When a regional food distributor in Suwon asked us to compare two delivery corridors serving the same retail cluster, the shorter route looked like the obvious choice. Corridor A covered 94 km with fourteen stops. Corridor B ran 112 km with twelve stops. Dispatch had favored A for two seasons based on distance alone.
After two observation days, the picture reversed. Corridor A averaged 47 minutes per stop because the sequence forced drivers through a narrow market street during morning unloading hours. Corridor B reached the same stores via a slightly longer arterial loop but hit each dock before peak congestion. Total elapsed time on B came in 38 minutes under A despite the extra kilometres.
Stop-sequence timing captures what distance metrics miss: dwell time at each location, the order in which congestion peaks are encountered, and whether a driver arrives during a receiving window or waits idle. We chart planned versus actual stop times on a single axis so operations leads can see where the sequence itself creates delay, not the road network.
For this distributor, reordering six stops and shifting one depot departure by 25 minutes recovered the equivalent of one additional truck per week without adding vehicles. The change required no new software—only a revised dispatch sheet and a briefing for drivers on the new sequence rationale.
If your team evaluates routes primarily by kilometre totals, consider requesting a corridor study on your highest-volume loop. The findings often surprise planners who have optimized for distance for years.