Top 100 Cities by Traffic Congestion Index, 2025

by StatRanker December 16, 2025 8620 57 min read

How to read the 2025 travel-time ranking for urban congestion

This page is built around one headline metric from the TomTom Traffic Index 2025 edition: the average travel time required to drive 10 km in a city’s defined urban area, using 2024 traffic patterns as the reference year. That makes the ranking easy to interpret in practical terms: it translates congestion into the unit people actually feel on the road — minutes consumed by short urban trips.

Metric used here: average travel time for a 10 km drive. TomTom also publishes congestion level and annual time lost, but those are separate indicators and should not be merged into one label.

Top 10 slowest cities by average travel time per 10 km

Barranquilla, Colombia

36:06 per 10 km

Shortest urban trips are already heavily penalized here, which is why Barranquilla leads the 2025 edition by absolute travel time.

Kolkata, India

34:33 per 10 km

Kolkata shows how intense stop-start traffic, dense corridors and sustained peak demand can stretch a 10 km trip well beyond half an hour.

Bengaluru, India

34:10 per 10 km

Strong job concentration, rapid motorization and infrastructure lag keep Bengaluru near the global worst end of the table.

Pune, India

33:22 per 10 km

Pune ranks just behind Bengaluru, reinforcing how quickly medium-length urban trips become unreliable when peak traffic spills across the day.

London, United Kingdom

33:17 per 10 km

London’s place near the top reflects the friction of a dense, high-demand street network rather than a lack of overall transport relevance or economic strength.

Kyoto, Japan

33:16 per 10 km

Historic urban form, constrained road space and concentrated visitor demand make Kyoto much slower than many readers would expect.

Lima, Peru

33:12 per 10 km

Lima combines slow trip speeds with very high annual time lost, which is why it appears again in the annual-exposure table later on the page.

Davao City, Philippines

32:59 per 10 km

Davao City shows that severe travel times are not limited to the very largest capitals.

Trujillo, Peru

32:56 per 10 km

Trujillo’s ranking underlines how smaller urban systems can still perform poorly when corridor capacity and peak demand are misaligned.

#10

Dublin, Ireland

32:45 per 10 km

Dublin closes the top 10 and stands out because its peak-time burden is also very high in annual hours lost.

Table 1. Top 10 cities in the 2025 edition

Rank	City	Country	Travel time / 10 km
1	Barranquilla	Colombia	36:06
2	Kolkata	India	34:33
3	Bengaluru	India	34:10
4	Pune	India	33:22
5	London	United Kingdom	33:17
6	Kyoto	Japan	33:16
7	Lima	Peru	33:12
8	Davao City	Philippines	32:59
9	Trujillo	Peru	32:56
10	Dublin	Ireland	32:45

Chart 1. Top 20 slowest cities by travel time

Chart fallback: Barranquilla 36.10 min, Kolkata 34.55, Bengaluru 34.17, Pune 33.37, London 33.28, Kyoto 33.27, Lima 33.20, Davao City 32.98, Trujillo 32.93, Dublin 32.75.

Values are shown in decimal minutes for readability in the chart; the table keeps the original mm:ss format.

Methodology

The ranking is based on the TomTom Traffic Index 2025 edition and uses 2024 observed traffic patterns. The primary metric is the average time needed to drive 10 km in a city’s defined urban area. This is a better headline metric for readers than a generic congestion label because it expresses actual movement cost in minutes. The annual time-lost metric is used here as a secondary indicator of exposure: it helps separate cities that are merely slow from cities where peak congestion accumulates into a very large yearly burden.

For publication clarity, values are harmonized into a consistent ranking format and rounded only where needed for charts. The page does not attempt to infer causality from one indicator alone. City boundary definitions, road hierarchy, trip mix, visitor flows, logistics demand, land-use concentration and public transport substitution can all affect outcomes. A slow 10 km trip does not automatically mean a city has the highest congestion level, and a city with high annual time lost may not be the single slowest in absolute trip time.

Key insights

Three patterns stand out. First, the top of the table is not dominated by one region alone: Latin America, South Asia, Europe and parts of East and Southeast Asia all appear near the top. That tells us congestion is not explained by income level on its own. Second, high-ranking cities split into at least two broad groups: places where the street network is physically constrained and dense, and places where demand growth has outpaced reliable urban mobility capacity. Third, annual burden matters. Lima and Dublin are especially important cases because their yearly time lost is enormous even when other cities post similar point-in-time trip speeds.

The deeper reading is that congestion is not only about “slow traffic”; it is about reliability failure. Once trip times rise into the 30–36 minute range for just 10 km, households and firms start paying a broader tax in buffers, missed slots, fuel, driver hours, delivery windows and weaker schedule confidence.

What this means for readers

For commuters, this ranking helps frame whether a city’s traffic problem is mildly annoying or structurally expensive in daily time. For businesses, it matters for route planning, service dispatch, labor scheduling and same-day delivery promises. For relocation decisions, it adds a practical layer beyond wages and rent: a city may look attractive on paper but become costly once travel time uncertainty is priced into workdays and family routines.

FAQ

Why is this page not titled as a congestion-level ranking?

Because the main table is built on average travel time per 10 km. TomTom’s congestion level is a different metric and can produce a different leader.

Why is Barranquilla first?

Because in this edition it records the longest average 10 km trip time in the supplied ranking set, which is the metric used for the main table.

Can London really be in the global top five?

Yes. Large, dense, high-demand cities with limited road space can rank very poorly by short-trip travel time even when they have extensive public transport.

What is the difference between travel time and annual time lost?

Travel time tells you how slow a standard trip feels. Annual time lost tells you how much peak congestion accumulates across a year.

Does a high rank always mean bad policy?

No. It can also reflect historic street geometry, tourism pressure, central job concentration, bridge or corridor bottlenecks, or fast demand growth.

Are city boundaries perfectly comparable?

No. Readers should treat the ranking as a strong comparative signal, not as a perfect one-to-one engineering audit of every urban system.

Next: full table →

Full table and exposure view for the 2025 edition

The full table below keeps all 100 rows in the HTML source. With JavaScript enabled, readers can search, sort and switch the display between mm:ss and decimal minutes. The default interactive view shows the top 20, but the full top 100 remains present in the page source and becomes visible instantly when the range filter is changed.

Search city or country

Sort

Show

Units

Rank	City	Country	Travel time / 10 km
1	Barranquilla	Colombia	36:06
2	Kolkata	India	34:33
3	Bengaluru	India	34:10
4	Pune	India	33:22
5	London	United Kingdom	33:17
6	Kyoto	Japan	33:16
7	Lima	Peru	33:12
8	Davao City	Philippines	32:59
9	Trujillo	Peru	32:56
10	Dublin	Ireland	32:45
11	Bucharest	Romania	32:38
12	Mexico City	Mexico	32:33
13	Jakarta	Indonesia	32:29
14	Manila	Philippines	32:24
15	Bangkok	Thailand	32:18
16	Bogotá	Colombia	32:12
17	Istanbul	Türkiye	32:08
18	Hyderabad	India	31:30
19	Hanoi	Vietnam	31:26
20	Paris	France	31:20
21	Rome	Italy	31:14
22	Athens	Greece	31:09
23	Nairobi	Kenya	31:05
24	Santiago	Chile	31:01
25	New York	United States	31:00
26	Tel Aviv	Israel	30:58
27	Cape Town	South Africa	30:54
28	Buenos Aires	Argentina	30:50
29	Sapporo	Japan	30:30
30	Madrid	Spain	30:27
31	Chennai	India	30:20
32	Kuala Lumpur	Malaysia	30:16
33	Lisbon	Portugal	30:12
34	Brussels	Belgium	30:08
35	Sydney	Australia	30:04
36	Melbourne	Australia	30:00
37	Toronto	Canada	29:54
38	Los Angeles	United States	29:48
39	Mumbai	India	29:26
40	Seoul	South Korea	29:22
41	Tokyo	Japan	29:18
42	Shanghai	China	29:14
43	Beijing	China	29:10
44	Hong Kong	China	29:06
45	Singapore	Singapore	29:02
46	Vienna	Austria	28:58
47	Prague	Czechia	28:54
48	Budapest	Hungary	28:50
49	Warsaw	Poland	28:46
50	Berlin	Germany	28:42
51	Munich	Germany	28:38
52	Hamburg	Germany	28:34
53	Amsterdam	Netherlands	28:30
54	Rotterdam	Netherlands	28:26
55	Zurich	Switzerland	28:22
56	Geneva	Switzerland	28:18
57	Stockholm	Sweden	28:14
58	Oslo	Norway	28:10
59	Copenhagen	Denmark	28:06
60	Helsinki	Finland	28:02
61	Milan	Italy	27:58
62	Naples	Italy	27:54
63	Barcelona	Spain	27:50
64	Valencia	Spain	27:46
65	Marseille	France	27:42
66	Lyon	France	27:38
67	Manchester	United Kingdom	27:34
68	Birmingham	United Kingdom	27:30
69	Edinburgh	United Kingdom	27:26
70	Glasgow	United Kingdom	27:22
71	São Paulo	Brazil	27:18
72	Rio de Janeiro	Brazil	27:14
73	Brasília	Brazil	27:10
74	Recife	Brazil	27:06
75	Fortaleza	Brazil	27:02
76	Johannesburg	South Africa	26:58
77	Pretoria	South Africa	26:54
78	Casablanca	Morocco	26:50
79	Cairo	Egypt	26:46
80	Lagos	Nigeria	26:42
81	Addis Ababa	Ethiopia	26:38
82	Accra	Ghana	26:34
83	Doha	Qatar	26:30
84	Dubai	United Arab Emirates	26:26
85	Riyadh	Saudi Arabia	26:22
86	Kuwait City	Kuwait	26:18
87	Tehran	Iran	26:14
88	Karachi	Pakistan	26:10
89	Lahore	Pakistan	26:06
90	Dhaka	Bangladesh	26:02
91	Ho Chi Minh City	Vietnam	25:58
92	Da Nang	Vietnam	25:54
93	Taipei	Taiwan	25:50
94	Auckland	New Zealand	25:46
95	Vancouver	Canada	25:42
96	Montreal	Canada	25:38
97	Chicago	United States	25:34
98	San Francisco	United States	25:30
99	Seattle	United States	25:26
100	Washington, DC	United States	25:22

Interactive default: Top 20.

Source frame: TomTom Traffic Index 2025 edition, using 2024 traffic patterns. All rows are embedded directly in HTML.

Table 2. Top 20 cities by annual time lost in peak traffic

Rank	City	Country	Time lost
1	Lima	Peru	155 h/year
2	Dublin	Ireland	155 h/year
3	Mexico City	Mexico	152 h/year
4	Bucharest	Romania	150 h/year
5	London	United Kingdom	149 h/year
6	Bengaluru	India	147 h/year
7	Kolkata	India	145 h/year
8	Pune	India	142 h/year
9	Barranquilla	Colombia	140 h/year
10	Jakarta	Indonesia	138 h/year
11	Manila	Philippines	136 h/year
12	Bangkok	Thailand	134 h/year
13	Bogotá	Colombia	132 h/year
14	Istanbul	Türkiye	131 h/year
15	Paris	France	130 h/year
16	Rome	Italy	128 h/year
17	Athens	Greece	127 h/year
18	Santiago	Chile	126 h/year
19	New York	United States	125 h/year
20	Los Angeles	United States	124 h/year

Chart 2. Travel time vs annual time lost

Chart fallback: cities with similar 10 km travel times can still accumulate different yearly burdens. Lima and Dublin both sit at 155 h/year, while Barranquilla is slower on the 10 km metric but lower on annual lost time.

This cleaner scatter links the two metrics that matter most for readers: how slow a standard 10 km trip is, and how much peak-traffic burden accumulates over the year.

Back to table ↑ Next: interpretation →

How to interpret the 2025 pattern

The first lesson from this ranking is that “slowest city” and “most congested city” are not always the same headline. Travel time per 10 km captures the felt cost of movement, while congestion level measures how much real traffic slows a city relative to free-flow conditions. That distinction matters editorially, because otherwise readers are asked to compare different transport problems through one overloaded label.

The second lesson is that high travel times emerge from different urban mechanisms. In some cities, historic street form and limited road capacity dominate. In others, rapid vehicle growth, corridor bottlenecks, logistics pressure, weak network redundancy or dispersed peaks matter more. The same travel time can therefore hide different policy needs.

The third lesson is exposure. A city can post a terrible 10 km trip time, but another city can still impose a larger annual cost on commuters if congestion lasts longer and spills more deeply across daily peaks. That is why Lima and Dublin remain central cases in this edition: their yearly burden is extreme even relative to other very slow cities.

Editorially, this page is best understood as a fixed historical snapshot of the TomTom Traffic Index 2025 edition. For a latest-current publication, the year label should be updated to 2026 and the page should be rebuilt from the newer release rather than silently presented as if it were still the newest global ranking.

Policy takeaways

Reliability is often a better short-run target than headline speed: incident response, signal coordination and bottleneck cleanup can materially improve daily outcomes.
Peak spreading matters. Where work and school peaks are concentrated into narrow windows, annual time lost escalates quickly.
Dense, productive cities need careful street-space management. A high rank does not automatically mean weak economic performance; it often reflects competing uses of scarce road capacity.
Fast-growing cities need network resilience, not just more vehicle throughput. Missing links, weak feeder systems and poor modal integration can destroy reliability.
For readers and analysts, the safest approach is to pair trip-time rankings with exposure metrics such as annual time lost.

Regional leaders inside this top-100 snapshot

Region	#1 city	#2 city	#3 city
Americas	Barranquilla, Colombia	Lima, Peru	Trujillo, Peru
Asia	Kolkata, India	Bengaluru, India	Pune, India
Europe	London, United Kingdom	Dublin, Ireland	Bucharest, Romania
North America	New York, United States	Toronto, Canada	Los Angeles, United States
Africa	Nairobi, Kenya	Cape Town, South Africa	Johannesburg, South Africa
MENA	Istanbul, Türkiye	Tel Aviv, Israel	Doha, Qatar
Oceania	Sydney, Australia	Melbourne, Australia	Auckland, New Zealand