Executive Summary
Foreword
Introduction
Rankings
Two Pillars
Safety
Fleet Management
City Snapshots
What This Means
Outlook
Methodology
Amsterdam achieves its score through a very different model from Berlin. Compact urban form, shorter average trip distances and optimised signal timing combine to produce the best trip inefficiency score in the study (72) — less mid-trip idling than any other city. The network moves vehicles cleanly. Congestion performance is solid (55) but not exceptional. The 6-point gap with Berlin comes down to urban scale: Berlin’s polycentric network has more capacity to absorb demand. Amsterdam compensates through efficiency — fewer kilometres wasted, less fuel burned per trip. One notable hotspot: 13.7% of all city harsh events concentrate at the Schiphol motorway interchange. A significant share for a single location, and one that points to a solvable infrastructure problem rather than a systemic issue across the network.
City snapshot: 02 Amsterdam: Compact and flowing
For fleets operating here Amsterdam’s short trip profile suits urban last-mile and delivery operations well. Low idle waste keeps fuel costs manageable. The Schiphol interchange is the one location where active route planning around peak times pays off — the rest of the network is clean.
Score: 55
Driving profile
Congestion: 55
Trip Inefficiency: 72
Passenger: 55
Truck: 65
356 harsh events per 1,000 trips — safest in the study
11.10 L/100km 10.5% of fuel wasted idling
10 points Trucks outperform passengers by 10 points
European Urban Freight Efficiency Index 13
Powered by FlippingBook