Investment analysis and management models of urban rail system: The case of Ankara province

The aim of this study is to examine the financing, investment analysis and management models of urban rail system investments in Turkey, first in general and then within the framework of Ankara province, to identify the problems in practice and to offer solutions. Survey and economic analysis were used as methods in the research. The survey was conducted with the managers and employees of the General Directorate of EGO and the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure (MoTI) within the scope of stakeholder analysis. Although the sample size was calculated as 363, the survey was conducted with more people than the sample size. A total of 765 personnel, including 101 managers and 618 employees in the EGO and 22 managers and 24 employees in MoTI, participated in this survey. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to compile, summarise and analyse the survey data, and t-test and chi-square tests were applied to measure the significance levels between the answers to the survey questions. Since some data were not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons between two groups, the Kruskall Wallis-H test was used for comparisons between three or more than three groups, and the Spearman correlation test was used for analyses between variables. In the questionnaire administered to the employees of the EGO General Directorate, the data were collected through the "employees' evaluation of managers scale" to be developed. Whether this planned factor structure of the scale was confirmed or not was analysed by first-level confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In order to determine the reliability of the scale, Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was calculated in terms of internal consistency, and path diagram and regression analyses were also performed. In the investment analysis part of the research, the rail system lines currently operated in Ankara are Batıkent-Kızılay (M1), Çayyolu-Kızılay (M2), Batıkent-Sincan/Törekent (M3), Keçiören-AKM (M4), AŞTİ-Dikimevi (A1) and the planned A1 Line (Ankaray) Dikimevi-Nato Yolu rail system extension line, connection line between Keçiören Kuyubaşı Station and YHT Station, Yıldırım Beyazıt University-Çubuk rail system connection line were analysed. Dynamic financial valuation methods such as internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV), payback period linked to cash flows and profitability index (PI) were used in the economic analysis calculations. In the findings obtained as a result of the calculations; it has been determined that the return periods of the investments made for metro lines are very long and the internal profitability results do not present an optimistic picture. With the questionnaire study, problems related to the financing and management of urban rail systems were tried to be determined and solution suggestions were presented. According to the results of the survey; 97 % of the respondents stated that there is a need for a new metro line in Ankara, 38 % of the respondents stated that they would prefer the construction of the Airport-Gar metro line and thus minimising the private vehicle traffic and using a new metro line. Regarding the administrations by which the financing of urban rail systems should be carried out, EGO managers stated that 46.6 % of the respondents would prefer central administration-local administration cooperation, UAB managers 31 % would prefer central administration, EGO employees 29.3 % would prefer central administration-local administration cooperation, UAB employees 29.7% would prefer central administration-local administration cooperation. Regarding the administration of urban rail systems, 73.3 % of EGO managers, 46.7% of UAB managers, 58.7% of EGO employees and 66.7% of UAB employees stated that local administrations should manage urban rail systems. Although it is concluded that the financing of urban rail systems should be carried out in the form of central government-local government cooperation, it is also emphasised that only local governments should carry out the management.