DOCSLIB.ORG

Car Sharing in Europe: a Multidimensional Classification and Inventory Deliverable D2.1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Car Sharing in Europe: a Multidimensional Classification and Inventory Deliverable D2.1 Ref. Ares(2018)1753826 - 30/03/2018 Research and Innovation action H2020-MG-2016-2017 Car sharing in Europe: a multidimensional classification and inventory Deliverable D2.1 Version n° 1 Authors: Johannes Rodenbach, Jeffrey Mathis (AUTON); Andrea Chicco, Marco Diana (POLITO); validation activities were carried out by Gunnar Nehrke (bcs) and experts from FHB and ICLEI; data gathering was conducted by all STARS partners. www.stars-h2020.eu This project has received funding from the Horizon 2020 programme under the grant agreement n°769513 Car sharing in Europe: a multidimensional classification and inventory Document Information Grant Agreement 769513 Project Title Shared mobility opporTunities And challenges foR European citieS Project Acronym STARS Project Start Date 06 October 2017 Related work package WP 2 – Car sharing in European cities: actual status and trends Related task(s) Task 2.1 - Typologies of car sharing practices in Europe and focus on a representative sample of EU cities Lead Organisation AUTON Submission date 30 March 2018 Dissemination Level Public History Date Submitted by Reviewed by Version (Notes) 30/3/2018 Johannes Rodenbach Marco Diana, Peter 1 Wells, Stefano Beccaria GA n°769513 Page 2 of 132 Car sharing in Europe: a multidimensional classification and inventory Table of contents SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 9 1 Introduction and research strategy ............................................................................. 13 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 13 1.1.1 Definition of car sharing ....................................................................................................... 13 1.1.2 Business models .................................................................................................................... 14 1.1.3 Operational characteristics ................................................................................................... 16 1.1.4 Categories of car sharing ..................................................................................................... 17 1.2 Research strategy .............................................................................................................. 18 1.2.1 Desktop research ................................................................................................................... 19 1.2.2 In-depth survey research in 20 European cities ................................................................ 20 2 Desktop research in EU: a descriptive analysis ........................................................... 21 2.1 Geographical dispersion in Europe .................................................................................. 21 2.1.1 Researched services and countries in EU ........................................................................... 21 2.1.2 A closer look in different European regions ...................................................................... 22 2.2 Business model .................................................................................................................. 25 2.3 Categories of car sharing .................................................................................................. 27 2.3.1 Roundtrip ............................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.2 Free floating ........................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.3 Peer-to-peer........................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.4 Car sharing services with multiple operational characteristics........................................ 28 2.4 Organisational form .......................................................................................................... 29 2.5 Reserving and opening the car ........................................................................................ 30 2.5.1 Reservation of the shared car .............................................................................................. 30 2.5.2 Opening technology ............................................................................................................. 32 2.6 Pricing ................................................................................................................................. 33 2.6.1 Subscription and deposit ..................................................................................................... 33 2.6.2 Pricing per trip ....................................................................................................................... 35 2.7 Insurance ............................................................................................................................ 37 2.8 Number of cars .................................................................................................................. 37 3 In-depth research in 20 cities ....................................................................................... 39 3.1 Categories of car sharing .................................................................................................. 39 3.1.1 Roundtrip ............................................................................................................................... 39 3.1.2 Free floating ........................................................................................................................... 40 3.1.3 Peer-to-peer (P2P) ................................................................................................................ 40 3.1.4 Desktop versus in-depth research ...................................................................................... 40 3.2 Organizational form and shareholders ............................................................................ 41 3.3 Starting year ....................................................................................................................... 42 3.4 Being active in more than one city .................................................................................. 44 3.5 Cooperation with external partners ................................................................................ 45 3.5.1 Cooperation with public transport ...................................................................................... 45 GA n°769513 Page 3 of 132 Car sharing in Europe: a multidimensional classification and inventory 3.5.2 Cooperation with other partners ......................................................................................... 45 3.6 Registration ........................................................................................................................ 46 3.7 Parking regulations ........................................................................................................... 47 3.8 Insurance models ............................................................................................................... 47 3.9 Pricing ................................................................................................................................. 48 3.9.1 Parameters ............................................................................................................................. 48 3.9.2 Average price per trip ........................................................................................................... 49 3.10 Fleet characteristics ........................................................................................................... 52 3.10.1 Type of cars ............................................................................................................................ 52 3.10.2 Sustainability of the fleet ...................................................................................................... 52 3.11 Service dimension .............................................................................................................. 54 3.11.1 Number of cars ...................................................................................................................... 54 3.11.2 Number of members ............................................................................................................ 55 3.11.3 Number of customers in 2017 ............................................................................................. 56 3.11.4 Number of trips ..................................................................................................................... 57 3.11.5 Distance and duration of the trips ...................................................................................... 57 4 Multidimensional typology of European car sharing services ................................. 59 4.1 Methodological steps ........................................................................................................ 59 4.2 Relevant variables for the classification exercise ........................................................... 60 4.2.1 The pivot variable: category of car sharing ........................................................................ 60 4.2.2 Relationships with fleet size ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Business Platforms for Autonomous Vehicles Within Urban Mobility
    Urban Transport XXV 175 BUSINESS PLATFORMS FOR AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES WITHIN URBAN MOBILITY FABIO ANTONIALLI1,2,3, RODRIGO MARÇAL GANDIA1,2,3, JOEL YUTAKA SUGANO2,3, ISABELLE NICOLAÏ1 & ARTHUR DE MIRANDA NETO3 1Laboratorie Génie Industriel (LGI), CentraleSupélec, France 2Post-Graduate Program in Administration (PPGA), Universidade Federal de Lavras, Brazil 3Terrestrial Mobility Laboratory (LMT), Universidade Federal de Lavras, Brazil ABSTRACT With mobility becoming a key factor affecting citizens’ well-being and quality of life, innovative schemes such as peer-to-peer (P2P) ride-hailing and Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) could have significant impacts on the urban commute. Furthermore, the insertion of autonomous vehicles (AVs) promises a positive impact on cities’ transit worldwide. Ergo, companies are now combining bundles of products and services emphasizing their “sales of use” rather than of products: such integration may be realized by having multi-sided business platforms. The purpose of this study is to create future scenarios for AV business platforms within urban mobility contexts. Based on an exploratory descriptive qualitative research design, we collected data on academic and grey literature. Four scenarios were plotted with real-world examples currently present in urban mobility cases, extrapolated to a future reality where AVs are considered a transport mode: (A) business-to-consumer (B2C) autonomous ridesharing; (B) P2P autonomous ridesharing; (C) B2C multimodal mobility; (D) B2C + P2P multimodal mobility. Scenarios A and B entail unimodal mobility via autonomous ridesharing, whereupon in the former, a single firm owns a fleet and subsidizes the consumer segment, while in the latter, ordinary peers own the AVs, which are offered to other peers via Uber-like applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Carsharing 2025 – Nische Oder Mainstream?
    CarSharing 2025 – nische oder MainStreaM? Sebastian Riegler, Maria Juschten, Reinhard Hössinger, Regine Gerike, Lars Rößger Bernhard Schlag, Wilko Manz, Christoph Rentschler, Johanna Kopp Mit diesem Bericht werden die Ergebnisse einer Grundlagenstudie zu neuen Nutzungskonzepten für individuelle Mobilität zusammengefasst. Das Projekt wurde beauftragt durch das Institut für Mobilitätsforschung (ifmo) und durchgeführt vom Institut für Verkehrswesen der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, dem Lehrstuhl für Verkehrspsychologie der Technischen Universität Dresden und der INOVAPLAN GmbH. Die Studienautoren danken allen Carsharing-Anbietern, die die Studie unterstützt und sie dadurch erst ermöglicht haben. Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Institut für Verkehrswesen: Sebastian Riegler, Maria Juschten, Dr. Reinhard Hössinger, Prof. Regine Gerike Technische Universität Dresden, Lehrstuhl für Verkehrspsychologie: Lars Rößger, Prof. Bernhard Schlag INOVAPLAN GmbH: Dr. Wilko Manz, Christoph Rentschler Design: Bernhard Moosbauer, www.exsample.org © 2016 ifmo 4 CARShARing 2025 – nischE oDER MAinstream? 5 Inhalt Vorwort 6 Kapitel 4 Ist Carsharing für meine Wege geeignet? 71 Danksagung 7 a. Wofür wird Carsharing genutzt? 72 Executive Summary 8 Planung der Buchungen: Spontanität vs. Vorausdenker 72 Beginnzeiten der Fahrten: After-Work vs. Afternoon Tea 73 Kapitel 1 Einleitung 11 Fahrtweiten: Nahverkehr vs. Langstrecke 74 a. Grundlagen des Teilens und Nutzens 12 Start & Ziel der Fahrten: Innerstädtisch vs. Fahrten ins Grüne 76 Teilen, Nutzen, Besitz, Eigentum – Begriffsklärung 12 Fahrtzwecke: Freizeit & nach Hause vs. Einkauf & Ausflug 77 Welche Motive bedienen Eigentum und eigentumslose Nutzung? 14 Alternative zu Carsharing: zu Fuß und eigener Pkw vs. Erweiterung der Mobilität 78 b. Was unterscheidet Carsharing von anderen Formen der Pkw-Nutzung? 17 Verzicht auf Carsharing: Parkplatzproblematik vs. Umweltgedanke 80 c. Die Forschungsfrage: Was wollen wir erreichen? 19 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Pandemic Reflections: Future Mobility COVID-19’S Potential Impact on the New Mobility Ecosystem
    THEMATIC INSIGHTS Post-Pandemic Reflections: Future Mobility COVID-19’s potential impact on the new mobility ecosystem msci.com msci.com 1 Contents 04 Mobility-as-a-Service and the COVID-19 shock 06 Growing Pains in the Future Mobility Market 16 Mobility Services: Expansion and Acceleration 18 COVID-19: A Catalyst for Autonomous Delivery? 2 msci.com msci.com 3 Future Mobility A growing database collated by Neckermann Strategic Advisors has over Mobility-as- 700 public and private companies involved with different elements of the autonomous Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) value chain. a-Service A list that doesn’t yet include all the producers of electric, two-wheeled and public transport that contribute to the full and the mobility ecosystem. In the 1910s, the automotive industry was COVID-19 shock vast, and the rising tide was lifting every boat, albeit not profitably. However, by the time the Roaring Twenties came to an end in Even prior to the COVID-19 crisis, we discussed in our first Thematic 1929, the number of US auto manufacturers Insight1 how the world might be in the midst of the largest transformation had already fallen to 44, only to consolidate in mobility since the advent of the automobile some 120 years ago. Will much further after the Great Depression. the current pandemic prove to be a system shock that accelerates the It is, of course, tempting to see a parallel demise of inflexible and unprofitable business models and acts as a to the last five years in mobility. Just prior catalyst for the growth of more digital and service-oriented businesses in to the COVID-19 crisis, there were initial the mobility space? How might industry-wide headwinds affect the new signs of stress in this tapestry of privately- business models and technologies at least in the short-term? funded companies in the Future Mobility New industries naturally go through a series of iterations before becoming ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Aspects of Electric Vehicles from Car-Sharing Systems
    energies Article Operational Aspects of Electric Vehicles from Car-Sharing Systems Katarzyna Turo´n 1,* , Andrzej Kubik 2 and Feng Chen 3 1 Department of Automotive Vehicle Construction, Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, 8 Krasi´nskiegoStreet, 40-019 Katowice, Poland 2 Department of Automotive Vehicle Maintenance, Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, 8 Krasi´nskiegoStreet, 40-019 Katowice, Poland; [email protected] 3 School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai JiaoTong University, No. 800 Dongchuan Road Minhang Campus, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 200240 Shanghai, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 31 October 2019; Accepted: 2 December 2019; Published: 4 December 2019 Abstract: The article was dedicated to the topic of energy consumption of driving cars equipped with an electric motor. Due to the emerging demands for the excessive use of energy by vehicles (including car-sharing system vehicles), the authors carried out research to determine factors that affect the energy consumption. Due to the occurrence of a research gap related to the lack of reliable scientific information regarding real electricity consumption by vehicles used in car-sharing systems, the authors attempted to determine these values based on the proposed research experiment. The purpose of the research was to identify factors that increase energy consumption while driving in the case of car-sharing systems and developing recommendations for users of car-sharing systems and system operators in relation to energy consumption. Based on data received from car-sharing system operators and to their demands that users move cars uneconomically and use too much energy, the authors performed a scientific experiment based on Hartley’s plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Télécharger La Synthèse De L'enquête Nationale Sur L'autopartage 2019
    Enquête nationale sur l’autopartage - Edition 2019 Actualisation et étude de l’impact des services d’autopartage sur l’équipement des ménages et sur les kilomètres parcourus en voiture UNE ÉTUDE RÉALISÉE PAR 6T-BUREAU DE RECHERCHE SUR UN COFINANCEMENT 6T ET ADEME Contexte Enjeux Publiées en 2012 et 2016, les deux premières Tout comme en 2012 et 2016, l’édition 2019 porte éditions de l’Enquête Nationale sur l’Autopartage1 principalement sur l’autopartage en boucle. Elle vise constituaient les premières études d’envergure sur deux objectifs : les usagers, usages et impacts de l’autopartage en France. mettre à jour les résultats de la précédente édition : les usagers, usages et impacts de l’autopartage ont- Menées auprès d’au moins 2 000 usagers abonnés ils évolué entre 2016 et 2019 ? d’une vingtaine de services d’autopartage différents, ces enquêtes ont mis en évidence l’effet « déclencheur affiner la compréhension des usagers, usages et de multimodalité » de l’autopartage en boucle : impacts de l’autopartage : notamment, qui sont les l’autopartage permet aux habitants des villes de usagers de l’autopartage ? Une fois abonnés à s’affranchir de la voiture individuelle, de découvrir l’autopartage, leurs pratiques de déplacements et de s’approprier d’autres modes de déplacement. évoluent-elles de la même manière ? Quels sont les usages et les impacts de l’autopartage entre Trois ans après la dernière enquête, l’autopartage particuliers et de l’autopartage en contexte joue-t-il encore le même rôle dans la mobilité professionnel ? urbaine ? Ses usagers sont-ils restés les mêmes ? Ses usages, ses impacts ont-ils évolué ? Le rapport d’étude complet est disponible sur notre blog : Lien Autopartage B2C en boucle : (fr Autopartage B2C en trace Autopartage entre l’objet principal de l’étude directe particuliers ou P2P Le véhicule est rendu dans la Avec stations : le véhicule peut Réalisée entre particuliers station de départ.
    [Show full text]
  • Performing Ambiguity?: Following Multiplicity in Shared Mobility Markets
    PERFORMING AMBIGUITY? How do markets change and develop over time? The present PhD project fo- Gianluca Chimenti cuses on the dynamic effects of market change in the context of the sharing economy. This phenomenon is of particular interest since it concerns how alter- native market forms – such as gifting, collaborating, accessing – are challeng- ing established market conceptions. Empirically, the project addresses emerg- ing shared mobility platforms (ride sharing, car sharing, etc.) and follows their PERFORMING AMBIGUITY? attempts to reconfigure extant market orders within the Swedish transportation sector. By turning the infamous conceptual confusion that surrounds the sharing FOLLOWING MULTIPLICITY IN SHARED MOBILITY MARKETS economy into a topic in its own right, the individual studies address a number of issues related to the formation and change of markets in ambiguous environ- ments. This includes, but is not limited to, the examination of conceptual contro- versies concerning what “the sharing economy” is, the changing roles of public actors, and issue of overlapping spaces during processes of marketisation. Using an Actor Network Theory approach across a number of empirical sites in Sweden and Ireland, this dissertation highlights the productive role of ambi- guity in processes of market formation and change. The four articles compris- ing this thesis explore how ambiguity can be seized by a multitude of actors all wishing to shape markets in their own interests, potentially creating multiple economic consequences and material realities as a result. In addition, it il- Chimenti Gianluca lustrates how individual shared mobility markets exhibit clear systemic proper- ties within and beyond the larger mobility realm; they depend significantly on enacted interrelations to other markets (e.g., for digital locks, batteries, tele- communication) and rely on broader, popular socio-economic trends, such as Sharing Cities and Smart Cities.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Course in Public Transport. the Car As a Component
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Project Group on Mobility (Ed.) Working Paper Changing course in public transport: the car as a component of competitive services WZB Discussion Paper, No. FS II 02-103 Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Project Group on Mobility (Ed.) (2002) : Changing course in public transport: the car as a component of competitive services, WZB Discussion Paper, No. FS II 02-103, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), Berlin This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/49803 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Veröffentlichung der Abteilung “Organisation und Technikgenese“ des Forschungsschwerpunktes Technik-Arbeit-Umwelt am WZB FS II 02-103 Changing Course in Public Transport: The Car as a Component of Competitive Services Choice-Research, Report No.
    [Show full text]
  • Brighton & Hove
    Brighton & Hove R54.1 – Car Clubs Research in Brighton & Hove Brighton & Hove August 2009 (revised version March 2010) Cleaner and better transport in cities Project no. TREN/FP7TR/218940 ARCHIMEDES Project Name ARCHIMEDES (Achieving Real Change with Innovative Transport Measure Demonstrating Energy Savings) Start date of the 15/09/2008 Project Duration: 48 months Measure: No. 54: Car-Sharing Scheme Improvements in Brighton & Hove Task: 11.6.1: Car Clubs Deliverable: R54.1: Car Clubs Research in Brighton & Hove th Due date of 15 March 2009 Deliverable: Actual 16th September 2009 submission date: Revised for March 2010 Dissemination Public Level Organisation Brighton & Hove Responsible Author Luke Ede Quality Control Alan Lewis Version 0.6 Date last updated 3rd March 2010 2 / 31 Cleaner and better transport in cities Contents 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................4 1.1 BACKGROUND CIVITAS.......................................................................................................................4 1.2 BACKGROUND ARCHIMEDES.............................................................................................................5 1.3 PARTICIPANT CITIES ..............................................................................................................................5 1.3.1 Leading City Innovation Areas......................................................................................................5 2. BRIGHTON
    [Show full text]
  • Aktueller Stand Des Car-Sharing in Europa
    more options for energy efficient mobility through Car-Sharing Aktueller Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa Endbericht D 2.4 Arbeitspaket 2 Juni 2010 Bundesverband CarSharing e. V. Willi Loose momo Car-Sharing More options for energy efficient mobility through Car-Sharing Grant agreement No.: IEE/07/696/SI2.499387 Aktueller Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa Endbericht D 2.4 Arbeitspaket 2 Aktueller Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa Endbericht D 2.4 Arbeitspaket 2 I Inhaltsverzeichnis 0. Zusammenfassung 1 1. Einleitung und Übersicht 7 1.1 Das Projekt momo Car-Sharing 7 1.2 Inhalt des Berichts 9 2. Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa 11 2.1 Überblick 11 2.2 Stand des Car-Sharing in europäischen Ländern 13 2.2.1 Belgien 13 2.2.2 Dänemark 14 2.2.3 Deutschland 14 2.2.4 Finnland 15 2.2.5 Frankreich 16 2.2.6 Großbritannien 16 2.2.7 Irland 17 2.2.8 Italien 18 2.2.9 Niederlande 19 2.2.10 Österreich 19 2.2.11 Portugal 19 2.2.12 Schweden 20 2.2.13 Schweiz 20 2.2.14 Spanien 21 2.3 Vergleichende Einschätzung des Car-Sharing-Wachstums 21 3. Befragung der europäischen Car-Sharing-Anbieter 24 3.1 Methodik der Befragung 24 3.2 Rücklauf der Fragebögen 25 3.3 Ausgewählte Befragungsergebnisse 27 3.3.1 Erhebungsergebnisse zur Car-Sharing-Nutzung 27 3.3.2 Erhebungsergebnisse zu Kooperationen der Car-Sharing-Anbieter 39 3.3.3 Erhebungsergebnisse zur politischen Unterstützung 50 Aktueller Stand des Car-Sharing in Europa Endbericht D 2.4 Arbeitspaket 2 II 4.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Brands
    Global Consumer 2019 List of Brands Table of Contents 1. Digital music 2 2. Video-on-Demand 4 3. Video game stores 7 4. Digital video games shops 11 5. Video game streaming services 13 6. Book stores 15 7. eBook shops 19 8. Daily newspapers 22 9. Online newspapers 26 10. Magazines & weekly newspapers 30 11. Online magazines 34 12. Smartphones 38 13. Mobile carriers 39 14. Internet providers 42 15. Cable & satellite TV provider 46 16. Refrigerators 49 17. Washing machines 51 18. TVs 53 19. Speakers 55 20. Headphones 57 21. Laptops 59 22. Tablets 61 23. Desktop PC 63 24. Smart home 65 25. Smart speaker 67 26. Wearables 68 27. Fitness and health apps 70 28. Messenger services 73 29. Social networks 75 30. eCommerce 77 31. Search Engines 81 32. Online hotels & accommodation 82 33. Online flight portals 85 34. Airlines 88 35. Online package holiday portals 91 36. Online car rental provider 94 37. Online car sharing 96 38. Online ride sharing 98 39. Grocery stores 100 40. Banks 104 41. Online payment 108 42. Mobile payment 111 43. Liability insurance 114 44. Online dating services 117 45. Online event ticket provider 119 46. Food & restaurant delivery 122 47. Grocery delivery 125 48. Car Makes 129 Statista GmbH Johannes-Brahms-Platz 1 20355 Hamburg Tel. +49 40 2848 41 0 Fax +49 40 2848 41 999 [email protected] www.statista.com Steuernummer: 48/760/00518 Amtsgericht Köln: HRB 87129 Geschäftsführung: Dr. Friedrich Schwandt, Tim Kröger Commerzbank AG IBAN: DE60 2004 0000 0631 5915 00 BIC: COBADEFFXXX Umsatzsteuer-ID: DE 258551386 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Warsaw in Short
    WarsaW TourisT informaTion ph. (+48 22) 94 31, 474 11 42 Tourist information offices: Museums royal route 39 Krakowskie PrzedmieÊcie Street Warsaw Central railway station Shops 54 Jerozolimskie Avenue – Main Hall Warsaw frederic Chopin airport Events 1 ˚wirki i Wigury Street – Arrival Hall Terminal 2 old Town market square Hotels 19, 21/21a Old Town Market Square (opening previewed for the second half of 2008) Praga District Restaurants 30 Okrzei Street Warsaw Editor: Tourist Routes Warsaw Tourist Office Translation: English Language Consultancy Zygmunt Nowak-Soliƒski Practical Information Cartographic Design: Tomasz Nowacki, Warsaw Uniwersity Cartographic Cathedral Photos: archives of Warsaw Tourist Office, Promotion Department of the City of Warsaw, Warsaw museums, W. Hansen, W. Kryƒski, A. Ksià˝ek, K. Naperty, W. Panów, Z. Panów, A. Witkowska, A. Czarnecka, P. Czernecki, P. Dudek, E. Gampel, P. Jab∏oƒski, K. Janiak, Warsaw A. Karpowicz, P. Multan, B. Skierkowski, P. Szaniawski Edition XVI, Warszawa, August 2008 Warsaw Frederic Chopin Airport Free copy 1. ˚wirki i Wigury St., 00-906 Warszawa Airport Information, ph. (+48 22) 650 42 20 isBn: 83-89403-03-X www.lotnisko-chopina.pl, www.chopin-airport.pl Contents TourisT informaTion 2 PraCTiCal informaTion 4 fall in love wiTh warsaw 18 warsaw’s hisTory 21 rouTe no 1: 24 The Royal Route: Krakowskie PrzedmieÊcie Street – Nowy Âwiat Street – Royal ¸azienki modern warsaw 65 Park-Palace Complex – Wilanów Park-Palace Complex warsaw neighborhood 66 rouTe no 2: 36 CulTural AttraCTions 74 The Old
    [Show full text]
  • Europcar Mobility Group S.A. Consolidated Financial Statements
    Europcar Mobility Group S.A. Consolidated financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2019 1 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME ........................................................................................................................ 4 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME ...................................................................................... 5 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN EQUITY ..................................................................................................7 CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOW STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 9 GENERAL OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 11 GENERAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 MAIN EVENTS OF THE PERIOD ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 CHANGES IN SCOPE OF CONSOLIDATION
    [Show full text]