Executive Summary
Foreword
Introduction
Rankings
Two Pillars
Safety
Fleet Management
City Snapshots
What This Means
Outlook
Methodology
What congestion costs
Trip inefficiency scores for each city:
This dimension measures mid-trip vehicle idling: the waste the system produces when traffic slows. Cities ranked by trip inefficiency: The surprise: these scores cluster in a narrow band (52 to 74, just 1.4x variance), compared to 3.8x for congestion. Performance differences between cities come overwhelmingly from congestion management. Rome illustrates this perfectly: worst-tier congestion but the best trip inefficiency score (74). Traffic is slow but flowing, vehicles creep along steadily rather than stopping and starting. Less pollution per kilometre than you might expect. Amsterdam achieves near-identical performance (72) through a very different model: compact urban form, shorter trips and optimised signal timing that keeps traffic moving.
“The trip inefficiency scores surprised us. They cluster in a narrow band — 1.4x variance, compared to 3.8x for congestion. Rome has the worst congestion in the study and the least idle waste for trucks. Traffic that moves slowly but steadily produces less waste than traffic that stops and starts. What separates the top cities from the bottom is almost entirely how the road network manages congestion.”
74 Rome
72 Amsterdam
62 Berlin
58 Paris
Abhinav Vasu AVP Solutions Engineering EMEA, Geotab
54 Madrid
52 Dublin
52 London
European Urban Freight Efficiency Index
8
Powered by FlippingBook