Contact us

    We are happy to help

    This message will be send directly to .

    Our portfolio

    Overview of services

    Thank you for contacting us. will contact you as soon as possible.

    Decision Support

    Which way should I go – literally or figuratively? Alternatives require decisions. And good decisions require a profound basis: What transport effects will be achieved with adjustments to infrastructure or services? What are the operational or macroeconomic consequences of an investment? Which alternative is the best way to achieve a given target, e.g. improved accessibility of a region? On behalf of our clients, we use our instruments in a targeted manner to provide them with this basic information.

    Discover our

    Areas of Expertise

    What it is about

    In comparison to other market participants, how do we perform? What are our specific strengths and weaknesses? The comparative analysis of processes in the transport sector provides valuable benchmarks and insights that enable us to classify and assess our own situation and position. This allows us to identify the need for action and to point out possible solutions.

    Classifying traffic developments and identifying the need for action

    We use our entire market knowledge and our existing data base wherever it provides relevant added value for our clients. In this way, we do not just observe topics on ist own, but present them in an overarching, comparative context, e.g.:

    • Traffic volume
    • infrastructure and transport services
    • Transport-related framework conditions
    • performance and competitiveness
    • Economic efficiency
    • environmental impacts

    Our spectrum ranges from individual, supplementary assessments and the identification of concrete comparative cases to comprehensive benchmarking studies and monitoring. On behalf of our clients, we prepare non-recurring or recurring sector-wide comparisons of the various aspects of transport operations.

    How we support you

    • We offer you a comparative view beyond your own “horizon”.
    • We advise you on the conception of benchmarking studies and monitoring.
    • We select meaningful key figures that target the core of the problem.
    • We prepare information for you from publicly and commercially available data sources and statistics in order to use them for targeted comparisons.
    • We carry out non-recurring studies or recurring monitoring for you.

    What our clients value

    • Our clients value our industry-wide market knowledge.
    • Our clients value our independent, cross-modal perspective.
    • We include technical backgrounds to avoid “comparing apples with oranges”.
    • We convince with our ability to assess information sources with regard to their validity.



    Mit zielgerichteten vergleichenden Analysen bringen wir unseren branchenweite Sichtweise regelmäßig in unsere Projekte ein und erstellen bei Bedarf auch umfassende Branchenvergleiche, wie zum Beispiel:

    • Monitoring the competitiveness of Swiss air transport

    What is it about?

    According to the German Federal Budget Regulation (Bundeshaushaltsordnung), “appropriate economic efficiency studies” are required for financially effective measures of the federal government and the federal states in order to comply with the principle of economic efficiency. For investments in transport infrastructure, largely “canonised” procedures have been developed for this purpose. The inclusion of an investment project in an investment or funding programme requires proof of economic viability according to these procedures.

    The relevant evaluation procedures in the transport sector at federal and municipal level

    For investments in federal transport routes (federal motorways and roads, federal railways and federal waterways) we carry out the obligatory evaluations according to the procedure of the Federal Transport Infrastructure Planning (BVWP) and determine the relevant benefit-cost indicator. Only projects with a benefit-cost indicator greater than 1.0 can become part of the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan and the requirement plan laws based on it.

    Investments in mostly municipal public transport infrastructure (railways, cableways) can be funded from the federal programme of the Municipal Transport Financing Act (GVFG). For inclusion in this programme, we carry out the proof of economic viability according to the Standardised Evaluation Procedure. The (majority of) federal states have joined this evaluation procedure or developed their own evaluation procedures to prove the economic viability of their own public transport investment programmes.

    For roads below federal highways, there are the recommendations for economic feasibility studies for roads and transport (FGSV). Their revision is to lead to a corresponding guideline (RWS).

    The relevant evaluation procedures for transport infrastructure investments use the benefit-cost analysis method. This is an extension of the classic economic investment calculation to include macroeconomic, i.e. economic aspects. The decision-relevant criteria are either measured originally in monetary terms or must be monetarised using recognised economic methods.

    Benefit-cost studies have a number of positive features:

    • The monetarisation of criteria that are not originally available in monetary terms is carried out according to recognised methods and thus leaves no “room for manipulation”.
    • It leads to an unambiguous decision criterion: if the benefits are greater than the costs, the project is economic, otherwise it is not. This clarity is a great help in administrative practice.

    However, this good is also the bad thing about the benefit-cost study. It leaves hardly any political discretion for investment decisions that do not meet the strict criterion of a benefit-cost indicator of greater than 1.0. This is a constraint because some criteria considered relevant for decision-making cannot be monetised in a well-founded way.

    Benefit-cost studies according to classical procedures are usually associated with a high processing effort. In particular, they are based on results from traffic model calculations.

    For a number of applications, however, this high processing effort is disproportionate, especially

    • if no traffic model is available
    • for investment projects with a low investment volume or
    • for projects in a very early planning phase, when a decision must first be made as to whether a project should be pursued in planning.

    For such applications, it is advisable to carry out simplified assessments of economic viability (and thus eligibility for funding). Some of these procedures have now become part of the standardised evaluation procedure (project dossier procedure).

    For the state of Hesse, for example, we have developed a simplified procedure for reactivation measures of railway lines. In addition, we are able to design simplified solutions for a wide range of other applications. In this way, we are able to deliver results that are adapted to the respective problem and that help the client in his decision-making process.

    How we support you

    in the application of established assessment procedures:

    • We advise on the design of the evaluation process: How is the project to be delimited?
    • We advise on the management of the assessment process: What input data is needed and where can it be obtained? Who is to be involved in the evaluation process and when?
    • We prepare benefit-cost studies for you according to the relevant evaluation procedures. In the application of the Standardised Assessment and the BVWP procedure for rail transport, we claim to be the most experienced provider in Germany.
    • We represent our results, from communication with citizens and political bodies to defence in legal disputes.

    in the conception of evaluation procedures based on them:

    • We design evaluation procedures that are geared to the specific task at hand. In doing so, we always keep an eye on the processing effort and the quality of the results.
    • We constantly develop and adjust the assessment procedures. In this way, we ensure, in consultation with our clients, that we do justice to the changing demands on transport as well as the changing social values.
    • We adapt existing valuation methods where special applications cannot be adequately modelled and meaningful valuation results achieved. It is also our task to communicate and represent these adaptations to the addressees of the assessment (politics, administration).

    What our clients appreciate

    • Our extensive experience with the evaluation of projects allows us to apply the procedures in a task-specific manner and not to lose sight of the client’s goal. We also like to break new ground.
    • Even though we have the client’s goal in mind, we feel obliged to work in a well-founded and independent expert manner. Ultimately, it is also in the interest of our clients if they can rely on our results.
    • We enjoy a high level of acceptance among all parties involved in the valuation process. This makes us a trust-building broker when different interests collide.
    • We see ourselves not only as a producer of results, but also advise our clients on the conception and management of the valuation process.



    • Further development and updating of the Standardised Assessment
    • Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan (part rail)
    • Benefit-cost analysis of the introduction of a CBTC-supported control and safety technology on the Frankfurt light rail system
    • Traffic modelling and evaluation of the Nuremberg – Erlangen – Herzogenaurach suburban railway line
    • Standardised evaluation of the 2nd Munich main line

    What it is about

    Planning and measures in the transport sector always have economic consequences for the actors concerned. From the point of view of an infrastructure operator, transport company, public transport authority or association, it is important to include the economic effects of a tariff measure, an adjustment of user charges, an expansion of services or an infrastructure investment in the respective decision on the project. Ultimately, the owners of a company, those affected or those politically responsible have a right to such information.

    The microeconomic perspective

    Economic impacts are represented in terms of changed revenues and expenditures or income and expenses for a particular actor or group of actors. By looking at variable revenue or cost elements in conjunction with the corresponding traffic volumes, we provide a basis for assessing individual measures in terms of their economic consequences. In the same way, we make it possible to compare different strategies with regard to their economic effects.

    In order to be able to isolate the effects of a measure or a project, the “measure scenario” is compared with a scenario without implementation of the measure.

    Usually, it is sufficient to consider only those expense and income items that are directly or indirectly affected by the measure. However, it may also be helpful to place the effects of a project in the overall context of the future economic situation. For this purpose, it is necessary to consider not only the expense and income items affected by the measure, but all relevant items.

    An integral part of the standardised evaluation is a consequential cost calculation. It shows the actors which consequential financial burdens will have to be covered locally in the short, medium and long term by an infrastructure investment funded under the Municipal Transport Financing Act (GVFG). In doing so, the economic consequences can be differentiated according to the various “project sponsors”, such as e.g.:

    • Infrastructure companies
    • Transport companies
    • Municipal authorities

    Revenues from airport charges contribute significantly to infrastructure financing. The annual flight operation-related fee revenues result from the respective valid fee regulations of an airport in interaction with the handled air traffic volumes and structures. Of particular relevance are the division between flight movement and passenger-related charges, as well as exemption rules (for example for transfer passengers) and incentive systems that reward, for example, the development of new air traffic markets by airlines or the use of quieter aircraft.

    We map all elements of your charging system in detail on the actual traffic volume or on the traffic volume forecast. In this way, we provide you with differentiated evaluations of the expected revenues:

    • Effects on the annual expected revenue from charges (“aviation revenue”)
    • Average charges per departing passenger per traffic segment – based on the specific traffic structures.

    If required, we also regularly prepare specific data sets for the external rough estimation of aviation revenues, which, in addition to forecast traffic volumes, also include e.g. cumulative MTOM figures (maximum take-off weight).

    How we support you

    • We use our many years of experience to support you in the concrete design of an economic feasibility study.
    • We prepare the relevant studies for you and present the results in a transparent and comprehensible manner.
    • We use our experience from similar studies to interpret the results and draw appropriate conclusions.

    What our clients appreciate

    • We have the know-how on current methods for economic efficiency studies and apply them in a targeted manner to the respective problem.
    • We are familiar with both the production side (operational processes and operational functional areas) and the sales side (transport demand). In this way, we can offer our clients a complete package for economic feasibility studies.



    In order to provide our clients with an essential basis for decision-making, the following economic feasibility studies illustrate the spectrum of our work:

    • Tram strategy Frankfurt
    • Subsequent cost calculation U5 Hamburg
    • Airport fee revenue (Berlin Airport)