Car park designers’ handbook

Jim Hill
With contributions from

Glynn Rhodes, Steve Vollar and Chris Whapples

Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd,
1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD.

URL: http://www.thomastelford.com

Distributors for Thomas Telford books are

USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400, USA
Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3–10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103
Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria

First published 2005

Also available from Thomas Telford Books

The Motorway Achievement volume 1. The British motorway system: visualisation, policy and
administration. Edited by Sir Peter and Robert Baldwin. ISBN 07277 3196 3
The Motorway Achievement volume 2. Frontiers of knowledge and practice.
Edited by Professor Ron Bridle and John Porter

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 0 7277 3438 5

# Thomas Telford Limited 2005

All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as permitted by the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Publishing Director, Thomas
Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD.

This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the
statements made and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily
imply that such statements and/or opinions are or reflect the views or opinions of the
publishers. While every effort has been made to ensure that the statements made and the
opinions expressed in this publication provide a safe and accurate guide, no liability or
responsibility can be accepted in this respect by the authors or publishers.

Typeset by Academic þ Technical, Bristol

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin, Cornwall
This book is dedicated to the memory of
John Charles Cannon
MA (Cantab), CEng, MICE, FIStructE
1931–2005
An outstanding engineer who, for 50 years, fought the
effects of poliomyelitis with courage and determination.
Contents

Foreword xi
Preface xiii
Glossary of terms xiv
Acknowledgements xvi

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Historical note 1
1.2 Advice and guidance 2
1.3 Scope 2
1.4 Design flexibility 2

2 Design brief 4
2.1 The client 4
2.2 The brief 4

3 Design elements 6
3.1 The standard design vehicle (SDV): discussion 6
3.1.1 Length and width 6
3.1.2 Height 6
3.1.3 Wheelbase 7
3.1.4 Ground clearance 7
3.1.5 Turning dimensions 8
3.1.6 Recommended minimum diameters for turns
up to 1808 between obstructions 8
3.1.7 Left side, right side or in the middle? 8
3.2 Parking categories 8
3.2.1 Discussion 8
3.2.2 Car park categories 9
3.3 Parking stalls 9
3.3.1 Discussion 9
3.3.2 Recommended dimensions for differing parking
categories 9
3.3.3 Obstructions between stalls 9
3.3.4 Angled parking 10
3.4 Aisle widths 10
3.4.1 Discussion 10
3.4.2 One-way-flow with reduced aisle widths 11
3.4.3 Two-way-flow-with reduced aisle widths 12
3.4.4 Manoeuvring on aisles 13
3.4.5 Turning between aisles 13
3.5 Bin dimensions 13
3.5.1 Discussion 13
3.5.2 Recommended minimum bin dimensions for
parking with 2.400 m-wide stalls 13
3.6 Ramps and access-ways 13
3.6.1 Discussion 13
3.6.2 Recommended maximum vehicle gradients 16
3.6.3 Transitional slopes 17
3.6.4 Ramp projections into aisles 17
3.6.5 Storey height ramps 17
 3.6.6 Side clearance 17
3.6.7 Manoeuvring envelope 18
3.6.8 Stall access 20
3.6.9 One-way-flow ramp widths: discussion 20
3.6.10 Ramp widths and angled parking 21
3.6.11 Two-way-flow ramps 21
3.6.12 Turning circle templates 22
3.6.13 Two-way-flow: recommended minimum clear
ramp widths 22
3.6.14 Scissors-type ramps 22
3.6.15 Side-by-side ramps 22
3.6.16 Circular ramps 22
3.6.17 Recommended minimum diameters for full
circle ramps between limiting wall faces 24
3.6.18 Recommended minimum widths for circular
ramp lanes between wall faces 24
3.7 Interlocking ramps 24
3.7.1 Stadium type 24
3.7.2 Circular type 24
3.8 Kerbs 24
3.9 Super-elevation 25
3.10 Parking deck gradients 25
3.11 Headroom and storey heights 25
3.12 Height limitations 25

4 Dynamic considerations 26
4.1 Discussion 26
4.1.1 Impact speeds 26
4.1.2 Effects of rain 26
4.1.3 Exit and entry rates and internal movement 26
4.1.4 Dynamic capacities for different stall widths
and categories 27
4.1.5 Stopping distance 27
4.1.6 Speed limits 27
4.1.7 Dynamic capacities of ramps and access-ways 27
4.1.8 Dynamic capacities of cross-ramps and
access-ways, per hour 28
4.1.9 Dynamic capacities of parking decks;
calculations 28
4.1.10 Dynamic efficiency 29

5 Static considerations 30
5.1 Static efficiency, discussion 30
5.1.1 Relative efficiencies 30
5.1.2 Area per car space 31
5.1.3 Recommended capacities 31

6 Circulation design 33
6.1 Discussion 33
6.2 How many levels? 33
6.3 Roof considerations 33
6.4 Circulation efficiency 34
6.4.1 Discussion 34
6.4.2 Shortest travel distance 34
6.4.3 Examples of circulation efficiency 35
6.5 Parking times 35
6.5.1 Discussion 35
7 Circulation layouts 37
7.1 Discussion 37
7.2 Dimensions used 37
7.3 User-friendly features 37
7.3.1 Discussion 37
7.3.2 Simplicity 37
7.3.3 Crossovers 38
7.3.4 Circulation direction 38
7.3.5 Dead ends (culs-de-sac) 38
7.4 Angled and right-angled parking: a comparison 38
7.5 Split-level decks (SLDs) 43
SLD 1 One-way traffic flow with an included rapid
outflow route 44
SLD 2 One-way traffic flow with an excluded rapid
outflow route 46
SLD 3 One-way-flow with side-by-side ramps
(scissors type) 48
SLD 4 Combined one-way-flows, three bins or
more wide 50
SLD 5 Combined one- and two-way-flows, three bins or
more wide 52
SLD 6 Two-way-flow with ‘combined’ ramps 54
SLD 7 One-way-flow with an included contra-flow
rapid exit route 56
7.6 Sloping parking decks (SDs) 59
SD 1 Single helix with two-way-flow 60
SD 2 Single helix with one-way-flow and a rapid
outflow route 62
SD 3 Double helix, end connected with one-way-flow
on the central access-way 64
SD 4 Double helix, end connected with two-way-flow
on the central access-way 66
SD 5 Interlocking double helix, with one-way-flows 68
SD 6 Combined helix, side connected with one- and
two-way-flows 70
SD 7 and 8 Double helix, side connected, with
one-way-flows 72
7.7 Combined flat and sloping deck (FSD) layouts 75
FSD 1 Single helix with two-way-flow 76
FSD 2 Single helix with one-way-flow and a rapid
outflow route 78
FSD 3 Combined helix, side connected with one- and
two-way-flows 80
FSD 4 Combined helix, side connected with
one-way-flow 82
FSD 5 Double helix, side connected with one-way-flow 84
FSD 6 and 7 Double helix, side connected with
one-way traffic flows 86
FSD 8 Single helix with one-way-flow and an internal
ramp 88
7.8 Combined flat and sloping deck layouts with internal
cross-ramps (VCM and WPD) 91
VCM 1 One-way-flow with two one-way-flow ramps 92
VCM 2 One-way-flow with end ramps 94
VCM 3 Two-way-flow with a single end ramp 96
VCM 4 One- and two-way traffic flows with a single
ramp 98
 WPD 1 Warped parking decks with one-way-flow 100
7.9 Flat decks with storey height internal ramps (flat with
internal ramps – FIR) 103
FIR 1 One-way-flow decks with combined
two-way-flow ramps at right-angles to
the aisles 104
FIR 2 One-way-flow decks with side-by-side (scissors
type) ramps at right-angles to the aisles 106
FIR 3 One-way-flow decks with combined
two-way-flow ramps parallel with the aisles 108
FIR 4 One-way-flow decks with separated
one-way-flow ramps 110
7.10 Minimum dimension (MD) layouts 113
MD 1 One-way-flow between circular end ramps 114
MD 2 Two-way-flow with a circular ramp at one end 116
MD 3, 4 and 5 One- and two-way-flows, ten stalls
wide 118
MD 6, 7 and 8 One- and two-way-flows eight stalls
wide (VCM type) 120
MD 9, 10 and 11 One- and two-way-flows eight stalls
wide (split-level type) 122
7.11 Circular sloping decks (CSDs) 125
CSD 1 Circular parking deck with two-way-flow 126
7.12 Half external ramps (HERs) 129
HER 1 Half spiral with one-way-flow 130
HER 2 and 3 Straight ramps with one-way-flow 132
HER 4 Straight ramps with one-way-flow,
end located 134
HER 5 Straight ramps with one-way-flow,
end located 136
7.13 External ramps (ERs) 139
ER 1 Full circular with a two-way traffic flow 140
ER 2 Full circular ramps each with a one-way
traffic flow 142
ER 3 Straight ramps with a one-way traffic flow 144
ER 4 Storey height, straight ramps 146
ER 5 Stadium-shaped interlocking ramps 148
ER 6 Circular interlocking ramps 150

8 Stairs and lifts 153

8.1 Discussion 153
8.2 Vertical and horizontal escape 153
8.2.1 Stairs, widths of flights 153
8.2.2 Vertical escape 155
8.2.3 Horizontal escape 155
8.3 Escape distances 155
8.4 Lift sizing 156

9 Disabled drivers and carers 161

9.1 Discussion 161
9.2 Stall locations 161
9.3 Stall dimensions 162
9.4 Access 163

10 Cycles and motorcycles 165

10.1 Discussion 165
10.2 Cycle parking 165
 10.3 Motorcycle parking 165
10.4 Lockers 166
10.5 Fiscal control 167

11 Security 169
11.1 Discussion 169
11.2 Lighting, music and CCTV 169
11.3 See and be seen 170
11.4 Women-only car parks 170

12 Underground parking 173

12.1 Discussion 173

13 Lighting 175
13.1 Discussion 175
13.2 Emergency lighting 175

14 Signage 177
14.1 Discussion 177
14.2 Directional signs 177
14.3 Information signs 178
14.4 Variable message sign systems 178
14.5 Emergency signs 179

15 Drainage 181
15.1 Discussion 181

16 Fire escapes, safety and fire fighting 183

16.1 Discussion 183
16.2 Escape distances 183
16.3 Fire safety 183
16.4 Fire-fighting measures 183
16.5 Sprinklers 184
16.6 Fire escapes 184

17 Fiscal and barrier control 187

17.1 Discussion 187
17.2 Control systems 187
17.3 Barrier control 188

18 Ventilation 191
18.1 Discussion 191
18.2 Natural ventilation requirements 191
18.3 Mechanically assisted natural ventilation requirements 191
18.4 Mechanical ventilation requirements 191

19 Structure 195
19.1 Discussion 195
19.2 Construction materials 195
19.3 Joints 196
19.4 Perimeter protection 196
19.5 Concrete finishes 197
19.6 Protective coatings 197
19.7 Waterproofing 197
19.8 Cambers 198

20 Appearance 201
 20.1 Discussion 201
20.2 Appearance requirements 201

Appendix A 203

References 204

Index 205
About the authors

In 1967 Jim founded the Hill Cannon Partnership (HCP) with John
Cannon and has been involved in car park design since 1969. In
1970, they developed the Tricon structural system and in 1993 Jim
patented the Vertical Circulation Module system (VCM). He is a past
President of the British Parking Association and a regional Chairman
of the Concrete Society. He is now a consultant to the practice,
having retired in 1992, since when he has concentrated on the further
development of VCM, designing appropriate circulation layouts for
many projects and researching this book. He is currently writing a
James Hill CEng similar handbook on ‘good practice’ parking in the USA.
FIStructE (ret’d)

Glynn is a senior partner of the HCP and has been involved in the
design of 30 multi-storey car parks since 1986, two of which have
been voted Best New Build car parks at the annual British Parking
Awards. He also received the Ernest Davies Award for the best article
published in Parking News entitled ‘Current Trends in the Design of Car
Parks’. He has provided design advice for large underground car
parking facilities in Manila, Kuala Lumpur (Petronas Towers),
Zagreb and Dubai. Recent projects include the Jubilee car park in
Glynn Rhodes BSc (Hons) Harrogate (precast with 450 spaces), Merryhill Shopping Centre,
CEng MICE MIHT West Midlands (precast with 1600 spaces) and Manchester Royal
FConsE Infirmary (precast with 1600 spaces).
Steve is a senior partner of the HCP and has been actively involved with
car park design and parking related subjects since 1996: these include
structured car parks, both above and below ground, as well as large
capacity single deck layouts. His particular interest is in the provision
of suitably located parking for disabled drivers, two wheeled traffic
and general ‘wayfinding’ for both motorists and pedestrians alike.
Recent design projects include Birmingham Airport (precast with
1700 spaces), Ocean Terminal; Edinburgh (precast with 1000 spaces)
and Clarence Dock; Leeds (precast with 1600 spaces).

Stephen Vollar Eur Ing

BSc CEng FIStructE
MICE FConsE

A senior partner of the HCP, Chris has been involved in the design of
parking structures for more than twenty years. He is a contributor to
the IStructE publication Design recommendations for multi-storey and
underground car parks and the Institution of Civil Engineers’ publica-
tion Recommendations for inspection, maintenance and management of
car park structures. He has served on European technical committees
and has presented papers on parking related subjects. His particular
interest is in the development of new structural forms. Recent design
projects include St. Andrews; Norwich (steel frame with 1100 spaces),
Sundials; Amersham (steel frame with 550 spaces) and Designer
Christopher Whapples BSc
Outlet Village, Livingston (in situ with 1600 spaces).
(Hons) CEng FIStructE
FICE MIHT FConsE
Foreword

Jim Hill has spent the last 35 years in the development of car park
design and this experience has given him a unique insight into the
reasons why some buildings operate successfully and others, of a similar
size and activity, do not. The choice of the correct circulation layout is a
subject that he considers to be of prime importance in the creation of an
efficient parking building.
Both as a consumer of parking services and a former parking
manager, it always intrigues me why some parking layouts are easily
navigated and yet others test one’s patience? As an engineer, I think
logically and admire the ‘art of parking’ created by my fellow collea-
gues; as a consumer I want to be able to park my car as quickly and
as effectively as I can and get on with the business in hand, be it
work or play; this is especially true if I have children with me.
My experience has taught me that parking is a means to an end; it
is the first and last impression of my ‘destination’; it needs to be
good if I’m to contemplate returning there again and again. This is
especially true in the retail and commercial world where (hopefully)
my custom is valued. It is equally true when I visit an unfamiliar
town or city, park at a rail station, or simply spend a day at leisure
someplace.
Equally important is the need to feel intuitively safe and welcome
wherever I choose to park. Complex layouts, frustration with queues
and conflict with others who are manoeuvring about in or out of
parking spaces, or sometimes in what seems like a never-ending set of
twists and turns to get in or out of the car park in the first place,
only serve to increase my sense of ‘uncared for’ by the owner or
operator.
This book, describes and illustrates some 60þ variations on the many
‘layout themes’, no doubt there are others. Their advantages and dis-
advantages are discussed, recommendations made for their practical
application and suggestions made for other layouts that should also
be considered.
More than just discussing layouts, the author has shown how ramps
can be prevented from projecting excessively into traffic aisles, how to
assess dynamic capacity and efficiency, and the many other considera-
tions that go to make up the design process. The matters dealt with in
Chapters 8 to 20 such as the current requirements for people with
mobility impairments, pedestrian access, security, ventilation, etc.
have been written with the help of his partners, all parking experts in
their own right.
In the author’s opinion, effective design is based upon common sense,
a little crystal ball gazing and experience: it is not a precise art. He
suggests that, provided drivers will want to frequent the car park and
clients are willing to pay for it, little else matters. I wouldn’t want
to disagree with him, but my comments about being ‘welcome’ at
any parking facility are the key to its success. If the operator wants
to do business, good customer service is vital; to do that needs good
design.
This book addresses the subject of car park design, especially the
design of circulation layouts, in a practical manner and can be easily
understood by anyone with an interest in the subject. It will help to
identify examples of best practice in making our parking facilities
more accessible to all. The book is also a useful reference for those
considering the Park Mark1 Safer Parking Scheme.
Kelvin Reynolds

Kelvin is Director of Technical Services at the British Parking Associa-

tion and Head of the Safer Parking Scheme.
Preface

Information on the design of vehicle circulation systems in car parks is

hard to find: had it not been so this book, probably, would not have
been written. To my knowledge, special features and relative efficiencies
of car parks have never before been discussed in any great detail. Many
designers are unaware of the advantages of using a particular layout
system over another and it is a major purpose of this book to redress
that imbalance.
In 1968, John Cannon and I first became involved in car park
structures when we were retained to design the foundations and non-
standard elements for a proprietary precast concrete system. A local
car park incorporating this system had become the subject of adverse
comment by many who used it, convincing us that we could do better
ourselves. Our first effort was to develop a clear-span structure that
was efficient, economical, aesthetically pleasing and capable of being
constructed using structural steel as well as precast and cast in situ
concrete: this was a successful venture and after more than 35 years it
is still being used in many car park designs. In time, however, it
became clear that no matter how efficient the structural solution was
and how attractive the architectural appearance, if it was wrapped
around a poor choice of circulation layout the result was yet another
unpopular car park. In many under-used car parks, the reason for
their unpopularity is not that that they have been allowed to become
dirty and/or dingy (conditions that by themselves would not normally
put off most motorists), but rather that they suffered from a poor choice
of internal layout. Of the many buildings inspected, the most unpopular
have, invariably, incorporated inappropriate circulation designs.
Rather than giving these car parks an expensive cosmetic ‘make-
over’, the money would have been better spent on improving the
layout, even at the cost of losing, possibly, a few parking stalls.
Over the years, as we became more experienced, so our awareness of
the number of different layouts available increased. Fifteen years ago I
decided to list them and recommend when and where they could be put
to best use. This endeavour was interrupted in 1992 by the development
and promotion of the vertical circulation module (VCM) circulation
system. It was just as well, as the number of different layouts has
risen even further since then. Some have been rejected as being imprac-
tical or just plain whimsical, but those that are featured in this book are
practical and have been constructed somewhere but not always in the
UK. With more than 6000 car parks in the UK, 30 000 in the USA
and many thousands more in the rest of the world, it is unlikely that
all of the possible variations will have been covered, and if any
reader is aware of a practical circulation layout substantially different
from those featured and lets me know, if it is included in a future edition
they will be acknowledged as the source.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife Rosalie who not only accom-
panied me on my travels around the car parks of several countries with-
out complaint, but was also of invaluable assistance in suggesting
improvements to the text and correcting my grammatical errors: any
that remain are entirely my own fault.
Glossary of terms

Access-way or crossway
A traffic lane without adjoining stalls laid flat or to a slope not
exceeding 5%, also capable of being used by pedestrians.

Aisle
A traffic lane with adjoining stalls on one or more sides.

Bin
Used to denote the dimension across an aisle and its adjacent stalls.
(A half bin has stalls only on one side.)

Circulation efficiency
A method of comparing the travel distance required to search the stalls,
in any particular car park, with the minimum travel distance. (Given as
a percentage.)

Congestion
Applies to traffic that is unable to flow freely.

Cross-ramp
An inclined traffic lane connecting the aisles in adjacent bins, laid to a
slope greater than 5%.

Deck
A single floor that extends over the plan area of a parking building.

Des Recs
A shortened form of words describing the Design Recommendations for
Multi-storey and Underground Car Parks, 3rd edition, published in June
2002 by the Institution of Structural Engineers.

Dynamic capacity
A measure of the rate that traffic can pass a given location within a car
park. (Given in vehicles per hour.)

Dynamic efficiency
A measure of the ability of a car park to process vehicles under normal
operating conditions.

Excluded
Applies to an inflow route that is separated from an outflow route.

Extended
Applies to any traffic route that is not rapid.

Included
A flow route that is located within the circulation pattern of another.

Inflow
Applies to the search path for traffic within a car park.
Manoeuvring envelope (ME)
The boundaries established by the minimum turning circle when
entering a crossway or ramp, outside of which a vehicle is unable to
manoeuvre without reversing.

MPV
The initials for a multi-purpose vehicle.

MSCP
The initials for a multi-storey car park.

One-way-flow
Traffic flowing in a single direction on an aisle.

Outflow
Applies to traffic exiting from a car park.

Ramp
Any traffic lane, without adjoining stalls, that provides access to or
from parking at different levels.

Rapid
Applies to a short route for inflow or outflow traffic.

Stall
The parking area allotted to a single vehicle, exclusive of any other
adjoining area.

Stall pitch
The spacing for stalls, normal to an aisle, for a particular angle of
parking.

Static capacity
The total number of stalls contained within a designated area or
complete car park.

Static efficiency
The area of the parking decks divided by the static capacity and given as
an area per stall.

SUV
The initials for a sports utility vehicle.

Swept path
The width on plan established by a vehicle for any given radius of turn.

Two-way-flow
Traffic flowing in both directions on an aisle, ramp or crossway.

Vph
Vehicles per hour.
Acknowledgements

Figs 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5(a) and (b), 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.17, 3.19,
3.20, 6.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1(a), 11.1, 12.1, 13.1,
14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1, 19.1 and 20.1 Hill-Cannon archives.
Figs 7.4 and 7.6 courtesy of Dundec Ltd.
Fig. 7.10 courtesy of Norwest Holst.
Fig. 10.2(c) courtesy of Falco.
Fig. 10.3(d) courtesy of Motoloc Ltd.
Fig. 18.17 courtesy of PSB (UK) Ltd.
7 Circulation layouts

7.1 Discussion Of the more than 5000 structured car parks believed constructed in the
UK alone, it can be readily appreciated that no single person can have
knowledge of every circulation layout variation that has been proposed
and built. Practical considerations, personal experience and the con-
stant pressures for financial economy render it reasonable to assume
that the examples shown, all of which have been featured or built
during the past 35 years, provide the basis for most of the self-parking
buildings that exist at the present time. The design of a satisfactory
circulation layout is one of the most important factors governing user
appreciation and yet many designers are unaware of the large variety
of options from which they may choose and their suitability for the
intended purpose.
The following examples are all practical layouts and form the basis
upon which most self-parking facilities have been designed. Some are
more popular than others and some are significantly defective in circu-
lation design, static and dynamic efficiency. If designers are to gain
confidence in developing solutions to solve particular problems, then
it is desirable that they should know the strengths and weaknesses of
individual layouts in order to make an informed choice.

7.2 Dimensions used There are few precise dimensions that must be adopted for the design of
parking structures. Dimensions for the individual elements can vary
and are also affected by the parking angle (that varies the bin width)
in one direction and the stall pitch (that varies the overall length) in
the other direction. The main concern is that motorists and clients
are content.
It is overly laborious and unnecessary to keep mentioning all of the
variations that can occur in practice and so dimensions for the featured
layouts will be based upon those recommended for 908 parking with
stall dimensions of 2.400 m  4.800 m, aisle widths of 6.000 m (one-
way flow), 7.000 m (two-way flow) and a storey height of 3.000 m.
In the layouts shown in the following pages, the overall aisle lengths
are sometimes shown less than those given for the width; nevertheless,
the length of the aisle will determine the ‘length’ of a layout and the
dimension over the bins will determine its ‘width’.

7.3 User-friendly 7.3.1 Discussion

features There are many existing car parks where, in retrospect, it can be seen
that the layout would have been much better if only the designer had
recognised that a problem existed. In such cases, if improvements had
been incorporated at the design stage, they need not have cost more
to implement or reduced static capacity. They could even have
enhanced the market value by being more ‘user friendly’ to the parking
public. It is, also, a relatively simple matter to spoil a potentially accep-
table circulation layout by over complication, or by the introduction of
unnecessary and unfriendly features.

7.3.2 Simplicity
The basic tenet of all circulation design is to ‘keep it simple’. What, at
first, might look like a clever idea to a designer could well end up as a

37
 motorist’s nightmare. In a structured car park the layout should endea-
vour to replicate the openness of a surface car park. To this end, it is
desirable to eliminate, as far as possible, vertical structure that interferes,
both visually and physically, with the free movement of vehicles and
pedestrians. Turning directly from one lock to the other is not a popular
manoeuvre. If possible all turns should be in the same direction and not
more than 908 at a time. When located under other types of building, it is
not always possible to create the most desirable layout. Attempts should
be made to minimise the visual impact of large vertical elements and
locate them away from the circulation routes, if at all possible.

7.3.3 Crossovers
Crossover conditions should be avoided. When on a traffic aisle and
searching for the first available space, it is disconcerting and potentially
dangerous to find a car suddenly appearing at right angles from behind
a parked vehicle. The driver of this car may also be concentrating on
finding a space in which to park, or intent only on leaving the facility
as quickly as possible. A user-friendly circulation layout should not
hold surprises for drivers who should be able to observe the movements
of other vehicles well before there is a need to take avoiding action.

7.3.4 Circulation direction

The direction of circulation has little effect upon circulation efficiency in
one-way-flow systems. Provided that the route is of an adequate width
it matters little in which direction the traffic is made to flow. It has been
said that left-turning circuits are not as popular in one-way-flow sys-
tems as turning to the right. However, when vehicles are travelling
down the middle of an aisle drivers are biased to the right thereby
providing a much better view of openings on the left.
When a two-way-flow ramp occurs in a one-way-flow layout it is
preferable to have a left-turning circuit whereby traffic drives on the
correct side of the ramp.
When entering a traffic aisle from a right-turning ramp, a front-seat
passenger could obscure traffic approaching from the left, but when
traffic approaches from the right the driver’s lateral vision is relatively
unimpaired.
Turning right onto an exit barrier enables a ticket to be inserted more
easily into the acceptor machine than when turning to the left.
When the entry/exit lanes are located side-by-side, right turning
circuits are preferable if a crossover situation is to be avoided.
None of these points are important enough to dictate the direction of
flow by themselves, but it is useful to appreciate that they occur when
considering the flow direction.

7.3.5 Dead ends (culs-de-sac)

When viewing down a ‘dead-end’ aisle, it is difficult to see the parking
situation more than three or four stalls away. For good practice, and if
unnecessary manoeuvring is to be avoided, it should be the limiting
factor.

7.4 Angled and Members of the public and some clients, ask why angled parking is not
right-angled parking: used more frequently in the UK. They point out that it is popular in the
a comparison USA and, for those who have used it, it is a popular parking format
but, in the UK, layouts with 908 parking occur more often in town-
centre car parks than any of the other types.
Figure 7.1 shows a basic UK town-centre-type split-level layout with
908 parking. It is 28 stall widths in length with 96 stalls on each deck.

38 Car park designers’ handbook

Fig. 7.1 Angled and
right-angled parking:
a comparison

The area of the deck is 2096.6 m2 producing an average of 21.840 m2 per

stall.
Figure 7.1 also shows the same basic layout with 708 parking. It is 28
stall widths in length with 92 stalls on each deck. The area of the deck is
2196.8 m2 producing an average of 23.620 m2 per stall.
The difference of 1.780 m2 per stall represents an increase of 8% in
area and a consequent increase in construction costs.
The 708 layout, at 71.512 m, is 4.312 m longer than the 908 layout,
representing an increase of 6.5% in length while containing 4% fewer
vehicles.
The width at 30.724 m is 484 mm narrower than the 908 layout repre-
senting a reduction of 1.5%.
The traffic aisles for the 708 layout at 4.700 m wide are 1.300 m less
than those for the 908 layout, reducing the separation distance between
vehicles and pedestrians on the aisles.
If the stall widths in a 908 car park were increased by 8%, to 2.550 m,
both layouts would be rendered similar in area and cost. In this
eventuality, it is reasonable to ask whether 908 parking with 2.550 m-
wide stalls and 6.000 m-wide aisles would be more popular than 708
parking with 2.400 m-wide stalls and 4.700 m wide aisles? It is a ques-
tion that can only be answered by designers and clients, individually.
Widening the traffic aisles in the 708 car park will increase construc-
tion costs by about 0.6% for every 100 mm increase in width.
As the parking angle reduces, so the building length increases and the
aisle widths narrow even further. At a parking angle of 458, a 96-space

Circulation layouts 39
 per deck building will need to be 95.000 m in length, (41% longer) and
even with aisle widths reduced to 3.600 m, the car space requirement
will be some 25% greater than for the 908 car park (see Section 5.1.1).
A two-bin, split-level car park with 908 parking could increase its stall
widths to 3.000 m, and retain its 6.000 m-wide aisles without exceeding
the area per car space for a two-bin 458 car park with 2.400 m-wide
stalls and 3.600 m wide aisles.
In the USA, many structured town-centre-type car parks incorporate
908 parking. Stalls with 608 angles, widened aisles and a two-way traffic
flow are sometimes used for retail shopping at surface level and 708 to
808 angles for large Cats 3 and 4 buildings of the SD and FSD series, SD
2, 3 and 4 being particularly popular in the southern and western USA.

40 Car park designers’ handbook

Index

Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations and diagrams.

access ways 13, 14, 15 full, two-way-flow 140, 141

see also ramps turning circles 139
dynamic capacity 27–28 two full, one-way-flow 142, 143
aesthetics of design 200, 201–2, 202 circular sloping decks 124, 125
circular sloping deck types 124, 125 see also CSD series
air change rates, ventilation 192 user-unfriendliness 125
aisles circulation design, simplicity 37–8
angled stalls 11 circulation efficiency
dead ends 38 angled stalls 38–40, 39
inflow capacity 36 crossovers 38
minimum widths importance of 35–6
one-way-flows 13 indicating 34
two-way-flows 13 combined flat and sloping decks
pedestrians in 11 internal cross-ramps
with angled parking stalls 11 see also VCM and WPD series
ramp entries 21 pedestrian access 91
ramp projections into 17 combined helix
reduced one- and two-way-flows
one-way-flows 11, 19 side connected 70, 71, 80, 81
two-way-flows 12 one-way-flow, side connected 82, 83
turning between 12, 13 contra-flow rapid exit, one-way-flow types 56, 57
vehicles crossing 26–7 control signs 178
viewing angles 8 control systems
widths 10–11 barriers 186
angled stalls 10 exit 38
angles 11, 12 numbers of 189
circulation efficiency 38–40, 39 two-way-flow 188
design implications 39–40, 39 disabled drivers 163
dynamic efficiency 29 pay and display 187
minimum dimensions 13 payment by mobile phone 187–8
pedestrians in aisles 11 payment on exit 186, 187
ramp widths 21 payment on foot 187
tag systems 188
barriers 186 crossovers 13, 14, 15
exit 38 avoiding 38
numbers of 189 manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20
two-way-flow 188 CSD 1 (circular deck/two-way-flow) 126, 127
Birmingham airport, car park 152 static efficiency 127
cycle parking
camper vans 6 lockers 164, 165
capacities stands for 165, 166
medium stay car parks 31
short stay car parks 31 decks
tidal car parks 32 combined flat and sloping 91
car parks directional markings 177
see also multi-storey car parks drainage falls 181
as motorists’ destination influences 1–2 dynamic capacity 28–9
user friendly 2, 37–9 exposed
CCTV 168, 169–70 effects of rain 26
optimum monitoring 169–70 roofing 33–34, 195–6
presence of 169 stopping distances on 27
changes of use, car parks 2–3 temperature differences 196
circular decks, two-way-flow 126, 127 waterproofing 33
circular ramps 22, 24 flat, with internal ramps 103
end frost prevention 198
one-way-flow 114, 115 gradients 25
two-way-flow 116, 117 level indicators 176, 178

205
decks (continued ) entries 26
metal plate 196 exits 26
surface abrasion 198 ramps 27–8
washing-down facilities 181 dynamic efficiency, angled stalls 29
waterproofing 197–8
deflections, structural 198–9 efficiency see circulation efficiency; dynamic efficiency;
design static efficiency
aesthetics 200, 201–2, 202 emergency signs 179
angled stalls, implications 39–40, 39 lighting 175, 179, 183
briefs 4–5 entries
existing 37 dynamic capacity 26
questionnaires 4 two-wheeled vehicles 165
design and build projects 201 environment, aesthetics 200, 201–2, 202
Design recommendations for multi-storey and ER 1 (full circular ramps/two-way-flow) 140, 141
underground car parks (Des. Rec.) 1 alternatives to 141
ramps 16, 16 ER 2 (full circular ramps/one-way-flow) 142, 143
dimensions as alternative 141
disabled parking stalls 162, 162 alternatives to 143
stalls ER 3 (straight ramps/one-way-flow) 144, 145
area per car space 31 alternatives to 145
length 9 ER 4 (storey height straight ramps) 146, 147
width 9, 27 ER 5 (stadium-shaped interlocking ramps) 148, 149
disabled drivers ER 6 (circular interlocking ramps) 150, 151
see also disabled pedestrians exit barriers, ticket insertion 38
flat and sloping decks 75 exit routes
hillside car parks 161 dynamic capacity 26
separation of 163 rapid 36
sloping parking decks 59 exits
tariffs for 163 emergency 183
disabled parking stalls 160 ramps, headroom 15
dimensions 162, 162 two-wheeled vehicles 165
legal requirements 161 external ramps 138, 139
location see also ER series
parameters 161–2
random 162 FIR 1 (one-way-flow/two-way ramps/right angles) 102,
numbers 161 104, 105
supervision 162 alternatives to 105
disabled pedestrians circulation efficiency 35
see also disabled drivers static efficiency 105
fire escapes 156, 183 FIR 2 (one-way-flow/scissors ramps) 106, 107
lift buttons 177 alternatives to 107
ramps 15, 156 static efficiency 107
refuges for 154 FIR 3 (one-way-flow/two-way ramps/parallel) 108,
viewing panels 177 109
double helix alternatives to 109
interlocking, one-way-flow 68, 69 static efficiency 109
one-way-flow FIR 4 (one-way-flow/one-way ramps) 110, 111
end connected 64, 65 alternatives to 111
side connected 72, 73, 86, 87 static efficiency 111
two-way-flow, end connected 66, 67 fire alarms 183
drainage fire escapes
deck falls 181 access to 153–4
gully outlets 198–9 disabled pedestrians 156, 183
location 181 distances from 155–6, 183
petrol interceptors 181 horizontal 155
protection of 180 routes to 183
roofs 181 stairs as 153, 154–5
stair cores 181 fire fighting 182, 183–4
ventilating 181 lifts 184
washing-down 181 smoke containment 184
driver frustration sprinklers 184
complex designs 37–8 fire lobbies 154–5, 154
potential conflict 49, 51, 129 fire regulations, stairs as fire escapes 153
stall searching 35, 73 fire safety strategies 183
dry-risers 154, 184 flat decks
dynamic capacity external ramps, capacity 31
decks 28–9 internal ramps 103

206 Car park designers’ handbook

flat decks with internal ramps HER 4 (straight ramps end located/one-way-flow) 134,
see also FIR series 135
multi-bin systems 103 alternatives to 135
ramp gradients 103 HER 5 (straight ramps end located/one-way-flow) 136,
flat and sloping deck layouts 75 137
see also FSD series alternatives to 137
disabled drivers 75 hillside conditions
pedestrian movements 75 disabled drivers 161
four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicles 6 multi-storey car parks 15
Freyssinet, Eugene 1
frost prevention, decks 198 impacts
FSD 1 (single helix/two-way-flow) 76, 77 protection from 196–7
as alternative 79 speeds 26, 196
alternatives to 77 inhabited layouts, definition 33
static efficiency 77 interlocking double helix, one-way-flow type 68, 69
FSD 2 (single helix/one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 78, interlocking ramps
79 circular type 24, 150, 151
as alternative 53 stadium type 24, 148, 149
alternatives to 79 internal environmental monitoring 192
static efficiency 79
FSD 3 (combined helix/side connected/one- and kerbs, pedestrian separation by 24–5
two-way-flows) 80, 81
as alternative 51, 53 lengths
alternatives to 81 parking stalls 9
static efficiency 81 standard design vehicles 6, 10
FSD 4 (combined helix/side connected/one-way-flow) levels, optimum numbers 33
82, 83 lifts
as alternative 51 buttons, disabled pedestrians 177
alternatives to 83 capacity per hour 158
static efficiency 83 considerations for 153
FSD 5 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 74, door widths 157, 161
84, 85 fire fighting 184
alternatives to 85 long stay car parks 153, 157
static efficiency 85 medium stay car parks 153, 157
FSD 6 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 86, short stay car parks 153, 157
87 space requirements 157
FSD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 86, supermarket requirements 156–7
87 tidal car parks 157
FSD 8 (single helix/one-way-flow/internal ramp) 88, 89 lighting 174
alternatives to 89 controls 175
static efficiency 89 emergency 175, 179, 183
signs 175, 185
gradients fittings, headroom 25
parking decks 25, 59 and painting 175
disabled drivers 59 security 169, 175
sloping 59 top decks 175
ramps limosines
pedestrian 24 in multi-storey car parks 7
vehicle 15, 16–17, 16, 18, 103 stretched 7
single storey rise 103 lockers
ground clearances, standard design vehicles 7–8, 10 cycles 164, 165
helmets/clothes 166
half external ramp types 128, 129 long stay car parks 9
see also HER series capacities 31
capacity 31 flat and sloping decks 75
driver conflict in 129 lifts 153, 157
half external ramps, vehicle 126, 127 recommendations for 55, 57, 63, 97
half spirals, one-way-flow types 130, 131
headroom 25 main terminal car parks see long stay car parks
light fittings 25 manoeuvring envelopes (ME)
height historical 1–2, 2
limitation gantries 25, 25 ramps 18, 19, 20
standard design vehicles 6, 10 stall access 18, 19, 20
helix see combined helix; double helix; single helix market values, multi-storey car parks 3
HER 1 (half spiral/one-way-flow) 130, 131 MD 1 (one-way-flow/circular end ramps) 112, 114, 115
HER 2 & 3 (straight ramps/one-way-flow) 130, 131 as alternative 121
alternatives to 133 alternatives to 115

Index 207
MD 1 (one-way-flow/circular end ramps) (continued ) one-way-flow
static efficiency 115 aisle widths
variations 115 minimum 13
MD 2 (two-way-flow/one circular end ramps) 116, 117 reduced 11, 19
alternatives to 117 circular ramps 22, 24
static efficiency 117 preference for 8
variations 117 ramp widths 20–1
MD 3 (one-way-flow/10 stalls wide) 118, 119 one-way-flow types
static efficiency 119 see also one- and two-way-flow types
MD 4 (two-way-flow/10 stalls wide) 118, 119 combined, threeþ bins wide 50, 51
static efficiency 119 combined helix, side connected 82, 83
MD 5 (two-way-flow/sloping decks/10 stalls wide) 118, contra-flow rapid exit 56, 57
119 double helix
static efficiency 119 end connected 64, 65
MD 6–8 (one- and two-way-flows 8 stalls wide) 120, 121 side connected 72, 73, 86, 87
as alternative 123 end ramps 95, 96
alternatives to 121 circular 114, 115
static efficiency 121 excluded outflow 28–9, 29, 42, 46, 47
MD 9–11 (one- and two-way-flows/8 stalls wide/split full circular ramps 142, 143
levels) 122, 123 half spiral 130, 131
alternatives to 123 interlocking double helix 68, 69
static efficiency 123 internal ramps 92, 93
medium stay car parks 9 one-way ramps, separated 110, 111
capacities 31 rapid outflow 44, 45
large-capacity 45 capacity 31
lifts 153, 157 circulation efficiency 35
recommendations for scissors ramps 48, 49
combined flat and sloping decks 93, 97 at right angles 106, 107
sloping decks 61, 73 single helix
split level decks 47, 57 internal ramps 88, 89
message signs, variable 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178–9 rapid outflow 63, 64, 78, 79
metal plate decks 196 straight ramps 132, 133, 144, 145
minimum dimension layouts 113 end located 134, 135, 136, 137
see also MD series two-way ramps
underground 112, 113 at right angles 104, 105
motorcycle parking parallel 108, 109
free-standing 164, 165–6, 166 warped decks 100, 101
hard surface 166 outflow
helmet/clothes lockers 166 excluded rapid 46, 47
security surveillance 166 rapid 44, 45, 62, 63
motorists’ destinations, car park influences 1–2 overhead signage 176, 177
multi-purpose vehicles (MPV) 6
multi-storey car parks (MSCP) painting, light colours 175
aisle viewing angles 8 parking stalls see stalls
categories 9 partially sighted, guidelines 177
changes of use 2–3 pay and display 187
first 1 pay stations, signs 178
hillside conditions 15 payment
market values 3 by mobile phone 187–8
running costs 187 on exit 186, 187
sale of 2–3 on foot 187
music, and security 169 pedestrians
see also disabled pedestrians
natural ventilation 191 access flat and sloping decks 91
angled stalls 11
obstructions, between parking stalls 9–10 encumbered 26
occupancy fire escapes
maximum 154 access to 153–4, 183
notional 153–4 distances from 155–6, 183
one- and two-way-flow types stairs as 153, 154–5
combined, threeþ bins wide 52, 53 flat and sloping decks 75
combined helix guard rails 197
side connected 70, 71, 80, 81 lifts 153
eight stalls wide 120, 121 ramps 16
split-level 122, 123 gradients 24
single ramp 98, 99 layouts 156, 156
ten stalls wide 118, 119 split-level decks 43

208 Car park designers’ handbook

 signage 177–8 roofs
sloping decks 59 exposed decks 33–4, 195–6
and vehicle ramps 15 drainage 181
kerb separation 24–5 running costs, multi-storey car parks 187
petrol interceptors, drainage 181
plans, availability 178 Safer Car Parks scheme 169
powered two wheelers (PTW) sales, multi-storey car parks 2–3
facilities for 164, 165 scissor-type ramps 22, 23
separate entries and exits 165 one-way-flow (SLD 3) 48, 49
scissors ramps
rain one-way-flow types 48, 49
effects on decks 26 at right angles 106, 107
effects on stopping distances 27 SD 1 (single helix/two-way-flow) 60, 61
ramps (pedestrian) 16 as alternative 55, 63, 77, 97
gradients 24 alternatives to 61
regulations 43 congestion 61
split-level decks 43 static efficiency 61
ramps (vehicle) SD 2 (single helix/one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 62, 63
see also access ways alternatives to 63
aisles, projections into 17 static efficiency 63
circular 22, 24 SD 3 (double helix/end connected/one-way-flow) 64, 65
one-way-flow 142, 143 as alternative 67, 69, 89, 101
two-way-flow 140, 141 alternatives to 65
cross- 13, 14, 15 static efficiency 65
dynamic capacities 27–8 SD 4 (double helix/end connected/two-way-flow) 66, 67
end 95, 97 as alternative 67, 69, 89
circular 114, 115, 116, 117 alternatives to 67
exits, headroom 15 static efficiency 67
gradients 15 SD 5 (interlocking double helix/one-way-flow) 58, 68, 69
recommended 16–17, 16, 18 as alternative 51, 53, 67, 89
ground clearance on 7–8 static efficiency 69
half external 126, 127 SD 6 (combined helix/side connected/one- and
interlocking two-way-flows) 70, 71
circular type 24, 150, 151 alternatives to 71
stadium type 24, 148, 149 static efficiency 71
internal 88, 89 SD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flows) 72,
internal cross- 91 73
manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20 alternatives to 73
open-aspect 14 static efficiency 73
outer clearances 14, 15 SD 8 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flows) 72, 73
pedestrians and vehicle 15 alternatives to 73
scissor-type 22, 23 static efficiency 73
scissors, one-way-flow types 48, 49, 106, 107 searching
separated, one-way-flow types 110, 111 stalls
side-by-side 22 inefficient 51, 53, 81, 83
storey height 17, 18, 103, 105 traffic congestion 73, 81
straight security
one-way-flow 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 144, CCTV 168, 169–70
145 car park shapes 170
storey height 146, 147 optimum monitoring 169–70
two-way, one-way-flow types 104, 105, 108, presence of 169
109 lighting 169
widths motorcycle parking 166
and aisle entry efficiency 21 music as aid 169
angled stalls 21 public perceptions 169, 170, 175
one-way-flow 19, 20–1 women-only car parks 170
turning circles 22, 23 short stay car parks 9
two-way-flow 22 capacities 31
rapid exit routes 36, 78, 79 large-capacity 45
refuges, disabled pedestrians 154 lift requirements 156–7
reinforced concrete structures 195 lifts 153, 157
finishes 197 recommendations for
life expectation 195 combined flat and sloping decks 93, 97
shrinkage joints 196 sloping decks 61, 73
retail outlets split-level decks 47, 57
short stay car parks 26 retail outlets 26
supermarkets, lift requirements 156–7 side-by-side ramps 22

Index 209
signage advantages 43
control 178 pedestrian ramps in 43
deck levels, indications 176, 178 popularity 43
deck markings, directional 177 sports utility vehicles (SUV) 6
emergency 179 sprinklers 184
lighting 175 staff parking see tidal car parks
headroom 25 stairs
overhead 176, 177 cores, drainage 181
pay stations 178 as fire escapes
pedestrians 177–8 fire lobbies 154–5, 154
schedule 179 fire regulations 153
variable message 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178–9 widths 155
single helix stalls
one-way-flow see also angled stalls; disabled parking stalls; parking
internal ramps 88, 89 decks
rapid outflow 62, 63, 78, 79 access, manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20
two-way-flow dimensions
flat and sloping decks 76, 77 area per car space 31
sloping decks 60, 61 length 9
SLD 1 (one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 44, 45 width 9, 27
as alternative 47, 57 driver searches 35
alternatives to 45 dynamic capacity 27
capacity 31, 45 obstructions between 9–10
circulation efficiency 35, 45 rectangle 6, 9
static efficiency 45 searching
SLD 2 (one-way-flow/excluded outflow) inefficient 51, 53, 81, 83
as alternative traffic congestion 73, 81
to FSD series 89 static efficiency 30–1
to SD series 65, 67, 71, 73 standard design vehicles (SDV)
to SLD series 45 see also vehicles
to VCM series 95 95factor 6, 10
alternatives to 47 departures from 6, 7
static efficiency 47 ground clearance 7–8, 10
SLD 3 (one-way-flow/scissors ramps) 48, 49 height 6, 10
as alternative 81, 85, 93 length 6, 10
alternatives to 49 turning diameters 8, 10
capacity 31 wheelbase 7, 10
static efficiency 49 width 6, 10
SLD 4 (combined one-way-flows, threeþ stalls wide) static efficiency
50, 51 definition 30
alternatives to 51 external bins 30
circulation efficiency 51 internal bins 31
SLD 5 (combined one- and two-way-flows, 3þ bins single bins 30
wide) 52, 53 two-bin layout 30
as alternative 83 steelwork 195
alternatives to 53 coatings 197
static efficiency 53 storey height ramps 17, 18, 103, 105
SLD 6 (two-way-flow/combined ramps) 54, 55 structure
as alternative 49, 61, 77 alternative materials 195
alternatives to 55 deflections 198–9
static efficiency 55 reinforced concrete 195
SLD 7 (one-way-flow/contra-flow exit) 56, 57 finishes 197
as alternative 97, 99 life expectation 195
alternatives to 57 shrinkage joints 196
static efficiency 57 steelwork 195
sloping parking decks (SD) coatings 197
see also SD series supermarkets, lift requirements 156–7
definition 59 surveillance see CCTV; lighting; security
disabled drivers 59 swept paths, turning circles 22, 23
parking gradients 59
pedestrian considerations 59 tag systems of payment 188
smoke tariffs see control systems
control 184, 192 temperature differences, exposed decks 196
detectors 192 tidal car parks 9, 49
speed limits, imposition of 27 capacities 32
split-level decks (SLD) with flow reversal 69
see also SLD type series lifts 157

210 Car park designers’ handbook

 recommendations for capacity 31
flat and sloping decks 97 static efficiency 93
sloping decks 61, 63, 65, 69 VCM 2 (one-way-flow/end ramps) 94, 95
split level decks 49, 55, 57 as alternative
two-way-flow, ramps 21–2 to FSD series 85, 89
top decks see decks, exposed to SD series 65, 67, 71, 73
turning circles to SLD series 57
circular ramp systems 139 within VCM series 93, 99
minimum dimension layouts 113 alternatives to 95
standard design vehicles 8, 10 static efficiency 95
swept paths 22, 23 VCM 3 (two-way-flow/single ramp) 96, 97
two-bin layout, static efficiency 30 as alternative 49, 55, 61, 77
two-way-flow alternatives to 97
aisle widths static efficiency 97
minimum 13 VCM 4 (one- and two-way-flow/single ramp) 98, 99
reduced 12 as alternative 57, 61
circular decks 126, 127 alternatives to 99
circular ramps 24 static efficiency 99
end 116, 117 vehicles
full 140, 141, 142, 143 see also standard design vehicles
traffic congestion 61 camper vans 6
vehicles crossing 26–7 four-wheel drive 6
two-way-flow types limosines
see also one-and two-way-flow types in multi-storey car parks 7
with combined ramps 54, 55 stretched 7
double helix, end connected 66, 67 new registrations by type 203
single end ramp 96, 97 sports utility 6
single helix, sloping decks 60, 61 ventilation
air change rates 192
underground parking 172 fans 190, 191–2
constraints 173 natural 191
efficiency 173 underground parking 190, 191–2
minimum dimension layouts 112, 113 viewing panels, for disabled pedestrians 177
ventilation 190, 191–2
uninhabited layouts, definition 33 warped parking decks 91
USA, high level parking 33, 34 see also WPD series
user-friendly car parks 2, 37–9 washing-down facilities, decks 181
user-unfriendly car parks 125 waterproofing decks 197–8
wheelbase, standard design vehicles 7, 10
variable message signs 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178–9 widths
VCM 1 (one-way-flow/internal ramps) 90, 92, 93 aisles 10–11
as alternative minimum 13
to FIR series 105, 107, 109, 111 parking stalls 9
to FSD series 81, 83, 85, 89 stairs 155
to SD series 65, 67, 71, 73 standard design vehicles 6, 10
to SLD series 45, 47, 51, 53, 57 women-only car parks 170
to WPD series 101 WPD 1 (warped deck/one-way-flow) 100, 101
within VCM series 95, 99 alternatives to 101
alternatives to 93 static efficiency 101

Index 211