How to assess whether a route is suitable for an electric vehicle

An 80 km average route and a van with 250 km of rated range appear to be an obvious match.

The problem is that this comparison answers a question that is too simple.

What matters is not whether the vehicle completes the average day. It is whether it can repeat that route family with margin when cold weather, extra payload, detours or a lower-than-planned starting SOC appear.

Route suitability is not decided by comparing two figures. It requires an understanding of the route distribution, a realistic energy estimate and a view of what happens when the plan does not go perfectly.

The average hides the shape of the operation

Imagine two fleets with the same average daily distance of 80 km.

The average is identical. The electrification risk is not.

In the first operation, one van can remain assigned to a stable family of routes. In the second, short days offset the long ones statistically, but they are of no help when the vehicle has to complete a 160 km route.

The average describes the dataset. It does not design the operation.

What to examine beyond the average

A useful first view of each route family should include at least:

• Median: often a better picture of the central day when extremes are present.
• P90: the distance or energy value not exceeded on roughly 90% of days.
• Maximum: the most demanding recorded event.
• Frequency of extremes: distinguishes an isolated incident from a recurring pattern.

P90 is valuable because it forces the assessment beyond the average day without sizing the entire fleet around one historical maximum. It is not, however, a complete answer.

A route family with a 120 km P90 and a 125 km maximum is very different from one with the same P90 and several 190 km days. The reason also matters: a breakdown, a one-off campaign or a customer that extends the route every Friday.

P90 is not permission for 10% of routes to fail

Using P90 does not mean accepting that the remaining days can fail.

It separates two decisions:

1. how to size the normal operation with a prudent margin;
2. how to respond to events outside that design case.

Buying enough battery to cover every historical maximum can remove one uncertainty, but it often introduces others: more cost, more weight, lower payload and vehicles that are oversized for most of the year.

Robustness is not the absence of exceptions. It is knowing which exceptions matter and having a proportionate response.

Kilometres are not energy

Two 120 km routes can require very different amounts of energy.

Payload, road type, stop density, temperature, HVAC, refrigeration, elevation, wind, speed, traffic and time spent stationary with auxiliary systems all change the result.

A dense urban route may benefit from regenerative braking but also spend more time using auxiliaries. A motorway route has fewer stops but higher aerodynamic losses and sustained speed.

There is no single “van consumption” figure that works across an entire fleet.

Rated range and usable operating energy

WLTP range is useful for comparing vehicles. It should not be treated as a daily operating budget.

The energy actually available depends on:

• usable battery capacity;
• actual starting SOC;
• minimum arrival reserve;
• expected degradation;
• consumption under the day’s conditions;
• the power and time available to recover energy afterwards.

A fleet should not plan around 100% departure SOC and 0% arrival SOC.

This number is far more useful than the vehicle’s advertised range.

The route starts the night before

A route may be technically feasible with a full battery and still be fragile in real operations.

The vehicle may miss its target SOC because of a late return, a forgotten connection, an occupied charger, a failed session, a second work wave or an earlier departure.

Starting SOC is therefore part of route suitability. If a route family always needs 95% at departure, the depot must be able to guarantee that level as reliably as any other part of vehicle preparation.

Route Fit and Depot Fit are not separate decisions: route suitability depends on the depot delivering the planned starting SOC.

Failure consequence determines the margin

Not every route should operate with the same reserve.

A dense urban route with nearby vehicles and easy reassignment can accept a tighter margin. A regional route carrying medicine, refrigerated goods, high-value items or serving fixed delivery windows needs a more conservative policy.

The assessment should consider not only the probability of failure, but also:

• cost of the incident;
• availability of an alternative vehicle;
• access to intermediate charging;
• customer impact;
• time required to recover the operation.

Suitability is not only a physical question. It is also a risk decision.

A more useful classification than yes or no

“Not yet a priority” does not mean “impossible forever”. It means there is a better deployment sequence.

Example: a route family with a misleading average

There appears to be margin. The classification still depends on very practical questions:

• Can the proposed vehicle carry the payload?
• Does the 154 km maximum occur once or every week?
• Can the depot guarantee 90% departure SOC?
• Does 31 kWh/100 km include auxiliary loads?
• Is there a fallback when the route extends?

With one set of answers, the route is suitable. With another, it is conditional. The 82 km average does not decide the outcome.

A suitable route is not the same as an electrifiable fleet

When several routes compete for the largest-battery vehicles or the same chargers, the result changes.

The first fleet phase must check:

• how many compatible vehicles are available;
• which routes have priority;
• what capacity remains for incidents;
• whether vehicles can be reassigned;
• whether the depot can charge the complete combination;
• what happens when one vehicle is unavailable for maintenance.

A fleet can have ten individually suitable routes and enough real capacity for only six EVs in the first phase.

Enough data to begin

A full telematics integration is not always required. A representative sample can already separate clearly suitable, conditional and unsuitable routes.

The usual minimum inputs are:

• historical distance;
• departure and return times;
• stop count;
• payload or type of goods;
• road type;
• vehicles used;
• recurring deviations and incidents;
• basic depot information.

Telematics improves precision and allows the model to evolve, but it should not become an excuse to postpone the first assessment.

Mistakes that keep recurring

• Comparing average distance with WLTP range.
• Using the manufacturer’s most favourable consumption figure.
• Assuming every vehicle starts at 100%.
• Leaving no arrival reserve.
• Ignoring winter, degradation and auxiliary loads.
• Assessing routes without checking the depot.
• Buying the largest battery to remove every uncertainty.
• Treating a conditional route as suitable without documenting the condition.
• Electrifying only trivial routes without a plan for the next phase.

A sensible decision sequence

1. Group routes that are genuinely comparable.
2. Analyse median, P90, maximums and frequency of extremes.
3. Estimate consumption under real conditions.
4. Define departure SOC and minimum reserve.
5. Check payload, volume and vehicle constraints.
6. Assess failure consequences and available alternatives.
7. Cross-check the result against depot charging capacity.
8. Classify the route and select a fleet phase, not isolated routes.
9. Validate with real data and update the assumptions.

Once route energy has been estimated, the next question is whether the depot can recover it. Read how to size chargers for a last-mile fleet or test an initial scenario in the depot charging calculator.