A new Geotab report based on full-year 2025 connected vehicle data suggests that Europe’s capitals create very different operating conditions for commercial fleets. Berlin and Amsterdam rank as the most efficient cities in the study, while London and Madrid sit near the bottom. But the report’s most useful finding for operators is not simply which city is slowest. It is the difference between congestion that can be planned around and congestion that breaks the plan.
Geotab’s European Urban Freight Efficiency Index analysed commercial vehicle movement in seven capitals: Berlin, Amsterdam, Dublin, Rome, Paris, London and Madrid. The cities were scored on a 0–100 scale using two main dimensions: how well traffic flows through the network, and how much operational waste congestion creates through mid-trip idling.
Berlin topped the index with a score of 61, followed by Amsterdam on 59. Dublin and Rome formed the middle tier, with scores of 49 and 48 respectively. Paris scored 37, while London and Madrid ranked lowest, on 29 and 25. Geotab says the gap between Berlin and Madrid amounts to a 144% difference in efficiency.
Where urban freight planning becomes hardest
| City | Overall score | Truck score | Main problem for hauliers | Operational impact |
| Madrid | 25 | 22 | Congestion exceeds critical levels at every hour; truck conditions are highly erratic | No reliable delivery window; rigid schedules are likely to fail |
| London | 29 | 27 | Congested and unpredictable; trucks underperform passenger vehicles | Wider buffers, dynamic routing and flexible delivery slots are needed |
| Paris | 37 | 46 | Congestion is predictable, but stop-start traffic creates high truck idling | Timing can be planned, but fuel waste is high |
| Rome | 48 | 63 | Severe congestion, but relatively predictable and slow-moving | Slow deliveries, but schedules can be built around known patterns |
Where freight operations perform best
| City | Overall score | Truck score | What works better for hauliers | Operational impact |
| Berlin | 61 | 71 | Moderate, predictable congestion and a road network that rewards planning | Most reliable city in the study for protecting schedules |
| Amsterdam | 59 | 65 | Compact urban form, shorter trips and low idle waste | Strong conditions for urban delivery and last-mile operations |
| Dublin | 49 | 57 | Trucks benefit from off-peak delivery windows and structured routing | Freight fleets outperform less structured passenger fleets |
| Rome | 48 | 63 | Freight windows and professional routing work well despite heavy congestion | Slow but plannable conditions give trucks a strong advantage |
How to read the scores: Geotab scores each city on a 0–100 scale, where a higher score means a more efficient operating environment. The overall score combines passenger vehicle and truck performance, while the truck score shows how commercial vehicles perform specifically. The scores are normalised relative comparisons, not absolute measurements of all traffic in each city. They are based on a sample of connected vehicles using full-year 2025 data.
Rome appears in both tables because it shows why congestion alone does not tell the full story. It is one of the more congested cities in the report, but its traffic is relatively predictable and slow-moving rather than heavily stop-start. For hauliers, that makes it slow but plannable.
Predictable congestion is still workable
The report’s most operationally relevant point is that not all congestion affects fleets in the same way. Rome and Paris both suffer severe congestion, but Geotab says journey times in both cities are relatively predictable. Rome has a variability score of 80, while Paris scores 82. According to the report, “extreme congestion creates its own predictability”: when roads are saturated, traffic settles into a slow but stable pattern.
That is important when hauliers want to plan routes and times: if delays are consistent, operators can build them into schedules, adjust delivery windows and brief drivers accordingly. The result may still be slow and costly, but it is at least manageable.
Rome is the clearest example. Geotab describes it as the study’s most counterintuitive result: it has severe congestion, and the best trip inefficiency score. Traffic is slow, but it tends to keep moving. Trucks in Rome also outperform passenger vehicles by 26 points, the largest gap in the study, which Geotab links to designated freight windows and professional routing.
Paris is different. It is also predictable, but its stop-start conditions create much more waste for trucks. The report says Paris trucks waste 18.2% of their fuel while stationary, the highest truck idling figure in the study.
London and Madrid are harder to price and schedule
London and Madrid present a more difficult problem for hauliers because congestion is combined with unpredictability. Geotab says London sits in the worst position: congested and unpredictable. The report gives a simple example of the operational problem: the same delivery route can take 20 minutes one day and 50 minutes the next.
That kind of variability affects more than journey time: it makes delivery slots harder to protect, reduces driver utilisation, complicates compliance with working-time limits and forces operators to build wider buffers into schedules.
London scored 29 overall, with a truck score of 27, below the passenger vehicle score of 29. Geotab says London is one of only two cities where trucks underperform passenger vehicles. The report points to bus lane restrictions, narrow streets and complex loading zone regulations as factors that reduce the usual advantages of structured freight operations.
Madrid performed even worse overall, with the lowest score in the index at 25. Geotab says congestion exceeds critical levels at every hour for both vehicle types, leaving no manageable window in the operating day. For trucks, the issue is compounded by the lowest variability score in the study, meaning conditions for commercial vehicles are not only poor but erratic.
Trucks usually beat cars — but not everywhere
One of the report’s more striking findings is that trucks outperform passenger vehicle fleets in five of the seven cities studied. Geotab argues that this is not because of different technology, as both groups use connected vehicle devices, but because of operational discipline. Scheduled routing, designated delivery windows, off-peak deliveries and freight-specific infrastructure help commercial fleets avoid some of the worst traffic conditions.
Rome, Berlin, Paris, Dublin and Amsterdam all show a truck advantage. London and Madrid are the exceptions.
Geotab also puts a figure on wasted fuel. Across the connected vehicles in the study, an estimated 1.58 million litres of fuel were burned while stationary in 2025, at an estimated cost of €2.6 million. Commercial trucks accounted for around €600,000 of that total, while passenger and service vehicles accounted for a further €2 million.
The report’s methodology notes that the figures are based on a sample of connected vehicles rather than a full census, and that the city scores are normalised, relative comparisons rather than absolute measurements of all freight activity. Fuel costs were estimated using 2025 average pump prices from the European Commission’s Weekly Oil Bulletin and the UK Government’s road fuel price data.
