36 million individuals in 2019, and 16 million individuals in 2020. The energy consumed in 2017 is 18 million Kw, 18 million Kw in 2018, 19 million Kw in 2019, 14 million Kw in 2020. The number of voyages in 2017 is 62 thousand, 63 thousand in 2018, 64 thousand in 2019, and 55 thousand in 2020. 56% decrease in the number of passengers is observed in 2020 compared to 2019 because of pandemic, the energy consumed decreased by 23% and the number of voyages decreased by 14%. When the decrease proportion in the number of passengers and the decrease proportion in the energy consumed and number of voyages are assessed in terms of decrease proportion, the decrease proportion in the number of passengers is higher. (Table 19)
Table 19: Numerical Data on Line Ankaray Line (EGO General Directorate)
376
Years Number of passengers (persons) Spent Energy (Kw) Number of Trips (Rounds)
2017 37.169.239 18.562.018 62.272
2018 37.286.821 18.587.974 63.031
2019 36.800.757 19.201.635 64.125
2020 16.071.522 14.712.514 55.220
The foundation of Ankaray Light Rail System was laid in 1992. Ankaray was completed within four years and put into operation in 1996.
Financing method
The project was financed by loans obtained from abroad. Ankaray's cost is $132,697,571 including additional works, the cost of electromechanical works is $238,618,134 and the total investment cost is $371,315.705 (Table 20).
36% of the total investment cost is construction cost and 64% is the cost of electro-mechanical works (Table 20).
Table 20 Cost of Ankaray (EGO General Directorate)
Cost Type Cost Value
Construction cost including additional works 132.697.571 $
Cost of electromechanical works 238.618.134 $
Total investment cost 371.315.705 $
377
CONCLUSION
It should be emphasized that it is difficult for the private sector to carry out infrastructure projects such as metros with build-operate-transfer and other project financing models, and that municipalities cannot realize such investments with their own resources.
Local and central administrations are required to contribute to the solution of urban transportation problems through development of urban rail system investment projects and establishment of operational models for such systems.
In Turkey, project financing, taxation of value increase and application of revenue partnership models by establishing legal and legal infrastructure can be considered as alternative models.
Other alternative models in financing infrastructure projects that require large resources such as metros include the possibility of using public-private partnerships, real estate investment partnerships, or capital market instruments such as Islamic financing and bonds.
Real estate development and management experts are needed in project development, valuation and implementation processes in local governments, transportation, and infrastructure works.
The financial valuation results of the Batikent-Sincan-Torekent (M3) metro project selected as the sample case establishes that the return on investment was very long and that the internal rate of return remained below the average cost of capital. According to the financial valuation results, it emerges that realization of investment projects that require large-scale fixed capital investment, such as metro lines, through build-operate-transfer and other project financing models by the private sector, is not possible in case the number of passengers and other guarantees are not granted by the relevant public institution and that when the size of investments and demand for technology and financing are considered, the opportunities of municipalities to finance such projects through internal and external resources are quite weak. In consequence, it should be emphasized that local and central administrations are required to contribute to the solution of urban transportation problems through development of urban rail system investment projects and establishment of operational models for such systems.
In many countries, it seems that there is a requirement to develop the possibilities of partially or fully financing investments through project financing models, taxation of the land value caused by the projects, or tax increment financing. In Turkey, project financing, taxation of value increase and application of revenue partnership models by establishing legal and legal infrastructure can be
considered as alternative models.
Other alternative models in financing infrastructures that require large resources such as metros include the possibility of using public-private partnerships, real estate investment partnerships, or capital market instruments such as Islamic financing and bonds. Advantages such as tax incentives and investment insurance can be provided to encourage the private sector to invest in infrastructure such as transportation. In addition, many methods such as government grants, obtaining shares from users, bond issuance, and loans can be used for transportation financing. Subsidies and tax incentives for investors can be supported by the government. There is a strong need for real estate development and management experts in the project development, valuation and implementation processes of local governments, especially in zoning and urban planning, urban development, conservation and transformation, potable and utility water, transportation, and infrastructure works.
It is observed that such experts in question have a vital function, especially in projects to be financed with resources from international financial institutions. It is frequently witnessed that many local projects are implemented without adequate field work and effectiveness and efficiency analysis, or even without acceptable market studies and feasibility studies. It should be emphasized that there is public and institutional interest in defining the duties and authorities of experts graduated from the real estate development and management departments of universities in especially in metropolitan municipalities, affiliated organizations and other local government units and employing them as key personnel in the fields of project preparation, project development, valuation, project finance, and project management. In particular, ensuring that these works are carried out by project development and management experts will not only save time and resources but also enable optimum investment decisions in terms of serving social interests.
survey was made with 131 individuals who live in Ankara with respect to financing the urban rail systems.
The demographic information of the participants is as follows: 63.1% are male, 36.9% are female. 28.5% are within the age range of 35-44 years, 23.1% are within the age range of 45-54 years. 18.5% are within the age range of 25-34 years. 21.5% are within the age range of 18-24 years, and 7.7 are within the age range of 55-64 years. 58.1% are married and 41.9% are single.
63.8% use EGO buses. 78.5% use metro and 50.8% use Ankaray. 95.4% expressed that new metro lines should be constructed in Ankara.
The participants were asked "Which administration(s) should finance the urban rail systems?". The participants answered the question of "Which administration(s) should finance the urban rail systems?" as follows:
29.2% said Central Administration, 20.8% said Local Administration, 4.6% said Private Sector, %33.8 Central Administration-Local Administration Collaboration, 12.3% said Central Administration-Private Sector Collaboration, 12.3% said Local Administration-Private Sector Collaboration, 37.7% said Central Administration-Local Administration-Private Sector Collaboration. The vast majority concluded with the proportion of 37.7% that there should be a mixed structure in the form of collaboration of central administration, local administration, and private sector and 33.8% concluded that there should be collaboration of central administration and local administration.
The participants answered the question of "If your answer is "central administration", why should it be provided by the central administration?" as follows:
55.8% said financial and economic reasons, 33.8% said because it provides financing with lower cost, 39% said opportunity of higher income, 7.8% said social and cultural reasons, 24.7 said faster performance, 24.7% said other (administrations not having sufficient income source for providing financing), 1.3% said other (more effective progress of bureaucratic processes), 1.3% said other (projects
378
should be executed through cooperative work) 1.3% said other (high knowledge), 1.3% said other (all municipalities do not have that capacity, they may not be able to execute that work), 1.3% said other (lines are quite insufficient particularly for Ankara; both the central administration and local administration should assume the investment of different lines).
The majority of the participants, i.e. 55.8% replied financial and economic reasons, 39% replied opportunity of higher income, 33.8% replied provision of financing with lower cost. As understood from the answers, they fail to make expensive infrastructure investments such as urban rail systems since the central administration has higher and more diverse income sources compared to local administration, the income sources of local administrations are not sufficient.
The participants answered the question of "If your answer is "local administration", why should it be provided by the local administration?" as follows:
32.3% said financial and economic reasons, 22.6% said because it provides financing with lower cost, 17.7% said social and cultural reasons, 22.6% said faster performance, 54.8% said that it could better determine the region in the need of rail system than the central administration, 1.6% said other (projects should be executed through cooperative work), 1.6% said other (the administration makes the urban transportation master plan and it cannot complete the rail system projects prior to the planned date since it does not have sufficient financing source, as is the case with the Keçioren metro construction case), 1.6% said other (valid for this point in the previous question).
The question of "why should local administrations finance the urban rail systems" was answered by the participants as follows: 54.8% said that it could better determine the region in the need of rail system than the central administration and 32.3% said financial and economic reasons. The fact that the proportion of the option of "it could better determine the region in the need of rail system than the central administration" is higher than the other options results in local administrations being closer
- to the citizens compared to the central administration. The local administration knows better its own
election region compared to the central administration and knows the needs of the local people better than the central administration. One of the most important problems for the local administrations with respect to financing the infrastructure investments such as urban rail systems is financial and economic reasons.
The participants answered the question of "If your answer is "private sector", why should it be provided by the private sector?" as follows:
45% said financial and economic reasons, 15% said that it does not take permission from the central administration while using loan, 32.5% said it could provide financing with lower cost, 22.5% said that they are not subjected to compulsion of legal legislation to which public administrations are subjected, 27.5% said bureaucratic process being shorter, 2.5% said other (projects should be executed through cooperative work), 2.5% said other (the private sector can realize profitable projects for itself through ppp model out of local and central administration).
The vast majority of the participants, i.e. 45% marked the option of financial and economic reasons. The answer attracting the attention for all questions is financial and economic reasons, failure of the local administrations to make urban rail system investments for financial and economic reasons. The option of financial and economic reasons was the most frequently marked option in the answers of "both the central administration and the private sector should provide". 27.5% of the participants marked the option of bureaucratic process being shorter, 22.5% marked the option of "they are not subjected to compulsion of legal legislation to which public administrations are subjected". The private sector can act more easily with respect to certain issues compared to the public sector and can take faster decisions. This situation gives advantages to the private sector with respect to certain issues.
"COPE-Dergi Editörleri için Davramç Kurallari ve En iyi Uygulama ilkeleri" beyanlari:
Etik Kurul Belgesi: Bu çah§ma için etik kurul onayi gerekmemektedir.
Çikar Çatiçmasi Beyani: Bu makalenin ara§tirmasi, yazarligi veya yayinlanmasiyla ilgili olarak yazarin potansiyel bir çikar çati§masi yoktur.
Finansal Destek: Bu çali§marnn ara§tirma ve yazim a§amasmda herhangi ki§i/kurum veya kurulu§lar tarafindan finansal destek alinmadigi bildirilmi§tir.
Katki Orani Beyani: 1. yazar: %50 - 2. yazar: %50
Destek ve Teçekkûr Beyani: -
Sorumlu Yazar: Sevilay Bostanci
Çifte Kör Hakem Degerlendirmesi: Di§-bagimsiz
Bu makale, Creative Commons Atif-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararasi Lisansi lie lisanslanmi§tir.
The following statements are made in the framework of "COPE-Code of Conduct and Best Practices Guidelines for
Journal Editors":
Ethics Committee Approval: Ethics committee approval is not required for this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: No conflicts of interest were reported for this article.
Financial Support: It has been reported that this study did not receive financial support from any person/institution or organization during the research and writing phase.
Author Contributions: 1st : %50 - 2st : %50
Statement of Support and Acknowledgment: -
Corresponding Author: Sevilay Bostanci
Double-Blind Peer Review: External-independent
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
380
KAYNAK^A
Alageyik, M. (2014). Ula§tirma Yatmmlannda Finansman Modellerinin incelenmesi ve Türkiye Ko§ullarina Uygun Model Ara§tirmasi. (Yayimlanmami§ Yüksek Lisans Tezi). istanbul: Bahge§ehir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Kentsel Sistemler ve Ula§tirma Yönetimi Anabilim Dali.
Aliefendioglu, Y. & Tanrrvermi§, H. (2011). Türkiye'de Gevre Koruma Alanlarinda Arazi Kullanimi ve Koruma Kararlarinin Arazi Piyasalarina Etkileri: Gökova Özel Gevre Koruma Bölgesi Örnegi. Ügüncü Sektör Kooperatifgilik, 46(1), 64-102.
Aliefendioglu, Y. & Tanrivermi§, H. (2016). "Assessment of Land Acquisition and Expropriation Process for Infrastructure Investments and Urban Development Projects in Turkey", European Academy of Land Use and Development (EALD), 1-3 September 2016, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Aliefendioglu, Y. (2017). Kent igi Ula§iminda Geleneksel Toplu Ta§ima Sistemlerine Alternatif Gözümler: Ankara ili "Yenimahalle §entepe Teleferik Hatti" Örnegi. Akademik Sosyal Ara§tvrmalar Dergisi, 53 (Eylül), 278-298.
Aliefendioglu Y. & Tanrrvermi§, H. (2017). "Türkiye'de Belediye Gelirlerinin Ara§tirilmasi Agisindan Ta§inmaz Degerleme Sisteminin Geli§tirilmesi ve Olasi Etkileri", Uluslararasi Kentsel Politikalar Konferansi (International Conferance on Urban Politics), 18-19 September, 2017, Gazimagusa, KKTC.
Aliefendioglu, Y. & Bostanci, S. (2018). Yerel Yönetimlerde Rayli Sistem Yatirimlarmin Yapilabilirligi: Ankara Büyük§ehir Belediyesi Batikent-Sincan-Törekent Metro Hatti Örnegi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(21), 117-142.
Arslan, A. G. (2019). Altyapi Yatirimlarinin Sermaye Piyasasi Araglariyla Finansmani ve Kurumsal Yatirimcilarin Rolü. (Yayimlanmami§ Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü i§letme Anabilim Dali Finansman Bilim Dali.
381
Artar, O. K., Uca, N. & Ta§gi, M. E. (2016). The impact of the airline freight transportation on gdp in Turkey. Journal of International Trade, Logistics and Law, 2(2), 143-148.
Atasoy, T., Bostanci, S., Tanrivermi§ Y. (2021). Covid-19 (Sars-Cov-2) Salginin Toplu Ula§ima Olan Etkisinin Degerlendirilmesi: Ankara ve Mersin illerinin Analizi. Uguncu Sektor Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi Third Sector Social Economic Review 56(4) 2021, 2379-2400.
Ayan, Y. (2018). Rayli Sistem Projelerinde Fizibilite Raporlarinin Degerlendirilmesi. Yuksek Lisans Tezi, istanbul Teknik Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu Rayli Sistemler Muhendisligi Anabilim Dali Rayli Sistemler Muhendisligi Programi, istanbul
Badalyan, G., Herzfeld, T. & Rajcaniova, M. (2014, May). Transport infrastructure and economic growth: panel data approach for Armenia, Georgia and Turkey. In presentation for the 142nd EAAE Seminar Growing Success (pp. 29-30).
Birdogan, B. (2004). Lojistik Yonetimi ve Lojistik Sektor Analizi, Trabzon: Lega Kitapevi.
Chang, H.H., Lee, B., Yang, F.A. & Liou, Y.Y. (2021). Does COVID-19 affect metro use in Taipei? Journal of transport geography, 91, 102954.
Dileyici, D., Aktan, C.C. & Vural, i. (2005). Genel Olarak Altyapi Hizmetleri Altyapi Ekonomisi: Altyapi Hizmetlerinde Serbestle§tirme ve Ozelle§tirme, Ankara: Segkin Yayincilik.
EGO Genel Mudurlugu Web Sitesi: https://www.ego.gov.tr/ tr/sayfa/1075/rayli-sistem, (Eri§im Tarihi: 09.04.2021).
Erba§, O., (2020). COVID-19 Doneminde Hareketlilik: istanbul Kent igi Toplu Ula§im. Kent Akademisi, 13(3), 431-442.
Eruygur, A., Kaynak, M. & Mert, M. (2012). Transportation-communication capital and economic growth: a VECM analysis for Turkey. European Planning Studies, 20(2), 341-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.650901
Evren, G. & Ogut, K.S. (2019). Ulkemizde Kentsel Rayli Sistemlerin Geli§imi, in§aat Muhendisleri Odasi Web: http://www.imo.org.tr/resimler/ekutuphane/pdf/11681.pdf.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N.& Wee, B.V. 2008. Comparison of capital costs per route kilimetre in urban rail. The Europan Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Reseacrh (EJTIR), 8(1), 17-30.
Geng, O. & Ertugrul, E. (2019). Altyapi Yatirimlarinin Finansmani. Turkiye Kalkinma ve Yatirim Bankasi A.§ Web: http://www.kalkinma.com.tr/data/file/ra porlar/ESA/ga/2007-GA/GA-07-07-
30_Kamu_Altyapi_Yatirimlari.pdf adresinden alinmi§tir.
Gokturk, i. (2007). ln§aat Sektorunde Fizibilite A§amasinda Maliyet Tahmini Yapmakta Kar§ila§ilan Zorluklar ve Qozum Onerileri Uzerine Bir Degerlendirme. Yuksek Lisans Tezi, istanbul Teknik Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu in§aat Muhendisligi Anabilim Dali Yapi Muhendisligi Bilim Dali, istanbul.
Guan, L., Prieur, C., Zhang, L., Prieur, C., Georges, D. & Bellemain, P. (2020). Transport effect of COVID-19 pandemic in France. Annual reviews in control.
Kara, M.A. ve Cigerlioglu, O. (2018). Turkiye'de ula§imin ekonomik etkisi. Gaziantep Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17 (2), 577-591.
Kara, M. A., Ta§, S. & Ada, S. (2016). The impact of infrastructure expenditure types on regional income in Turkey. Regional Studies, 50(9), 1509-1519. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1041369
Kartal, M. T., Depren, O. & Kilig Depren, S. (2021). The relationship between mobility and COVID-19 pandemic: Daily evidencefrom an emerging country by causality analysis. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 10(2021) 100366.
Kirs, M. 2021. Metro Projelerinin Yapim ve Maliyet Agisindan Kar§ila§tinlmasi: Istanbul Ve Kocaeli Ornegi. Yuksek Lisans Tezi, istanbul Teknik Universitesi, Lisansustu Egitim Enstitusu, Rayli Sistemler Muhendisligi Ana Bilim Dali.
Ku§tepeli, Y., Gulcan, Y. & Akgungor, S. (2012). Transportation infrastructure investment, growth and international trade in Turkey. Applied Economics, 44(20), 2619-2629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.566189.
Kogmen, Z. (2019). Karayolu Ta§imaciliginin Diger Ta§imacilik Modlariyla Kar§ila§tirilmasi ve Sagladigi Avantajlar, Ula§tirma ve Haberle§me, Uzmanligi Tezi, Ula§tirma, Denizcilik ve Haberle§me Bakanligi Web: https://docplayer.biz.tr/71704-Karayolu-tasimacihginin-diger-tasimacilik-modlariyla-karsilastirilmasi-ve-sagladigiavantajlar.
Kurt, C. (2010). Turkiye'de Ula§tirma Sektoru Igerisinde Lojistigin Yeri ve Onemi, Yuksek Lisans Tezi, istanbul Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, istanbul.
Murteza, M. (2010). Rayli Sistem Yatirimlari Fizibilite Etudleri ve Yapim Yontemleri. Yuksek Lisans Tezi, Bahge§ehir Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu Kentsel Sistemler ve Ula§tirma Yonetimi Anabilim Dali, istanbul.
Oguzalp, M. (2011). Metro In§aati Projelerinde Yatirim Maliyeti Hesabi ve Toplam Yatirimin Geri Donu§u Igin Ihtiyag Duyulan Yolcu Sayisinin Tespit Modeli. Yuksek Lisans Tezi, istanbul Teknik Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu in§aat Muhendisligi Anabilim Dali, istanbul.
Oum, T.H. & Wang, K. (2020). Socially optimal lockdown and travel restrictions for fighting communicable virus including COVID-19. Transport Policy, 96, 94-100.
Pirili, M. & Lenger, A. (2011, March). The role of public capital in regional economy. In International Workshop on Regional Competitiveness and International Factor Movements, Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans-Network for Economic Research INFER, France.
Saito, M. (1998). Public private partnerships in providing rail infrastructure: the Japanese case, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Shen, J., Duan, H., Zhang, B., Wang, J., Ji, J. S., Wang, J. & Shi, X. (2020). Prevention and control of COVID-19 in public transportation: experience from China. Environmental pollution, 115291.
Tanrivermi§, H. (1997). Gevresel Mallarin ve Kirlilik Zararlarinin Degerlerinin Bigilmesinde Kullanilan Yontemler ve Bu Yontemlerin Turkiye'de Uygulanabilirligi, Gazi Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Iktisat Bolumu, Ekonomik Yakla§im. 8(24-25); 81-145.
Tanrivermi§, H. & Aliefendioglu, Y. (2019). "The Impacts of Land Acquisition and Resettlement Activities of Infrastructure Investments on Natural and Cultural Heritages and Social and Economic Life: The case of Turkey" (Chapter 7), In: Handbook of Contemporary Issues in Expropriation, Eds: Pliemmer and McCluskey, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, Oxfordshire, UK, 118-157.
Tanrivermi§, H. (2019). "Turkiye Ekonomisinde in§aat ve Gayrimenkul Sektorlerinin Rolleri Ve Geli§me Egilimlerinin Degerlendirilmesi", Kent, in§aat ve Ekonomi Kongresi, 2 TMMOB Mimarlar Odasi Gaziantep §ubesi, 2-4 Mayis 2019, Gaziantep.
Tatar, T. (1993). Yatirimlarin Segimi ve Degerlendirme Teknikleri, Ankara: Gazi Universitesi ileti§im Fakultesi Matbaasi.
Tirachini, A. & Cats, O. (2020). COVID-19 and public transportation: Current assessment, prospects, and research needs. Journal of Public Transportation, 22(1), 1.
Wilbur, M., Ayman, A., Ouyang, A., Poon, V., Kabir, R., Vadali, A. & Dubey, A. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on Public Transit Accessibility and Ridership. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.02413
Ugurel, §. (2010). Turkiye'de Metro Projeleri Yatirimlarinin Geri DdnU§um Suresinin Belirlenmesi ve Bu Surenin Optimizasyonu Igin Oneriler. Yuksek Lisans Tezi, istanbul Teknik Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu in§aat Muhendisligi Anabilim Dali Yapi i§letmesi Programi, istanbul.
Unal, A.O. (2021). Kamu Ula§im Projelerinin Gayrimenkul Degeri Ve Kullanimina Etkileri: Ankara Hi Metro Projesi Ornegi, Doktora Tezi, Ankara Universitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitusu Gayrimenkul Geli§tirme ve Yonetimi Anabilim Dali, Ankara.
Yalginer, K. & Aksoy, E.E. (2011). Yatirim Projelerinin Degerlendirilmesi. Ankara: Detay Yayincilik.
382
