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:MaruzenCo. Ltd, BookDepartment, 3–10Nihonbashi 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 ofJohn Charles Cannon
MA (Cantab), CEng, MICE, FIStructE
1931–2005An outstanding engineer who, for 50 years, fought theeffects of poliomyelitis with courage and determination.
Contents
Foreword xiPreface xiiiGlossary of terms xivAcknowledgements xvi
1 Introduction 11.1 Historical note 11.2 Advice and guidance 21.3 Scope 21.4 Design flexibility 2
2 Design brief 42.1 The client 42.2 The brief 4
3 Design elements 63.1 The standard design vehicle (SDV): discussion 6
3.1.1 Length and width 63.1.2 Height 63.1.3 Wheelbase 73.1.4 Ground clearance 73.1.5 Turning dimensions 83.1.6 Recommended minimum diameters for turns
up to 1808 between obstructions 83.1.7 Left side, right side or in the middle? 8
3.2 Parking categories 83.2.1 Discussion 83.2.2 Car park categories 9
3.3 Parking stalls 93.3.1 Discussion 93.3.2 Recommended dimensions for differing parking
categories 93.3.3 Obstructions between stalls 93.3.4 Angled parking 10
3.4 Aisle widths 103.4.1 Discussion 103.4.2 One-way-flow with reduced aisle widths 113.4.3 Two-way-flow-with reduced aisle widths 123.4.4 Manoeuvring on aisles 133.4.5 Turning between aisles 13
3.5 Bin dimensions 133.5.1 Discussion 133.5.2 Recommended minimum bin dimensions for
parking with 2.400m-wide stalls 133.6 Ramps and access-ways 13
3.6.1 Discussion 133.6.2 Recommended maximum vehicle gradients 163.6.3 Transitional slopes 173.6.4 Ramp projections into aisles 173.6.5 Storey height ramps 17
3.6.6 Side clearance 173.6.7 Manoeuvring envelope 183.6.8 Stall access 203.6.9 One-way-flow ramp widths: discussion 203.6.10 Ramp widths and angled parking 213.6.11 Two-way-flow ramps 213.6.12 Turning circle templates 223.6.13 Two-way-flow: recommended minimum clear
ramp widths 223.6.14 Scissors-type ramps 223.6.15 Side-by-side ramps 223.6.16 Circular ramps 223.6.17 Recommended minimum diameters for full
circle ramps between limiting wall faces 243.6.18 Recommended minimum widths for circular
ramp lanes between wall faces 243.7 Interlocking ramps 24
3.7.1 Stadium type 243.7.2 Circular type 24
3.8 Kerbs 243.9 Super-elevation 253.10 Parking deck gradients 253.11 Headroom and storey heights 253.12 Height limitations 25
4 Dynamic considerations 264.1 Discussion 26
4.1.1 Impact speeds 264.1.2 Effects of rain 264.1.3 Exit and entry rates and internal movement 264.1.4 Dynamic capacities for different stall widths
and categories 274.1.5 Stopping distance 274.1.6 Speed limits 274.1.7 Dynamic capacities of ramps and access-ways 274.1.8 Dynamic capacities of cross-ramps and
access-ways, per hour 284.1.9 Dynamic capacities of parking decks;
calculations 284.1.10 Dynamic efficiency 29
5 Static considerations 305.1 Static efficiency, discussion 30
5.1.1 Relative efficiencies 305.1.2 Area per car space 315.1.3 Recommended capacities 31
6 Circulation design 336.1 Discussion 336.2 How many levels? 336.3 Roof considerations 336.4 Circulation efficiency 34
6.4.1 Discussion 346.4.2 Shortest travel distance 346.4.3 Examples of circulation efficiency 35
6.5 Parking times 356.5.1 Discussion 35
7 Circulation layouts 377.1 Discussion 37
7.2 Dimensions used 37
7.3 User-friendly features 37
7.3.1 Discussion 377.3.2 Simplicity 377.3.3 Crossovers 387.3.4 Circulation direction 387.3.5 Dead ends (culs-de-sac) 38
7.4 Angled and right-angled parking: a comparison 387.5 Split-level decks (SLDs) 43
SLD 1 One-way traffic flow with an included rapid
outflow route 44SLD 2 One-way traffic flow with an excluded rapid
outflow route 46SLD 3 One-way-flow with side-by-side ramps
(scissors type) 48SLD 4 Combined one-way-flows, three bins or
more wide 50SLD 5 Combined one- and two-way-flows, three bins or
more wide 52SLD 6 Two-way-flow with ‘combined’ ramps 54SLD 7 One-way-flow with an included contra-flow
rapid exit route 567.6 Sloping parking decks (SDs) 59
SD 1 Single helix with two-way-flow 60SD 2 Single helix with one-way-flow and a rapid
outflow route 62SD 3 Double helix, end connected with one-way-flow
on the central access-way 64SD 4 Double helix, end connected with two-way-flow
on the central access-way 66SD 5 Interlocking double helix, with one-way-flows 68SD 6 Combined helix, side connected with one- and
two-way-flows 70SD 7 and 8 Double helix, side connected, with
one-way-flows 727.7 Combined flat and sloping deck (FSD) layouts 75
FSD 1 Single helix with two-way-flow 76FSD 2 Single helix with one-way-flow and a rapid
outflow route 78FSD 3 Combined helix, side connected with one- and
two-way-flows 80FSD 4 Combined helix, side connected with
one-way-flow 82FSD 5 Double helix, side connected with one-way-flow 84FSD 6 and 7 Double helix, side connected with
one-way traffic flows 86FSD 8 Single helix with one-way-flow and an internal
ramp 887.8 Combined flat and sloping deck layouts with internal
cross-ramps (VCM and WPD) 91VCM 1 One-way-flow with two one-way-flow ramps 92VCM 2 One-way-flow with end ramps 94VCM 3 Two-way-flow with a single end ramp 96VCM 4 One- and two-way traffic flows with a single
ramp 98
WPD 1 Warped parking decks with one-way-flow 1007.9 Flat decks with storey height internal ramps (flat with
internal ramps – FIR) 103FIR 1 One-way-flow decks with combined
two-way-flow ramps at right-angles to
the aisles 104FIR 2 One-way-flow decks with side-by-side (scissors
type) ramps at right-angles to the aisles 106FIR 3 One-way-flow decks with combined
two-way-flow ramps parallel with the aisles 108FIR 4 One-way-flow decks with separated
one-way-flow ramps 1107.10 Minimum dimension (MD) layouts 113
MD 1 One-way-flow between circular end ramps 114MD 2 Two-way-flow with a circular ramp at one end 116MD 3, 4 and 5 One- and two-way-flows, ten stalls
wide 118MD 6, 7 and 8 One- and two-way-flows eight stalls
wide (VCM type) 120MD 9, 10 and 11 One- and two-way-flows eight stalls
wide (split-level type) 1227.11 Circular sloping decks (CSDs) 125
CSD 1 Circular parking deck with two-way-flow 1267.12 Half external ramps (HERs) 129
HER 1 Half spiral with one-way-flow 130HER 2 and 3 Straight ramps with one-way-flow 132HER 4 Straight ramps with one-way-flow,
end located 134HER 5 Straight ramps with one-way-flow,
end located 1367.13 External ramps (ERs) 139
ER 1 Full circular with a two-way traffic flow 140ER 2 Full circular ramps each with a one-way
traffic flow 142ER 3 Straight ramps with a one-way traffic flow 144ER 4 Storey height, straight ramps 146ER 5 Stadium-shaped interlocking ramps 148ER 6 Circular interlocking ramps 150
8 Stairs and lifts 1538.1 Discussion 1538.2 Vertical and horizontal escape 153
8.2.1 Stairs, widths of flights 1538.2.2 Vertical escape 1558.2.3 Horizontal escape 155
8.3 Escape distances 1558.4 Lift sizing 156
9 Disabled drivers and carers 1619.1 Discussion 1619.2 Stall locations 1619.3 Stall dimensions 1629.4 Access 163
10 Cycles and motorcycles 16510.1 Discussion 16510.2 Cycle parking 165
10.3 Motorcycle parking 16510.4 Lockers 16610.5 Fiscal control 167
11 Security 16911.1 Discussion 16911.2 Lighting, music and CCTV 16911.3 See and be seen 17011.4 Women-only car parks 170
12 Underground parking 17312.1 Discussion 173
13 Lighting 17513.1 Discussion 17513.2 Emergency lighting 175
14 Signage 17714.1 Discussion 17714.2 Directional signs 17714.3 Information signs 17814.4 Variable message sign systems 17814.5 Emergency signs 179
15 Drainage 18115.1 Discussion 181
16 Fire escapes, safety and fire fighting 18316.1 Discussion 18316.2 Escape distances 18316.3 Fire safety 18316.4 Fire-fighting measures 18316.5 Sprinklers 18416.6 Fire escapes 184
17 Fiscal and barrier control 18717.1 Discussion 18717.2 Control systems 18717.3 Barrier control 188
18 Ventilation 19118.1 Discussion 19118.2 Natural ventilation requirements 19118.3 Mechanically assisted natural ventilation requirements 19118.4 Mechanical ventilation requirements 191
19 Structure 19519.1 Discussion 19519.2 Construction materials 19519.3 Joints 19619.4 Perimeter protection 19619.5 Concrete finishes 19719.6 Protective coatings 19719.7 Waterproofing 19719.8 Cambers 198
20 Appearance 201
20.1 Discussion 20120.2 Appearance requirements 201
Appendix A 203
References 204
Index 205
About the authors
James Hill CEngFIStructE (ret’d)
In 1967 Jim founded the Hill Cannon Partnership (HCP) with JohnCannon and has been involved in car park design since 1969. In1970, they developed the Tricon structural system and in 1993 Jimpatented the Vertical Circulation Module system (VCM). He is a pastPresident of the British Parking Association and a regional Chairmanof the Concrete Society. He is now a consultant to the practice,having retired in 1992, since when he has concentrated on the furtherdevelopment of VCM, designing appropriate circulation layouts formany projects and researching this book. He is currently writing asimilar handbook on ‘good practice’ parking in the USA.
Glynn Rhodes BSc (Hons)CEng MICE MIHTFConsE
Glynn is a senior partner of the HCP and has been involved in thedesign of 30 multi-storey car parks since 1986, two of which havebeen voted Best New Build car parks at the annual British ParkingAwards. He also received the Ernest Davies Award for the best articlepublished in Parking News entitled ‘Current Trends in the Design of CarParks’. He has provided design advice for large underground carparking facilities in Manila, Kuala Lumpur (Petronas Towers),Zagreb and Dubai. Recent projects include the Jubilee car park inHarrogate (precast with 450 spaces), Merryhill Shopping Centre,West Midlands (precast with 1600 spaces) and Manchester RoyalInfirmary (precast with 1600 spaces).
Stephen Vollar Eur IngBSc CEng FIStructEMICE FConsE
Steve is a senior partner of the HCP and has been actively involved withcar park design and parking related subjects since 1996: these includestructured car parks, both above and below ground, as well as largecapacity single deck layouts. His particular interest is in the provisionof suitably located parking for disabled drivers, two wheeled trafficand general ‘wayfinding’ for both motorists and pedestrians alike.Recent design projects include Birmingham Airport (precast with1700 spaces), Ocean Terminal; Edinburgh (precast with 1000 spaces)and Clarence Dock; Leeds (precast with 1600 spaces).
Christopher Whapples BSc(Hons) CEng FIStructEFICE MIHT FConsE
A senior partner of the HCP, Chris has been involved in the design ofparking structures for more than twenty years. He is a contributor tothe IStructE publication Design recommendations for multi-storey andunderground car parks and the Institution of Civil Engineers’ publica-tion Recommendations for inspection, maintenance and management ofcar park structures. He has served on European technical committeesand has presented papers on parking related subjects. His particularinterest is in the development of new structural forms. Recent designprojects include St. Andrews; Norwich (steel frame with 1100 spaces),Sundials; Amersham (steel frame with 550 spaces) and DesignerOutlet Village, Livingston (in situ with 1600 spaces).
Foreword
Jim Hill has spent the last 35 years in the development of car parkdesign and this experience has given him a unique insight into thereasons why some buildings operate successfully and others, of a similarsize and activity, do not. The choice of the correct circulation layout is asubject that he considers to be of prime importance in the creation of anefficient parking building.Both as a consumer of parking services and a former parking
manager, it always intrigues me why some parking layouts are easilynavigated and yet others test one’s patience? As an engineer, I thinklogically 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 andas effectively as I can and get on with the business in hand, be itwork 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 begood if I’m to contemplate returning there again and again. This isespecially true in the retail and commercial world where (hopefully)my custom is valued. It is equally true when I visit an unfamiliartown or city, park at a rail station, or simply spend a day at leisuresomeplace.Equally important is the need to feel intuitively safe and welcome
wherever I choose to park. Complex layouts, frustration with queuesand conflict with others who are manoeuvring about in or out ofparking spaces, or sometimes in what seems like a never-ending set oftwists 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 oroperator.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 practicalapplication and suggestions made for other layouts that should alsobe considered.More than just discussing layouts, the author has shown how ramps
can be prevented from projecting excessively into traffic aisles, how toassess dynamic capacity and efficiency, and the many other considera-tions that go to make up the design process. The matters dealt with inChapters 8 to 20 such as the current requirements for people withmobility impairments, pedestrian access, security, ventilation, etc.have been written with the help of his partners, all parking experts intheir 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. Hesuggests that, provided drivers will want to frequent the car park andclients are willing to pay for it, little else matters. I wouldn’t wantto disagree with him, but my comments about being ‘welcome’ atany parking facility are the key to its success. If the operator wantsto do business, good customer service is vital; to do that needs gooddesign.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 toidentify examples of best practice in making our parking facilitiesmore accessible to all. The book is also a useful reference for thoseconsidering 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 ishard to find: had it not been so this book, probably, would not havebeen written. To my knowledge, special features and relative efficienciesof car parks have never before been discussed in any great detail. Manydesigners are unaware of the advantages of using a particular layoutsystem over another and it is a major purpose of this book to redressthat 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 localcar park incorporating this system had become the subject of adversecomment by many who used it, convincing us that we could do betterourselves. Our first effort was to develop a clear-span structure thatwas efficient, economical, aesthetically pleasing and capable of beingconstructed using structural steel as well as precast and cast in situconcrete: this was a successful venture and after more than 35 years itis still being used in many car park designs. In time, however, itbecame clear that no matter how efficient the structural solution wasand how attractive the architectural appearance, if it was wrappedaround a poor choice of circulation layout the result was yet anotherunpopular car park. In many under-used car parks, the reason fortheir unpopularity is not that that they have been allowed to becomedirty and/or dingy (conditions that by themselves would not normallyput offmost motorists), but rather that they suffered from a poor choiceof internal layout.Of the many buildings inspected, the most unpopularhave, 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 thelayout, 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 Idecided to list them and recommend when and where they could be putto best use. This endeavour was interrupted in 1992 by the developmentand promotion of the vertical circulation module (VCM) circulationsystem. It was just as well, as the number of different layouts hasrisen even further since then. Some have been rejected as being imprac-tical or just plain whimsical, but those that are featured in this book arepractical and have been constructed somewhere but not always in theUK. With more than 6000 car parks in the UK, 30 000 in the USAand many thousands more in the rest of the world, it is unlikely thatall of the possible variations will have been covered, and if anyreader is aware of a practical circulation layout substantially differentfrom those featured and lets me know, if it is included in a future editionthey 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 suggestingimprovements to the text and correcting my grammatical errors: anythat 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 notexceeding 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
Amethod of comparing the travel distance required to search the stalls,in any particular car park, with the minimum travel distance. (Given asa 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 aslope 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 forMulti-storey and Underground Car Parks, 3rd edition, published in June2002 by the Institution of Structural Engineers.
Dynamic capacity
A measure of the rate that traffic can pass a given location within a carpark. (Given in vehicles per hour.)
Dynamic efficiency
A measure of the ability of a car park to process vehicles under normaloperating 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 whenentering a crossway or ramp, outside of which a vehicle is unable tomanoeuvre 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 orfrom 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 otheradjoining area.
Stall pitch
The spacing for stalls, normal to an aisle, for a particular angle ofparking.
Static capacity
The total number of stalls contained within a designated area orcomplete car park.
Static efficiency
The area of the parking decks divided by the static capacity and given asan 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 theUK alone, it can be readily appreciated that no single person can haveknowledge of every circulation layout variation that has been proposedand built. Practical considerations, personal experience and the con-stant pressures for financial economy render it reasonable to assumethat the examples shown, all of which have been featured or builtduring the past 35 years, provide the basis for most of the self-parkingbuildings that exist at the present time. The design of a satisfactorycirculation layout is one of the most important factors governing userappreciation and yet many designers are unaware of the large varietyof options from which they may choose and their suitability for theintended purpose.The following examples are all practical layouts and form the basis
upon which most self-parking facilities have been designed. Some aremore popular than others and some are significantly defective in circu-lation design, static and dynamic efficiency. If designers are to gainconfidence in developing solutions to solve particular problems, thenit is desirable that they should know the strengths and weaknesses ofindividual layouts in order to make an informed choice.
7.2 Dimensions used There are few precise dimensions that must be adopted for the design ofparking structures. Dimensions for the individual elements can varyand are also affected by the parking angle (that varies the bin width)in one direction and the stall pitch (that varies the overall length) inthe other direction. The main concern is that motorists and clientsare content.It is overly laborious and unnecessary to keep mentioning all of the
variations that can occur in practice and so dimensions for the featuredlayouts will be based upon those recommended for 908 parking withstall dimensions of 2.400m� 4.800m, aisle widths of 6.000m (one-way flow), 7.000m (two-way flow) and a storey height of 3.000m.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 thedimension over the bins will determine its ‘width’.
7.3 User-friendlyfeatures
7.3.1 DiscussionThere are many existing car parks where, in retrospect, it can be seenthat the layout would have been much better if only the designer hadrecognised that a problem existed. In such cases, if improvements hadbeen incorporated at the design stage, they need not have cost moreto implement or reduced static capacity. They could even haveenhanced the market value by being more ‘user friendly’ to the parkingpublic. It is, also, a relatively simple matter to spoil a potentially accep-table circulation layout by over complication, or by the introduction ofunnecessary and unfriendly features.
7.3.2 SimplicityThe basic tenet of all circulation design is to ‘keep it simple’. What, atfirst, 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 isdesirable to eliminate, as far as possible, vertical structure that interferes,both visually and physically, with the free movement of vehicles andpedestrians. Turning directly from one lock to the other is not a popularmanoeuvre. If possible all turns should be in the same direction and notmore than 908 at a time.When located under other types of building, it isnot always possible to create the most desirable layout. Attempts shouldbe made to minimise the visual impact of large vertical elements andlocate them away from the circulation routes, if at all possible.
7.3.3 CrossoversCrossover conditions should be avoided. When on a traffic aisle andsearching for the first available space, it is disconcerting and potentiallydangerous to find a car suddenly appearing at right angles from behinda parked vehicle. The driver of this car may also be concentrating onfinding a space in which to park, or intent only on leaving the facilityas quickly as possible. A user-friendly circulation layout should nothold surprises for drivers who should be able to observe the movementsof other vehicles well before there is a need to take avoiding action.
7.3.4 Circulation directionThe direction of circulation has little effect upon circulation efficiency inone-way-flow systems. Provided that the route is of an adequate widthit matters little in which direction the traffic is made to flow. It has beensaid that left-turning circuits are not as popular in one-way-flow sys-tems as turning to the right. However, when vehicles are travellingdown the middle of an aisle drivers are biased to the right therebyproviding 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 thecorrect 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 whentraffic approaches from the right the driver’s lateral vision is relativelyunimpaired.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 whenconsidering the flow direction.
7.3.5 Dead ends (culs-de-sac)When viewing down a ‘dead-end’ aisle, it is difficult to see the parkingsituation more than three or four stalls away. For good practice, and ifunnecessary manoeuvring is to be avoided, it should be the limitingfactor.
7.4 Angled andright-angled parking:a comparison
Members of the public and some clients, ask why angled parking is notused more frequently in the UK. They point out that it is popular in theUSA and, for those who have used it, it is a popular parking formatbut, 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
The area of the deck is 2096.6m2 producing an average of 21.840m2 perstall.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 is2196.8m2 producing an average of 23.620m2 per stall.The difference of 1.780m2 per stall represents an increase of 8% in
area and a consequent increase in construction costs.The 708 layout, at 71.512m, is 4.312m longer than the 908 layout,
representing an increase of 6.5% in length while containing 4% fewervehicles.The width at 30.724m is 484mm narrower than the 908 layout repre-
senting a reduction of 1.5%.The traffic aisles for the 708 layout at 4.700m wide are 1.300m less
than those for the 908 layout, reducing the separation distance betweenvehicles and pedestrians on the aisles.If the stall widths in a 908 car park were increased by 8%, to 2.550m,
both layouts would be rendered similar in area and cost. In thiseventuality, it is reasonable to ask whether 908 parking with 2.550m-wide stalls and 6.000m-wide aisles would be more popular than 708parking with 2.400m-wide stalls and 4.700m 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 100mm 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
Fig. 7.1 Angled andright-angled parking:a comparison
Circulation layouts 39
per deck building will need to be 95.000m in length, (41% longer) andeven with aisle widths reduced to 3.600m, the car space requirementwill 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 3.000m, and retain its 6.000m-wide aisles without exceedingthe area per car space for a two-bin 458 car park with 2.400m-widestalls and 3.600m 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 trafficflow are sometimes used for retail shopping at surface level and 708 to808 angles for large Cats 3 and 4 buildings of the SD and FSD series, SD2, 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
see also ramps
dynamic capacity 27–28
aesthetics of design 200, 201–2, 202
circular sloping deck types 124, 125
air change rates, ventilation 192
aisles
angled stalls 11
dead ends 38
inflow capacity 36
minimum widths
one-way-flows 13
two-way-flows 13
pedestrians in 11
with angled parking stalls 11
ramp entries 21
ramp projections into 17
reduced
one-way-flows 11, 19
two-way-flows 12
turning between 12, 13
vehicles crossing 26–7
viewing angles 8
widths 10–11
angled stalls 10
angles 11, 12
circulation efficiency 38–40, 39
design implications 39–40, 39
dynamic efficiency 29
minimum dimensions 13
pedestrians in aisles 11
ramp widths 21
barriers 186
exit 38
numbers of 189
two-way-flow 188
Birmingham airport, car park 152
camper vans 6
capacities
medium stay car parks 31
short stay car parks 31
tidal car parks 32
car parks
see also multi-storey car parks
as motorists’ destination influences 1–2
user friendly 2, 37–9
CCTV 168, 169–70
optimum monitoring 169–70
presence of 169
changes of use, car parks 2–3
circular decks, two-way-flow 126, 127
circular ramps 22, 24
end
one-way-flow 114, 115
two-way-flow 116, 117
full, two-way-flow 140, 141
turning circles 139
two full, one-way-flow 142, 143
circular sloping decks 124, 125
see also CSD series
user-unfriendliness 125
circulation design, simplicity 37–8
circulation efficiency
angled stalls 38–40, 39
crossovers 38
importance of 35–6
indicating 34
combined flat and sloping decks
internal cross-ramps
see also VCM and WPD series
pedestrian access 91
combined helix
one- and two-way-flows
side connected 70, 71, 80, 81
one-way-flow, side connected 82, 83
contra-flow rapid exit, one-way-flow types 56, 57
control signs 178
control systems
barriers 186
exit 38
numbers of 189
two-way-flow 188
disabled drivers 163
pay and display 187
payment by mobile phone 187–8
payment on exit 186, 187
payment on foot 187
tag systems 188
crossovers 13, 14, 15
avoiding 38
manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20
CSD 1 (circular deck/two-way-flow) 126, 127
static efficiency 127
cycle parking
lockers 164, 165
stands for 165, 166
decks
combined flat and sloping 91
directional markings 177
drainage falls 181
dynamic capacity 28–9
exposed
effects of rain 26
roofing 33–34, 195–6
stopping distances on 27
temperature differences 196
waterproofing 33
flat, with internal ramps 103
frost prevention 198
gradients 25
level indicators 176, 178
205
decks (continued )
metal plate 196
surface abrasion 198
washing-down facilities 181
waterproofing 197–8
deflections, structural 198–9
design
aesthetics 200, 201–2, 202
angled stalls, implications 39–40, 39
briefs 4–5
existing 37
questionnaires 4
design and build projects 201
Design recommendations for multi-storey and
underground car parks (Des. Rec.) 1
ramps 16, 16
dimensions
disabled parking stalls 162, 162
stalls
area per car space 31
length 9
width 9, 27
disabled drivers
see also disabled pedestrians
flat and sloping decks 75
hillside car parks 161
separation of 163
sloping parking decks 59
tariffs for 163
disabled parking stalls 160
dimensions 162, 162
legal requirements 161
location
parameters 161–2
random 162
numbers 161
supervision 162
disabled pedestrians
see also disabled drivers
fire escapes 156, 183
lift buttons 177
ramps 15, 156
refuges for 154
viewing panels 177
double helix
interlocking, one-way-flow 68, 69
one-way-flow
end connected 64, 65
side connected 72, 73, 86, 87
two-way-flow, end connected 66, 67
drainage
deck falls 181
gully outlets 198–9
location 181
petrol interceptors 181
protection of 180
roofs 181
stair cores 181
ventilating 181
washing-down 181
driver frustration
complex designs 37–8
potential conflict 49, 51, 129
stall searching 35, 73
dry-risers 154, 184
dynamic capacity
decks 28–9
entries 26
exits 26
ramps 27–8
dynamic efficiency, angled stalls 29
efficiency see circulation efficiency; dynamic efficiency;
static efficiency
emergency signs 179
lighting 175, 179, 183
entries
dynamic capacity 26
two-wheeled vehicles 165
environment, aesthetics 200, 201–2, 202
ER 1 (full circular ramps/two-way-flow) 140, 141
alternatives to 141
ER 2 (full circular ramps/one-way-flow) 142, 143
as alternative 141
alternatives to 143
ER 3 (straight ramps/one-way-flow) 144, 145
alternatives to 145
ER 4 (storey height straight ramps) 146, 147
ER 5 (stadium-shaped interlocking ramps) 148, 149
ER 6 (circular interlocking ramps) 150, 151
exit barriers, ticket insertion 38
exit routes
dynamic capacity 26
rapid 36
exits
emergency 183
ramps, headroom 15
two-wheeled vehicles 165
external ramps 138, 139
see also ER series
FIR 1 (one-way-flow/two-way ramps/right angles) 102,
104, 105
alternatives to 105
circulation efficiency 35
static efficiency 105
FIR 2 (one-way-flow/scissors ramps) 106, 107
alternatives to 107
static efficiency 107
FIR 3 (one-way-flow/two-way ramps/parallel) 108,
109
alternatives to 109
static efficiency 109
FIR 4 (one-way-flow/one-way ramps) 110, 111
alternatives to 111
static efficiency 111
fire alarms 183
fire escapes
access to 153–4
disabled pedestrians 156, 183
distances from 155–6, 183
horizontal 155
routes to 183
stairs as 153, 154–5
fire fighting 182, 183–4
lifts 184
smoke containment 184
sprinklers 184
fire lobbies 154–5, 154
fire regulations, stairs as fire escapes 153
fire safety strategies 183
flat decks
external ramps, capacity 31
internal ramps 103
206 Car park designers’ handbook
flat decks with internal ramps
see also FIR series
multi-bin systems 103
ramp gradients 103
flat and sloping deck layouts 75
see also FSD series
disabled drivers 75
pedestrian movements 75
four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicles 6
Freyssinet, Eugene 1
frost prevention, decks 198
FSD 1 (single helix/two-way-flow) 76, 77
as alternative 79
alternatives to 77
static efficiency 77
FSD 2 (single helix/one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 78,
79
as alternative 53
alternatives to 79
static efficiency 79
FSD 3 (combined helix/side connected/one- and
two-way-flows) 80, 81
as alternative 51, 53
alternatives to 81
static efficiency 81
FSD 4 (combined helix/side connected/one-way-flow)
82, 83
as alternative 51
alternatives to 83
static efficiency 83
FSD 5 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 74,
84, 85
alternatives to 85
static efficiency 85
FSD 6 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 86,
87
FSD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 86,
87
FSD 8 (single helix/one-way-flow/internal ramp) 88, 89
alternatives to 89
static efficiency 89
gradients
parking decks 25, 59
disabled drivers 59
sloping 59
ramps
pedestrian 24
vehicle 15, 16–17, 16, 18, 103
single storey rise 103
ground clearances, standard design vehicles 7–8, 10
half external ramp types 128, 129
see also HER series
capacity 31
driver conflict in 129
half external ramps, vehicle 126, 127
half spirals, one-way-flow types 130, 131
headroom 25
light fittings 25
height
limitation gantries 25, 25
standard design vehicles 6, 10
helix see combined helix; double helix; single helix
HER 1 (half spiral/one-way-flow) 130, 131
HER 2 & 3 (straight ramps/one-way-flow) 130, 131
alternatives to 133
HER 4 (straight ramps end located/one-way-flow) 134,
135
alternatives to 135
HER 5 (straight ramps end located/one-way-flow) 136,
137
alternatives to 137
hillside conditions
disabled drivers 161
multi-storey car parks 15
impacts
protection from 196–7
speeds 26, 196
inhabited layouts, definition 33
interlocking double helix, one-way-flow type 68, 69
interlocking ramps
circular type 24, 150, 151
stadium type 24, 148, 149
internal environmental monitoring 192
kerbs, pedestrian separation by 24–5
lengths
parking stalls 9
standard design vehicles 6, 10
levels, optimum numbers 33
lifts
buttons, disabled pedestrians 177
capacity per hour 158
considerations for 153
door widths 157, 161
fire fighting 184
long stay car parks 153, 157
medium stay car parks 153, 157
short stay car parks 153, 157
space requirements 157
supermarket requirements 156–7
tidal car parks 157
lighting 174
controls 175
emergency 175, 179, 183
signs 175, 185
fittings, headroom 25
and painting 175
security 169, 175
top decks 175
limosines
in multi-storey car parks 7
stretched 7
lockers
cycles 164, 165
helmets/clothes 166
long stay car parks 9
capacities 31
flat and sloping decks 75
lifts 153, 157
recommendations for 55, 57, 63, 97
main terminal car parks see long stay car parks
manoeuvring envelopes (ME)
historical 1–2, 2
ramps 18, 19, 20
stall access 18, 19, 20
market values, multi-storey car parks 3
MD 1 (one-way-flow/circular end ramps) 112, 114, 115
as alternative 121
alternatives to 115
Index 207
MD 1 (one-way-flow/circular end ramps) (continued )
static efficiency 115
variations 115
MD 2 (two-way-flow/one circular end ramps) 116, 117
alternatives to 117
static efficiency 117
variations 117
MD 3 (one-way-flow/10 stalls wide) 118, 119
static efficiency 119
MD 4 (two-way-flow/10 stalls wide) 118, 119
static efficiency 119
MD 5 (two-way-flow/sloping decks/10 stalls wide) 118,
119
static efficiency 119
MD 6–8 (one- and two-way-flows 8 stalls wide) 120, 121
as alternative 123
alternatives to 121
static efficiency 121
MD 9–11 (one- and two-way-flows/8 stalls wide/split
levels) 122, 123
alternatives to 123
static efficiency 123
medium stay car parks 9
capacities 31
large-capacity 45
lifts 153, 157
recommendations for
combined flat and sloping decks 93, 97
sloping decks 61, 73
split level decks 47, 57
message signs, variable 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178–9
metal plate decks 196
minimum dimension layouts 113
see also MD series
underground 112, 113
motorcycle parking
free-standing 164, 165–6, 166
hard surface 166
helmet/clothes lockers 166
security surveillance 166
motorists’ destinations, car park influences 1–2
multi-purpose vehicles (MPV) 6
multi-storey car parks (MSCP)
aisle viewing angles 8
categories 9
changes of use 2–3
first 1
hillside conditions 15
market values 3
running costs 187
sale of 2–3
music, and security 169
natural ventilation 191
obstructions, between parking stalls 9–10
occupancy
maximum 154
notional 153–4
one- and two-way-flow types
combined, threeþ bins wide 52, 53
combined helix
side connected 70, 71, 80, 81
eight stalls wide 120, 121
split-level 122, 123
single ramp 98, 99
ten stalls wide 118, 119
one-way-flow
aisle widths
minimum 13
reduced 11, 19
circular ramps 22, 24
preference for 8
ramp widths 20–1
one-way-flow types
see also one- and two-way-flow types
combined, threeþ bins wide 50, 51
combined helix, side connected 82, 83
contra-flow rapid exit 56, 57
double helix
end connected 64, 65
side connected 72, 73, 86, 87
end ramps 95, 96
circular 114, 115
excluded outflow 28–9, 29, 42, 46, 47
full circular ramps 142, 143
half spiral 130, 131
interlocking double helix 68, 69
internal ramps 92, 93
one-way ramps, separated 110, 111
rapid outflow 44, 45
capacity 31
circulation efficiency 35
scissors ramps 48, 49
at right angles 106, 107
single helix
internal ramps 88, 89
rapid outflow 63, 64, 78, 79
straight ramps 132, 133, 144, 145
end located 134, 135, 136, 137
two-way ramps
at right angles 104, 105
parallel 108, 109
warped decks 100, 101
outflow
excluded rapid 46, 47
rapid 44, 45, 62, 63
overhead signage 176, 177
painting, light colours 175
parking stalls see stalls
partially sighted, guidelines 177
pay and display 187
pay stations, signs 178
payment
by mobile phone 187–8
on exit 186, 187
on foot 187
pedestrians
see also disabled pedestrians
access flat and sloping decks 91
angled stalls 11
encumbered 26
fire escapes
access to 153–4, 183
distances from 155–6, 183
stairs as 153, 154–5
flat and sloping decks 75
guard rails 197
lifts 153
ramps 16
gradients 24
layouts 156, 156
split-level decks 43
208 Car park designers’ handbook
signage 177–8
sloping decks 59
and vehicle ramps 15
kerb separation 24–5
petrol interceptors, drainage 181
plans, availability 178
powered two wheelers (PTW)
facilities for 164, 165
separate entries and exits 165
rain
effects on decks 26
effects on stopping distances 27
ramps (pedestrian) 16
gradients 24
regulations 43
split-level decks 43
ramps (vehicle)
see also access ways
aisles, projections into 17
circular 22, 24
one-way-flow 142, 143
two-way-flow 140, 141
cross- 13, 14, 15
dynamic capacities 27–8
end 95, 97
circular 114, 115, 116, 117
exits, headroom 15
gradients 15
recommended 16–17, 16, 18
ground clearance on 7–8
half external 126, 127
interlocking
circular type 24, 150, 151
stadium type 24, 148, 149
internal 88, 89
internal cross- 91
manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20
open-aspect 14
outer clearances 14, 15
pedestrians and vehicle 15
scissor-type 22, 23
scissors, one-way-flow types 48, 49, 106, 107
separated, one-way-flow types 110, 111
side-by-side 22
storey height 17, 18, 103, 105
straight
one-way-flow 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 144,
145
storey height 146, 147
two-way, one-way-flow types 104, 105, 108,
109
widths
and aisle entry efficiency 21
angled stalls 21
one-way-flow 19, 20–1
turning circles 22, 23
two-way-flow 22
rapid exit routes 36, 78, 79
refuges, disabled pedestrians 154
reinforced concrete structures 195
finishes 197
life expectation 195
shrinkage joints 196
retail outlets
short stay car parks 26
supermarkets, lift requirements 156–7
roofs
exposed decks 33–4, 195–6
drainage 181
running costs, multi-storey car parks 187
Safer Car Parks scheme 169
sales, multi-storey car parks 2–3
scissor-type ramps 22, 23
one-way-flow (SLD 3) 48, 49
scissors ramps
one-way-flow types 48, 49
at right angles 106, 107
SD 1 (single helix/two-way-flow) 60, 61
as alternative 55, 63, 77, 97
alternatives to 61
congestion 61
static efficiency 61
SD 2 (single helix/one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 62, 63
alternatives to 63
static efficiency 63
SD 3 (double helix/end connected/one-way-flow) 64, 65
as alternative 67, 69, 89, 101
alternatives to 65
static efficiency 65
SD 4 (double helix/end connected/two-way-flow) 66, 67
as alternative 67, 69, 89
alternatives to 67
static efficiency 67
SD 5 (interlocking double helix/one-way-flow) 58, 68, 69
as alternative 51, 53, 67, 89
static efficiency 69
SD 6 (combined helix/side connected/one- and
two-way-flows) 70, 71
alternatives to 71
static efficiency 71
SD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flows) 72,
73
alternatives to 73
static efficiency 73
SD 8 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flows) 72, 73
alternatives to 73
static efficiency 73
searching
stalls
inefficient 51, 53, 81, 83
traffic congestion 73, 81
security
CCTV 168, 169–70
car park shapes 170
optimum monitoring 169–70
presence of 169
lighting 169
motorcycle parking 166
music as aid 169
public perceptions 169, 170, 175
women-only car parks 170
short stay car parks 9
capacities 31
large-capacity 45
lift requirements 156–7
lifts 153, 157
recommendations for
combined flat and sloping decks 93, 97
sloping decks 61, 73
split-level decks 47, 57
retail outlets 26
side-by-side ramps 22
Index 209
signage
control 178
deck levels, indications 176, 178
deck markings, directional 177
emergency 179
lighting 175
headroom 25
overhead 176, 177
pay stations 178
pedestrians 177–8
schedule 179
variable message 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178–9
single helix
one-way-flow
internal ramps 88, 89
rapid outflow 62, 63, 78, 79
two-way-flow
flat and sloping decks 76, 77
sloping decks 60, 61
SLD 1 (one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 44, 45
as alternative 47, 57
alternatives to 45
capacity 31, 45
circulation efficiency 35, 45
static efficiency 45
SLD 2 (one-way-flow/excluded outflow)
as alternative
to FSD series 89
to SD series 65, 67, 71, 73
to SLD series 45
to VCM series 95
alternatives to 47
static efficiency 47
SLD 3 (one-way-flow/scissors ramps) 48, 49
as alternative 81, 85, 93
alternatives to 49
capacity 31
static efficiency 49
SLD 4 (combined one-way-flows, threeþ stalls wide)
50, 51
alternatives to 51
circulation efficiency 51
SLD 5 (combined one- and two-way-flows, 3þ bins
wide) 52, 53
as alternative 83
alternatives to 53
static efficiency 53
SLD 6 (two-way-flow/combined ramps) 54, 55
as alternative 49, 61, 77
alternatives to 55
static efficiency 55
SLD 7 (one-way-flow/contra-flow exit) 56, 57
as alternative 97, 99
alternatives to 57
static efficiency 57
sloping parking decks (SD)
see also SD series
definition 59
disabled drivers 59
parking gradients 59
pedestrian considerations 59
smoke
control 184, 192
detectors 192
speed limits, imposition of 27
split-level decks (SLD)
see also SLD type series
advantages 43
pedestrian ramps in 43
popularity 43
sports utility vehicles (SUV) 6
sprinklers 184
staff parking see tidal car parks
stairs
cores, drainage 181
as fire escapes
fire lobbies 154–5, 154
fire regulations 153
widths 155
stalls
see also angled stalls; disabled parking stalls; parking
decks
access, manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20
dimensions
area per car space 31
length 9
width 9, 27
driver searches 35
dynamic capacity 27
obstructions between 9–10
rectangle 6, 9
searching
inefficient 51, 53, 81, 83
traffic congestion 73, 81
static efficiency 30–1
standard design vehicles (SDV)
see also vehicles
95factor 6, 10
departures from 6, 7
ground clearance 7–8, 10
height 6, 10
length 6, 10
turning diameters 8, 10
wheelbase 7, 10
width 6, 10
static efficiency
definition 30
external bins 30
internal bins 31
single bins 30
two-bin layout 30
steelwork 195
coatings 197
storey height ramps 17, 18, 103, 105
structure
alternative materials 195
deflections 198–9
reinforced concrete 195
finishes 197
life expectation 195
shrinkage joints 196
steelwork 195
coatings 197
supermarkets, lift requirements 156–7
surveillance see CCTV; lighting; security
swept paths, turning circles 22, 23
tag systems of payment 188
tariffs see control systems
temperature differences, exposed decks 196
tidal car parks 9, 49
capacities 32
with flow reversal 69
lifts 157
210 Car park designers’ handbook
recommendations for
flat and sloping decks 97
sloping decks 61, 63, 65, 69
split level decks 49, 55, 57
two-way-flow, ramps 21–2
top decks see decks, exposed
turning circles
circular ramp systems 139
minimum dimension layouts 113
standard design vehicles 8, 10
swept paths 22, 23
two-bin layout, static efficiency 30
two-way-flow
aisle widths
minimum 13
reduced 12
circular decks 126, 127
circular ramps 24
end 116, 117
full 140, 141, 142, 143
traffic congestion 61
vehicles crossing 26–7
two-way-flow types
see also one-and two-way-flow types
with combined ramps 54, 55
double helix, end connected 66, 67
single end ramp 96, 97
single helix, sloping decks 60, 61
underground parking 172
constraints 173
efficiency 173
minimum dimension layouts 112, 113
ventilation 190, 191–2
uninhabited layouts, definition 33
USA, high level parking 33, 34
user-friendly car parks 2, 37–9
user-unfriendly car parks 125
variable message signs 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178–9
VCM 1 (one-way-flow/internal ramps) 90, 92, 93
as alternative
to FIR series 105, 107, 109, 111
to FSD series 81, 83, 85, 89
to SD series 65, 67, 71, 73
to SLD series 45, 47, 51, 53, 57
to WPD series 101
within VCM series 95, 99
alternatives to 93
capacity 31
static efficiency 93
VCM 2 (one-way-flow/end ramps) 94, 95
as alternative
to FSD series 85, 89
to SD series 65, 67, 71, 73
to SLD series 57
within VCM series 93, 99
alternatives to 95
static efficiency 95
VCM 3 (two-way-flow/single ramp) 96, 97
as alternative 49, 55, 61, 77
alternatives to 97
static efficiency 97
VCM 4 (one- and two-way-flow/single ramp) 98, 99
as alternative 57, 61
alternatives to 99
static efficiency 99
vehicles
see also standard design vehicles
camper vans 6
four-wheel drive 6
limosines
in multi-storey car parks 7
stretched 7
new registrations by type 203
sports utility 6
ventilation
air change rates 192
fans 190, 191–2
natural 191
underground parking 190, 191–2
viewing panels, for disabled pedestrians 177
warped parking decks 91
see also WPD series
washing-down facilities, decks 181
waterproofing decks 197–8
wheelbase, standard design vehicles 7, 10
widths
aisles 10–11
minimum 13
parking stalls 9
stairs 155
standard design vehicles 6, 10
women-only car parks 170
WPD 1 (warped deck/one-way-flow) 100, 101
alternatives to 101
static efficiency 101
Index 211