Hill, J. - Car Park Designers' Handbook (2005) PDF

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, 310 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 reect the views or opinions of the
publishers. While every eort 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 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
19312005
An outstanding engineer who, for 50 years, fought the
eects of poliomyelitis with courage and determination.
Contents
Foreword
Preface
Glossary of terms
Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Historical note
Advice and guidance
Scope
Design exibility
2 Design brief
2.1
2.2
The client
The brief
3 Design elements
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
The standard design vehicle (SDV): discussion

3.1.1 Length and width
3.1.2 Height
3.1.3 Wheelbase
3.1.4 Ground clearance
3.1.5 Turning dimensions
3.1.6 Recommended minimum diameters for turns
up to 1808 between obstructions
3.1.7 Left side, right side or in the middle?
Parking categories
3.2.1 Discussion
3.2.2 Car park categories
Parking stalls
3.3.1 Discussion
3.3.2 Recommended dimensions for diering parking
categories
3.3.3 Obstructions between stalls
3.3.4 Angled parking
Aisle widths
3.4.1 Discussion
3.4.2 One-way-ow with reduced aisle widths
3.4.3 Two-way-ow-with reduced aisle widths
3.4.4 Manoeuvring on aisles
3.4.5 Turning between aisles
Bin dimensions
3.5.1 Discussion
3.5.2 Recommended minimum bin dimensions for
parking with 2.400 m-wide stalls
Ramps and access-ways
3.6.1 Discussion
3.6.2 Recommended maximum vehicle gradients
3.6.3 Transitional slopes
3.6.4 Ramp projections into aisles
3.6.5 Storey height ramps
xi
xiii
xiv
xvi
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
16
17
17
17
3.6.6
3.6.7
3.6.8
3.6.9
3.6.10
3.6.11
3.6.12
3.6.13
Side clearance
Manoeuvring envelope
Stall access
One-way-ow ramp widths: discussion
Ramp widths and angled parking
Two-way-ow ramps
Turning circle templates
Two-way-ow: recommended minimum clear
ramp widths
3.6.14 Scissors-type ramps
3.6.15 Side-by-side ramps
3.6.16 Circular ramps
3.6.17 Recommended minimum diameters for full
circle ramps between limiting wall faces
3.6.18 Recommended minimum widths for circular
ramp lanes between wall faces
3.7 Interlocking ramps
3.7.1 Stadium type
3.7.2 Circular type
3.8 Kerbs
3.9 Super-elevation
3.10 Parking deck gradients
3.11 Headroom and storey heights
3.12 Height limitations
4 Dynamic considerations
4.1
Discussion
4.1.1 Impact speeds
4.1.2 Eects of rain
4.1.3 Exit and entry rates and internal movement
4.1.4 Dynamic capacities for dierent stall widths
and categories
4.1.5 Stopping distance
4.1.6 Speed limits
4.1.7 Dynamic capacities of ramps and access-ways
4.1.8 Dynamic capacities of cross-ramps and
access-ways, per hour
4.1.9 Dynamic capacities of parking decks;
calculations
4.1.10 Dynamic eciency
5 Static considerations
5.1
Static
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
eciency, discussion
Relative eciencies
Area per car space
Recommended capacities
6 Circulation design
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Discussion
How many levels?
Roof considerations
Circulation eciency
6.4.1 Discussion
6.4.2 Shortest travel distance
6.4.3 Examples of circulation eciency
Parking times
6.5.1 Discussion
17
18
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
29
30
30
30
31
31
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
7 Circulation layouts
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
Discussion
Dimensions used
User-friendly features
7.3.1 Discussion
7.3.2 Simplicity
7.3.3 Crossovers
7.3.4 Circulation direction
7.3.5 Dead ends (culs-de-sac)
Angled and right-angled parking: a comparison
Split-level decks (SLDs)
SLD 1 One-way trac ow with an included rapid
outow route
SLD 2 One-way trac ow with an excluded rapid
outow route
SLD 3 One-way-ow with side-by-side ramps
(scissors type)
SLD 4 Combined one-way-ows, three bins or
more wide
SLD 5 Combined one- and two-way-ows, three bins or
more wide
SLD 6 Two-way-ow with combined ramps
SLD 7 One-way-ow with an included contra-ow
rapid exit route
Sloping parking decks (SDs)
SD 1
Single helix with two-way-ow
SD 2
Single helix with one-way-ow and a rapid
outow route
SD 3
Double helix, end connected with one-way-ow
on the central access-way
SD 4
Double helix, end connected with two-way-ow
on the central access-way
SD 5
Interlocking double helix, with one-way-ows
SD 6
Combined helix, side connected with one- and
two-way-ows
SD 7
and 8 Double helix, side connected, with
one-way-ows
Combined at and sloping deck (FSD) layouts
FSD 1 Single helix with two-way-ow
FSD 2 Single helix with one-way-ow and a rapid
outow route
FSD 3 Combined helix, side connected with one- and
two-way-ows
FSD 4 Combined helix, side connected with
one-way-ow
FSD 5 Double helix, side connected with one-way-ow
FSD 6 and 7 Double helix, side connected with
one-way trac ows
FSD 8 Single helix with one-way-ow and an internal
ramp
Combined at and sloping deck layouts with internal
cross-ramps (VCM and WPD)
VCM 1 One-way-ow with two one-way-ow ramps
VCM 2 One-way-ow with end ramps
VCM 3 Two-way-ow with a single end ramp
VCM 4 One- and two-way trac ows with a single
ramp
37
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
38
43
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
59
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
75
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
91
92
94
96
98
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
WPD 1 Warped parking decks with one-way-ow

Flat decks with storey height internal ramps (at with
internal ramps FIR)
FIR 1 One-way-ow decks with combined
two-way-ow ramps at right-angles to
the aisles
FIR 2 One-way-ow decks with side-by-side (scissors
type) ramps at right-angles to the aisles
FIR 3 One-way-ow decks with combined
two-way-ow ramps parallel with the aisles
FIR 4 One-way-ow decks with separated
one-way-ow ramps
Minimum dimension (MD) layouts
MD 1 One-way-ow between circular end ramps
MD 2 Two-way-ow with a circular ramp at one end
MD 3, 4 and 5 One- and two-way-ows, ten stalls
wide
MD 6, 7 and 8 One- and two-way-ows eight stalls
wide (VCM type)
MD 9, 10 and 11 One- and two-way-ows eight stalls
wide (split-level type)
Circular sloping decks (CSDs)
CSD 1 Circular parking deck with two-way-ow
Half external ramps (HERs)
HER 1 Half spiral with one-way-ow
HER 2 and 3 Straight ramps with one-way-ow
HER 4 Straight ramps with one-way-ow,
end located
HER 5 Straight ramps with one-way-ow,
end located
External ramps (ERs)
ER 1
Full circular with a two-way trac ow
ER 2
Full circular ramps each with a one-way
trac ow
ER 3
Straight ramps with a one-way trac ow
ER 4
Storey height, straight ramps
ER 5
Stadium-shaped interlocking ramps
ER 6
Circular interlocking ramps
8 Stairs and lifts

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Discussion
Vertical and horizontal escape
8.2.1 Stairs, widths of ights
8.2.2 Vertical escape
8.2.3 Horizontal escape
Escape distances
Lift sizing
9 Disabled drivers and carers

9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
Discussion
Stall locations
Stall dimensions
Access
100
103
104
106
108
110
113
114
116
118
120
122
125
126
129
130
132
134
136
139
140
142
144
146
148
150
153
153
153
153
155
155
155
156
161
161
161
162
163
10 Cycles and motorcycles
165
10.1 Discussion
10.2 Cycle parking
165
165
10.3 Motorcycle parking

10.4 Lockers
10.5 Fiscal control
165
166
167
11 Security
169
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
169
169
170
170
Discussion
Lighting, music and CCTV
See and be seen
Women-only car parks
12 Underground parking
12.1 Discussion
13 Lighting
13.1 Discussion
13.2 Emergency lighting
173
173
175
175
175
14 Signage
177
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
177
177
178
178
179
Discussion
Directional signs
Information signs
Variable message sign systems
Emergency signs
15 Drainage
15.1 Discussion
16 Fire escapes, safety and re ghting
181
181
183
Discussion
Escape distances
Fire safety
Fire-ghting measures
Sprinklers
Fire escapes
183
183
183
183
184
184
17 Fiscal and barrier control
187
17.1 Discussion
17.2 Control systems
17.3 Barrier control
187
187
188
16.1
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.5
16.6
18 Ventilation
18.1
18.2
18.3
18.4
Discussion
Natural ventilation requirements
Mechanically assisted natural ventilation requirements
Mechanical ventilation requirements
19 Structure
19.1
19.2
19.3
19.4
19.5
19.6
19.7
19.8
Discussion
Construction materials
Joints
Perimeter protection
Concrete nishes
Protective coatings
Waterproong
Cambers
20 Appearance
191
191
191
191
191
195
195
195
196
196
197
197
197
198
201
20.1 Discussion
20.2 Appearance requirements
201
201
Appendix A
203
References
204
Index
205
About the authors
James Hill CEng

FIStructE (retd)
Glynn Rhodes BSc (Hons)

CEng MICE MIHT
FConsE
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
similar handbook on good practice parking in the USA.
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
Harrogate (precast with 450 spaces), Merryhill Shopping Centre,
West Midlands (precast with 1600 spaces) and Manchester Royal
Inrmary (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 trac
and general waynding 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
Christopher Whapples BSc

(Hons) CEng FIStructE
FICE MIHT 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 publication 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
Outlet Village, Livingston (in situ with 1600 spaces).
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
ecient 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 ones patience? As an engineer, I think
logically and admire the art of parking created by my fellow colleagues; as a consumer I want to be able to park my car as quickly and
as eectively 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 rst and last impression of my destination; it needs to be
good if Im 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 conict 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 rst place,
only serve to increase my sense of uncared for by the owner or
operator.
This book, describes and illustrates some 60 variations on the many
layout themes, no doubt there are others. Their advantages and disadvantages 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 trac aisles, how to
assess dynamic capacity and eciency, and the many other considerations 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 authors opinion, eective 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 wouldnt 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 Association and Head of the Safer Parking Scheme.
Preface
Information on the design of vehicle circulation systems in car parks is

hard to nd: had it not been so this book, probably, would not have
been written. To my knowledge, special features and relative eciencies
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 rst became involved in car park
structures when we were retained to design the foundations and nonstandard 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 rst eort was to develop a clear-span structure that
was ecient, 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 ecient 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 o most motorists), but rather that they suered 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 makeover, 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 dierent 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 dierent layouts has
risen even further since then. Some have been rejected as being impractical 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 dierent
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 accompanied me on my travels around the car parks of several countries without 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 trac lane without adjoining stalls laid at or to a slope not
exceeding 5%, also capable of being used by pedestrians.
Aisle
A trac 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 eciency
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 trac that is unable to ow freely.
Cross-ramp
An inclined trac lane connecting the aisles in adjacent bins, laid to a
slope greater than 5%.
Deck
A single oor 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 trac can pass a given location within a car
park. (Given in vehicles per hour.)
Dynamic eciency
A measure of the ability of a car park to process vehicles under normal
operating conditions.
Excluded
Applies to an inow route that is separated from an outow route.
Extended
Applies to any trac route that is not rapid.
Included
A ow route that is located within the circulation pattern of another.
Inow
Applies to the search path for trac 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-ow
Trac owing in a single direction on an aisle.
Outow
Applies to trac exiting from a car park.
Ramp
Any trac lane, without adjoining stalls, that provides access to or
from parking at dierent levels.
Rapid
Applies to a short route for inow or outow trac.
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 eciency
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-ow
Trac owing 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.
Introduction
Rules and regulations are but the paper bastions behind which the
inexperienced ght their battles, but in the matter of car park design
let common sense prevail.
1.1 Historical note
Eugene Freyssinet, 18791962, a French structural engineer and the

inventor of prestressed concrete, is credited with designing the rst
European multi-storey car park (MSCP) in 1920: a split-level layout.
In the British Isles, the rst multi-storey car park was built c.1924
and it is conservatively estimated that there are now well over 6000 in
existence, many of which were constructed in the post-war boom
years between 1950 and 1975.
In the early years little information was available concerning the
design of this new type of building and was mainly to be found in
technical literature distributed by specialist construction rms. The
manoeuvring geometry of vehicles, however, imposed a strong practical
discipline resulting in the general principles of layout and design rapidly
becoming rationalised, with split-level decks and one-way trac ows
used in many of the earliest buildings designed specically for parking
cars.
Independent information gradually became more available, especially
after the publication in 1969 of the AJ Metric Handbook and in 1970 of
the BPA Technical Note # 1. Metric Dimensions for Car Parks 908
Parking and in 1973, at a Joint Conference on Multi-storey and Underground Car Parks organised by the Institution of Structural Engineers
and the Institution of Highway Engineers, a paper, by B. R. Osbourne
and W. P. Winston, was presented that contained most of the relevant
information available at that time relating to parking geometry.
Design Recommendations for Multi-storey and Underground Car
Parks was published in 1976: the rst time that an attempt had been
made to create a national standard work on car park design. It
contained much of the information presented at the Joint Conference,
together with relevant parts of Report LR 221 by the Road Research
Laboratory published in 1969 and titled, Parking: Dynamic Capacities
of Car Parks. The report was omitted from subsequent editions.
Historically, MSCPs in the UK have suered an unenviable
reputation for poor layout design and quality of parking. The problem
has always been in balancing the motorists desire for ample room in
which to park with the clients desire to build as economically as
possible but, in a highly competitive market, designers sometimes
went too far in the direction of pure economy and cost conscious clients
were insuciently critical about poor design features. This resulted in
car parks that were lacking in essential dimensions; many were
poorly constructed, inadequately waterproofed, badly lit, awkward to
park in and insecure but, mostly, they had the merit of being cheap
to build.
Modern social trends recognise that parking quality plays a major
role in the choice of destination for motorists and their families. Car
parks provide, quite often, the rst and last impression that they experience when visiting an urban location or commercial enterprise and have
a signicant inuence on any decision they may make to return. Over
Fig. 1.1 1910 Ford in a

1990 car park
the years, there has been little change in the manoeuvring envelope of
cars licensed to drive on the public highway and Fig. 1.1 shows that,
even in 1910, car manoeuvring envelopes were not dissimilar to that
of todays vehicles and a well designed modern car park can be used
by vehicles of all ages.
1.2 Advice and

guidance
Multi-storey car parks are, basically, utilitarian constructions. Their

design is not a nite art; it is a compromise, a balancing act between
motorists spatial desires and the practical need to achieve economy
of construction and eective use of the site area. Stall dimensions,
aisle, ramp and access-way widths, ramp slopes, headroom and circulation layouts can all vary, the only real criterion being that of general
acceptance by the motorist. The purpose of this handbook is to provide
advice and guidance on those aspects that will enable car parks to
perform their function eciently, economically and at the same time,
be user friendly.
1.3 Scope
The contents cover the practical aspects of design for self-parking

facilities. Block parking and valet parking, where attendants park
cars, have been excluded. Also excluded are mechanically operated
car parks and matters concerning architecture, except where they are
aected by practical considerations.
1.4 Design exibility
A multi-storey car park, whether above or below the ground, is costly

to construct and consideration should be given to possible changes of
parking function during its working life. Initially, it might seem sensible
and economical to provide minimum dimensions and standards to suit
a particular purpose. Within time, however, its parking category may
change and, unless the interior layout is suciently exible to cope
with these changes, the facility could become redundant.
Example 1: a multi-storey car park serving a town centre bus station
that was then relocated. The site was sold for retail development and
the car park was oered as part of the deal. The layout, although
adequate for its original purpose, was not suitable for shoppers, so a
500-space building in good order had to be demolished.
Example 2: a large factory that closed down and was sold for retail
development. The car park for the workforce, designed to minimum
standards, was unsuitable for use by the general public. It, too, had
to be demolished.
Thirty years ago it was rarely considered that car parks could be
bought and sold, and that the role for which they were originally
designed would alter. Nowadays, however, they are being bought and
sold in increasing numbers, either individually or collectively. Market
values depend not so much on their architectural merits but on their
popularity with the parking public, and as such they should be
designed, within reason, to be as exible as possible.
Introduction
2 Design brief
2.1 The client
Not all clients have an expert knowledge about car parks. They are
conscious of the need to provide a certain number of parking spaces at
a given location, but they are not, necessarily, aware of the information
that is required in order to produce the most ecient and cost eective
building.
Designers should present their clients with a questionnaire in order to
obtain the maximum amount of relevant information as early as
possible. It is unlikely that it will all be available at the preliminary
stage, but it does no harm to ask the questions and, at least, it establishes the designers expertise in the subject.
2.2 The brief
Apart from items such as ground investigation reports and accurate site
and level surveys, both of which may require an unacceptable nancial
outlay by the client at an early stage, briefs should include as much of
the following information as possible:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The maximum and minimum number of spaces required.

A plan of the proposed site to a known scale, showing the building
lines and the surrounding access roads.
Site levels, even if they are only approximate.
Proposals for future development that might have an eect upon the
setting out, shape and function of the building.
The presence and, if possible, the location of electric cables, gas pipes,
drains and sewers that might occur under the site, especially those
that must not be moved or built over without special precautions
being taken.
The maximum number of parking levels and height of building
required by the client or allowed by the local planning authority.
The proposed use, whether it is to be a long-, medium- or short-stay
facility, together with the anticipated vehicle entry and exit trac
ow gures.
The category of parking required, bearing in mind the possibility that
it could be sold at some future date for another purpose category.
The proposed method of payment to be adopted for nancial control,
whether it is to be a payment on exit, payment on foot, a pay and
display system, or even no payment at all.
The clients preference, if any, for a particular type of construction.
The accommodation required for sta and the general public,
(oces, rest rooms, toilets, etc.).
The capacity and preferred location for lifts and/or escalators. This
is an especially important item when in conjunction with retail
shopping.
The requirements for water-protection over the top parking deck,
either with asphalt or an elastomeric membrane, or leaving the top
deck untreated, or even roong over the complete building.
The need to provide heating to exposed ramps.
Whether a mechanical means of ventilation is acceptable: an important issue when the building is close to adjacent site boundaries.
The clients preference, if any, for standards of nish in lift lobbies,
escape stairs, parking oors and exposed parts of the internal structure.
Design brief
The levels of interior lighting to be adopted (if it varies from British

Standards), and any other instructions regarding painting of the
interior that could aect the lighting design.
The requirements for security, closed-circuit television (CCTV),
patrols on foot, or any special emphasis on user friendly aspects.
The standards required for external and internal signs (illuminated
and painted).
The provision of water and power supplies for cleaning purposes.
3 Design elements
3.1 The standard

design vehicle (SDV):
discussion
More than 50 dierent car manufacturers oer some 340 models for sale
to the general public in the UK. Add to that the makes and models that
have been discontinued over, say, the past 15 years but can still be seen in
reasonable quantities and the number rises to well over 500. In size they
range from the diminutive Smart car up to the American stretched
limousines (see Fig. 3.1), some of which have found their way to the
UK.
To build a car park that can cater for them all is unrealistic and
uneconomic. Large, limousine-type vehicles occur in relatively small
numbers and very few are ever likely to require parking within a structured public car park. It has, therefore, become established practice to
design car parks to readily accept the smallest 95% of privately licensed
vehicles registered to drive on the highway (see Appendix A). That does
not mean to imply that some of the larger vehicles must not enter a
parking building, but that they must do so with greater care than the
95-percentile vehicle.
The introduction of the multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) and the proliferation of four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicles in private ownership has
resulted in an increasing use of bulkier and taller vehicles by the
motoring public. It is likely that the trend will be towards even greater
numbers of this type being parked as leisure activities expand and
become an increasingly important factor in the choice of personal
transportation. Although not frequent visitors, it would be an advantage for larger-type vehicles to be able to circulate (see Figs 3.2 and
3.3), even if they have to overow into adjacent stalls in order to
park. The most testing time can sometimes occur when the building
is ocially opened and the mayors or chief executive ocers (CEOs)
in their ocial limousines are taken on a ceremonial drive through
the car park. It has happened!
3.1.1 Length and width

A rectangle 4.800 m by 2.000 m on plan will accommodate 95% of the
privately owned vehicles in the UK. The width is measured overall
including the wing mirrors. Without wing mirrors the width can be
assumed as 1.800 m (see Fig. 3.4).
3.1.2 Height
In height, most cars are less than 1.500 m, but there is a growing
number of 4WD and sports utility vehicle (SUV) type vehicles using
car parks that should not be ignored. Of these, among the tallest
currently in use, without roof racks, are the Land-Rover Defender
(2.035 m) and the Discovery (1.919 m). Although not sold in large
numbers, they can be frequent visitors, especially to provincial and
market-town car parks. Vehicles made for volume sales will, most
probably, always be capable of being driven into a standard domestic
garage and it is unlikely that they will ever exceed a height of 1.950 m.
Camper-type vans, also, do not always fall within the standard
design vehicle (SDV) envelope, but in some resort car parks there
may be a need to accommodate them, even if only at the ground parking
level.
Fig. 3.1 Even in the USA,

stretched limos have to
park outside
Fig. 3.2 This Cadillac was

able to drive through a
building designed to
recommended circulation
standards, even though it
was necessary to climb to
an emptier upper level in
order to park
Fig. 3.3 In some car parks

Rolls-Royce- and Bentleysized cars are not
uncommon visitors
3.1.3 Wheelbase
A wheelbase of 2.900 m is used to provide the worst-case scenario for
changes of level at steep ramps and inclines (see Fig. 3.2).
3.1.4 Ground clearance
Although the normal ground clearance for the SDV is better than
150 mm, a well-laden vehicle could be less, especially at the rear end.
Design elements
A dimension of 100 mm, therefore, is considered to be a reasonable

minimum for design purposes (see Fig. 3.4).
3.1.5 Turning dimensions
Vehicles operating within the SDV envelope are capable of turning
between wall faces 12 m apart (see Fig. 3.4). Many large vehicles can
also turn within this diameter but a very few need as much as
15.000 m to complete a 1808, wall-to-wall turn on full lock. At a
speed of 10 mph, it takes approximately 4.500 m (one seconds driving)
to develop a 908 turn with a radius of 9.000 m and this has to be taken
into account when considering the turning manoeuvre.
It is unreasonable to expect motorists to drive around a car park to
the extreme manoeuvring ability of their vehicle. Long before this
condition is reached, they will have abandoned the building for less
onerous places to park, but occasionally it will be necessary to use a
full-lock turn when entering a stall, or to avoid a pedestrian or another
vehicle. This is acceptable but, for good parking practice, motorists
must be given the ability to manoeuvre readily in either direction. As
a general rule, the minimum turning circle for manoeuvring between
adjacent aisles should be in the order of 150% of the SDV turning
circle where 908 turns into and out of cross aisles and ramps are the
norm and 200% where 3608 turns are anticipated.
3.1.6 Recommended minimum diameters for turns up to 180o between
obstructions
For good practice
18.000 m
Tight mainly for long stay with light usage
16.000 m
Very tight for private use only, on small awkward
sites and with the clients prior agreement
14.000 m
Entering and leaving parking stalls
12.000 m
3.1.7 Left side, right side or in the middle?
Vehicles of dierent dimensions occupy stalls: quite frequently a small
car is sandwiched between two larger vehicles and it can appear that
the stall is empty until the viewing angle improves. This is an especially
frustrating situation when viewing down dead end aisles. When
vehicles are being driven along a one-way-ow aisle it has been observed
that they tend to keep towards the centre and so, for right-hand-drive
cars, drivers will be biased to the right-hand side of the aisle. This
provides them with a better viewing angle to observe the status of stall
openings and crossways on the left than those on the right. For twoway-ow aisles the situation is reversed. The shallower the parking
angle becomes, the less signicant this becomes and at angles less
than, say, 608 the condition does not occur. It is not a major factor
but it is useful to know that stalls and crossways on the left are more
appreciated when in one-way-ow facilities and the opposite situation
occurs when in two-way-ow facilities.
3.2 Parking
categories
3.2.1 Discussion
The correct choice of circulation layout and stall dimensions to suit a
particular building purpose can be an important factor in the success
or failure of a parking facility. At main transportation terminals it is
unlikely that the category will alter and car parks can be designed
with condence. For most other town centre types, however, changes
can and do occur, and this possibility should be considered at the
design stage. Four categories of parking are described in the following
section.
3.2.2 Car park categories

Cat. 1. Short stay. Intensive usage with high turnaround rates usually
associated with busy supermarket-type shopping activities.
Cat. 2. Medium stay. Urban-centre-type car parks for mixed business,
visitors and town centre shopping.
Cat. 3. Long stay. Located at major transport terminals where the ow
is intermittent and mainly light but continuous. Short periods
of intensive vehicle movement can also occur when a large
people-transporter disgorges its passengers.
Cat. 4. Tidal, such as occurs in sta car parks where the trac ow is
inwards in the mornings and outwards in the evenings.
3.3 Parking
stalls
3.3.1 Discussion
It has become normal practice in the UK for designers to adopt stall
widths of between 2.300 m and 2.500 m, dependent upon the parking
category. For specic purposes this can vary, but it must be appreciated
that stall widths are an important factor, aecting both exibility and
market values.
The prime consideration is not so much the overall width of a stall
but the gap between parked vehicles. Altering the pitch by 100 mm
only has a 4% eect on the stall width, but it can result in a 20% variation on the gap between cars and be the dierence between getting out
of the car with ease or with some diculty. The minimum space that
enables most drivers to access their vehicles is considered to be
600 mm. Most vehicles are narrower than the SDV, so for a stall
width of 2.400 m the gap between cars will usually be greater than
600 mm. It is also the case that some drivers are not particularly
mobile, while others can be rather large and need a greater door opening distance than 600 mm.
In Fig. 3.4 it can be seen that the full door opening width is about
900 mm, resulting in an optimum stall width of 2.700 m. Averaging
between large and small vehicles, a 2.600 m wide stall could also produce a gap of about 900 mm, but then economic factors come into
play. The compromise answer is shown in Section 3.3.2 and has been
generally recognised over many years as an acceptable balance between
space and cost.
3.3.2 Recommended dimensions for diering parking categories
All stall lengths
4.800 m
Minimum stall widths
Cat. 1 (less than 3 hrs per car)
2.500 m
Cat. 2 (more than 3 hrs per car)
2.400 m
Cat. 3 (more than 12 hrs per car)
2.300 m
Cat. 4 (sta type)
2.300 m
Disabled drivers
3.600 m
Carers
3.200 m
It should be appreciated that the market value of the building could
well be aected by the choice of stall width. Stalls less than 2.300 m
in width cannot be recommended for general public use. In specic
locations, stall widths of 2.200 m and even 2.100 m have been used
where there is a desperate need, such as hotel- or sta-type parking
where smaller cars are the norm and the client is fully aware of the
reduction in parking standards.
3.3.3 Obstructions between stalls
The standard stall widths assume that there are no obstructions between
adjacent stalls and that car doors can open freely into the spaces between
Design elements
Fig. 3.4 The standard design vehicle (SDV) (a composite of 95% of private vehicles registered to drive on the
highways)
parked vehicles. It also assumes that drivers and passengers can pass
between adjacent cars to gain access to the trac aisle. If obstructions,
such as structural columns, occur between stalls (see Fig. 3.5a and b),
the recommended widths should be capable of being measured between
the column faces, at the very least. Where long rows of stalls occur
between wall faces, it is not usually necessary to increase the end stall
widths as a high proportion of cars are smaller than the SDV and they
can park without diculty at these relatively few locations.
3.3.4 Angled parking
Angled stalls ease the parking manoeuvre. The shallower the angle, the
easier and simpler it is to park. It is generally restricted to one-way
trac ows and as the parking angle reduces so can the aisle width
necessary to manoeuvre in and out of the stalls: in so doing, however,
the people/vehicle separation distance is reduced and the oor area
per stall requirement is increased (see also Fig. 3.6 and Sections 3.4.3
and 5.5).
3.4 Aisle widths 3.4.1 Discussion

Aisle widths can vary dependent upon the trac ow pattern and the
parking angle. The dimensions shown in Section 3.4.4 are adequate
for manoeuvring into and out of parking stalls but no allowance has
10
Fig. 3.5 Columns located

between adjacent stalls
been made for pedestrians mingling with car trac on the aisles. With
908 parking a 6.000 m-wide aisle enables pedestrians to walk down a
2.000 m-wide lane on each side of a centrally located vehicle, alternatively pedestrians can walk down the central part of the aisle and cars
can drive by on either side.
When 458 parking is adopted, for vehicle manoeuvring, the aisle
width can be reduced to 3.600 m, but in so doing the space available
to pedestrians reduces to 800 mm on each side of a centrally located
vehicle. In such cases, designers should consider whether some
upward dimensional adjustment is desirable, especially in facilities
subject to intensive use.
Sixty-degree surface parking, incorporating widened, two-way ow
aisles, has been noted in some of the south-western states of the
USA. In such cases the stalls have been angled such that parking can
only, realistically, be achieved on one side at a time. The stall search
pattern is greatly extended and the only advantage appears to be in
increasing the separation distance between vehicles and pedestrians
on the aisles.
3.4.2 One-way-ow with reduced aisle widths
Figures 3.14a and 3.14b (see page 19) show the entry envelope for
2.400 m-wide stalls. It can be seen that an aisle width of about
6.000 m is required for straight in parking. Increasing the stall width
enables drivers to manoeuvre in and out more easily and can result in
a reduction in the width of the aisle without reducing parking standards. Figures 3.14c and 3.14d (see page 19) show the reduced aisle
widths that can be used for 2.500 and 2.600 m-wide stalls.
Design elements
11
3.4.3 Two-way-ow with reduced aisle widths

When the anticipated trac ow is tidal, such as occurs in facilities
dedicated to oce sta, two-way-ow layouts have been used successfully with aisle widths little more than those recommended for oneway-ow circulation. Consideration, however, should be given to the
possibility of future changes in parking use that could aect the
continued eectiveness of the building.
Fig. 3.6 Comparison of the deck area per stall for three angles of parking (exc. ramps and access-ways)
12
3.4.4 Manoeuvring on aisles

Recommended minimum aisle widths (2.400 m-wide stalls):
908 with two-way-ow
908 with one-way-ow
808
708
608
508
458
908 with one-way-ow.
2.500 m wide stalls
2.600 m
2.700 m
7.000 m
6.000 m
5.250 m
4.700 m
4.200 m
3.800 m
3.600 m
5.800 m
5.650 m
5.500 m
It is not recommended that reduced aisle widths should be adopted as

a general rule, but it shows that in extreme situations some dimensional
exibility is available to the designer. Where intensive use by pedestrians is anticipated (Cats 1 and 2), aisle widths of less than 5.000 m
cannot be recommended, regardless of the parking angle.
3.4.5 Turning between aisles
A factor to be considered is that as the parking angle decreases so, also,
does the dimension available for turning between adjacent aisles. For
908 parking, the clear turning dimension overall two trac aisles and
the pair of stalls between them is 21.600 m, but at 458 it reduces to
15.684 m and is below the recommended minimum turning diameter
(see Fig. 3.6).
3.5 Bin
dimensions
3.5.1 Discussion
Bin widths are the sum of the aisle width and the adjacent stalls measured normal to the aisle. With angled parking this dimension will vary,
dependent upon the width of stall chosen. Where multi-span at decks
incorporate angled parking, bins on the external rows will dier in
width from those on the internal rows due to the interlocking eect
of the stalls. They will also dier from those bin widths generated by
a single parking deck (see Fig. 3.6 and Section 3.13).
3.5.2 Recommended minimum bin dimensions for parking with
2.400 m-wide stalls (in metres)
Angle
Single
External Internal
o
90
15.600
15.600
15.600
80o
15.530
15.328
15.120
70o
15.362
14.952
14.540
14.914
14.314
13.714
60o
o
50
14.240
13.469
12.697
13.782
12.939
12.085
45o
For two-way-ow, the only logical angle is 908 and the recommended
minimum bin width is 16.600 m.
3.6 Ramps and

access-ways
Design elements
3.6.1 Discussion
Cross-ramps and access-ways linking adjacent parking decks are one of
the most important elements governing driver appreciation. If they are
too narrow or too steep, motorists will shun the car park. The entrance
should be of a width that will enable drivers of average ability to enter
at 10 mph from the optimum position on an aisle without the need to
make ne judgements on driving accuracy (see Figs 3.73.9). In the
middle section, and where they exit into a wider trac aisle, the ramp
13
Fig. 3.7 The sidewall has

been cut away in an
attempt to improve the
entry width into a
2.800 m-wide ramp
Fig. 3.8 Vehicle scrape

marks on the outside wall
of a 3.000 m-wide ramp
Fig. 3.9 Scrape marks

occurring on the outside
wall of a 3.600 m-wide
ramp
Fig. 3.10 Shows a pair of

4.400 m-wide, open-aspect
ramps
14
can be reduced in width. After incorporation into a building, ramps are

extremely dicult to move or alter.
Under normal operational conditions it will, occasionally, be necessary for drivers to avoid other trac and/or pedestrians and commence
their turn from other than the optimum position on an aisle. In such
cases, it should be possible to tighten the turning circle and still enter
the ramp in one manoeuvre. The wider the ramp entry, the more exible
the aisle position can be (see Fig. 3.10). It is unrealistic and uneconomic
to attempt to cater for the worst-case situation, but it is equally
unrealistic to assume that the optimum location on an aisle will always
be available. A clearance dimension of 300 mm should be incorporated
on the outer side of aisles when establishing the turning dimension.
It should be noted that, at the bottom exit from a ramp, the eect of a
vehicle straddling the change of slope increases its vertical height above
the deck. It is particularly important to check the headroom at this
location.
Modern vehicles should be able to negotiate inclines of up to 25%
without diculty and many such slopes occur on highways the world
over. However, it is not just the incline that governs the limiting factors
for car parks but the proximity of pedestrians and their safety, coupled
with the daunting appearance that a steeply inclined ramp in an
enclosed space presents to motorists.
Recommended vehicle ramp gradients are not the result of precise
calculation, but are generally considered to be those that most motorists
will accept without undue resistance. Small variations to overcome local
problems can be tolerated but, as a general rule, designers should be wary
of increasing the recommended gures by any signicant margin.
The regulations for pedestrian ramps are based upon BS 8300,
relating to places of work and residence wherein disabled persons can
spend many hours per day. In such cases it is important that all consideration should be given to minimise the problems of getting around. In
car parks, the only people remaining more than ve minutes after
parking their vehicle are employees and those with criminal intent.
The others will have left to go about their legitimate business. Disabled
pedestrians should be capable of negotiating slopes of 8% that raise half
a storey, once, on their way to a lift and the building exit (see also
Chapter 9). In many instances they must exit the building onto streets
that slope far more than British Standards allow within buildings (see
Fig. 3.11). It is to be hoped that, eventually, car parks will be recognised
as a separate building type in this respect and treated accordingly.
Fig. 3.11 Hillside

conditions occur in many
car parks
Design elements
15
3.6.2 Recommended maximum vehicle gradients

Straight and helical ramps
Up to a maximum ramp rise of 1.500 m the steepest sloping element
should not exceed 16%, reducing at the rate of 1% for each 250 mm
increase in ramp height up to 3.000 m. (Above a ramp height of
3.000 m, the maximum sloping element should not exceed 10%.)
Pedestrian ramps
Less than 2 m going
2 m to 5 m going
5 m to 10 m going
8.5%
6.6%
5.0%
Fig. 3.12 Vehicle ramps with 1.500 m half-storey height
16
3.6.3 Transitional slopes

It can be demonstrated that a transitional length of 50% of the SDV
wheelbase coupled with its ground clearance height of 100 mm can
master a slope transition of up to 14% without grounding. Transition
slopes smooth out the change from a ramp slope to a at deck, but it
can be argued that sudden slope changes help to deter speeding
within a car park.
3.6.4 Ramp projections into aisles
Figure 3.12a shows the shape for a ramp rising 1.500 m, that agrees with
clause 4.3.7 of the Des Recs. Transitional slopes having a minimum
length of 3.000 m result in a 1.200 m projection into the aisle. At the
foot of the ramp, the resulting wedge will be 100 mm high and where
scissors-type ramps occur, the step between adjacent ramps will be
200 mm.
Figure 3.12b shows the ramp shape required when the aisle projection is restricted to 600 mm and the transitional slope reduces to a
length of 1.800 m (still better than 50% of the wheelbase). Although
this does not conform strictly to the Des Recs, it is a perfectly acceptable option that occurs in many existing car parks and is less intrusive
that that shown in Fig. 3.12a.
Figure 3.12c shows a three-slope ramp where, at the bottom, a
maximum slope change of 12% occurs. This option enables the ramp
projection to be omitted altogether when the storey height is less than
2.900 m.
Steps of more than 50 mm are awkward to feather out without
interfering with adjacent stall entries and they create obstructions to
pedestrians pushing loaded shopping or luggage trolleys.
For good practice, ramp projections into an aisle should not exceed
600 mm in length and 50 mm in height.
3.6.5 Storey height ramps
Figure 3.13a shows the ramp shape for a straight 10% slope between
storey heights of 3.000 m. The recommended going is 30.000 m and
if used in a at with internal ramps (FIR) 1 type layout it will project
2.400 m into the aisle on each side.
Buildings of the FIR 1 type have been successfully constructed for
many years without obvious complaint from motorists. It is impractical
to intrude 2.400 m into an aisle and so another solution must be found if
FIR-type layouts are not to be deemed unacceptable.
Figure 3.13b shows the ramp shape where the aisle projection is
restricted to a maximum of 600 mm. The slope is 11.36% and this
increase above 10% should not prevent the use of such a ramp.
Figure 3.13c shows a conforming ramp where the storey height has
been halved and a 4.400 m-long landing has been introduced. It is, in
eect, a pair of three-slope ramps end connected at the landing level
where the maximum half rise does not exceed 1.500 m. The ramp intrusion into the aisle is eliminated. A three-slope ramp, however, is more
awkward to construct than a mono-slope ramp and will be a little
less popular with motorists. It is to be hoped that common sense will
prevail and a Fig. 3.13b slope will become the accepted solution for
this situation.
3.6.6 Side clearance
Minimum clearance dimensions of 300 mm should be provided on each
side at the entry location into a cross-ramp or access-way.
Design elements
17
Fig. 3.13 Vehicle ramps with 3.000 m storey height
3.6.7 Manoeuvring envelope

Figures 3.14, 3.15 and 3.16 show the manoeuvring envelopes (ME) for
diering widths of ramps and crossways. The hatched area of the ME
shows additional manoeuvring ability based on a 6.000 m-radius turn
and cannot be over-run without making a reverse manoeuvre. Between
the boundaries, motorists are able to decide on the route they will take
and choose an appropriate rate of turn. The ME shows the degree of
exibility that an SDV motorist has when turning into a particular
width of stall, ramp or access-way. Designers tting, say, a car park
into a basement, where the disposition of the structure may not be
compatible with parking layout requirements, may have to compromise
18
Fig. 3.14 Stall access manoeuvring envelopes based upon 6.000 m-radius turns (read in conjunction with
Section 3.6.8)
Fig. 3.15 Ramp access

manoeuvring envelopes
based on 6.000 m-radius
turns and one-way trac
ows (read in conjunction
with Section 3.6.8)
Design elements
19
Fig. 3.16 Ramp access

manoeuvring envelope
(read in conjunction with
Section 3.6.8)
on preferred parking dimensions. It is useful to know the limits of the

manoeuvres that can be made.
3.6.8 Stall access
Figure 3.14a shows the envelope for access into a stall where the
adjacent stalls are unoccupied. Drivers are able to overlap the upper
stall and it shows that most vehicles can drive down the middle part
of a trac aisle, avoiding pedestrians and still gain direct access into
stalls located on either side.
Figure 3.14b shows a 6.000 m radius turn into a stall located between
adjacent occupied stalls. Such a tight turn is acceptable for a single manoeuvre and, with most vehicles being smaller than the SDV, motorists
can successfully keep within the limits of the ME without reaching
their vehicles limitations.
Figures 3.14c and 3.14d show that, without reducing parking
standards, a reduction in the width of an aisle can be eected when
wider stalls are used. It should be appreciated, however, that where
clear span structures are involved and reducing stall widths is simply
a matter of painting lines, future changes in the parking category
could aect market values. When turning into a standard width stall,
the aisle position is critical and an overshoot of more than, say,
200 mm will result in reversing manoeuvres being required. The wider
the stall, the easier that this manoeuvre becomes.
3.6.9 One-way-ow ramp widths: discussion
Figures 3.15a and 3.15b show the entry width into the ramps measured
from the face of the aisle. Ramp projections can vary and, therefore,
have not been shown. Designers should consider the eects that
projections, steps and angled approaches will have upon the layout.
Circulation eciency is also dependent upon the appearance that
ramps present to the oncoming motorist. If constructed between solid
sidewalls, even ramps of an adequate width are less inviting to enter
and drivers will tend to be more cautious when compared with those
where lateral vision is unimpeded (see Figs. 3.173.20).
20
Figure 3.15a shows the manoeuvring envelope (ME) required to

negotiate one lane of a pair of scissors-type ramps located between
three parking stalls, the clear width between wall faces is 3.300 m.
The lower lane will be a repeat of the upper lane and has been omitted
for clarity, but the potential conict between adjacent vehicles at the
exit with both turning in the same direction can be easily appreciated.
A 6.000 m-radius turn is needed to access the crossway that can be
improved to 7.500 m on the exit. The turns are totally inadequate for
a user-friendly car park, although they might be acceptable in some
private facilities where small cars are the norm.
Figure 3.15b shows the envelope required to negotiate a single ramp
within a width of two parking stalls (4.800 m). The clear dimension
between wall faces is 4.400 m and clearances of 300 mm have been incorporated on each side. A successful entry can be made with a 9.000 mradius turn on both the entry and exit. The dynamic eciency is high
with vehicle speeds of 10 mph capable of being maintained throughout
the turn. The upper shaded area shows the amount of over-run available
and yet still eect an entry/exit in a single manoeuvre. The lower shaded
area indicates the aisle width available to drivers to achieve an entry or
exit as a single manoeuvre.
As ramp widths increase, the aisle entry width also improves and at
6.000 m drivers can enter from virtually the complete width of an aisle.
This will be highly popular, but the width of the Fig. 3.15b ramp is an
acceptable compromise and is space ecient. When ramp widths are
excessively wide, drivers can angle their vehicles as they exit onto the
trac aisle, rendering it more dicult to observe converging trac,
especially when the passenger seat is occupied in a right-turning
circulation system. Excessively wide ramps and crossways can have a
detrimental eect upon dynamic eciency.
One-way-ow ramps with 908 parking.
Recommended clear widths between faces of structure.
Upper limit
Minimum for good practice
Absolute minimum
Straight ahead ramps
5.000 m
4.200 m
3.600 m
3.000 m
3.6.10 Ramp widths and angled parking

Where angled parking is adopted and the entry or exit does not involve
a right-angled turn, some reduction may be accepted to the recommended gures, but the designer must consider the absolute necessity
for such an action and the tolerance of the motorist who will use the
facility. In any case, the minimum ramp width should never be less
than 3.000 m.
3.6.11 Two-way-ow ramps
Two-way-ow ramps are generally designed three stalls wide (7.200 m),
resulting in a clear width of about 6.800 m. They are used when it is
desirable to achieve maximum static eciency, mainly when the trac
ows in either direction are tidal or not intensive. They are not recommended for large Cat. 1 or 2 layouts but, when used in Cat. 4 layouts
(sta parking type), they can be very eective with the trac capable
of using the full ramp width on entry (a.m.) and on exit (p.m.). For
this reason, painted lines are preferable to dividing kerbs. Even for
the tightest of turns and the most advantageous of positioning, when
two vehicles approach each other on the ramp, they are in danger of
Design elements
21
Fig. 3.17 A two-way-ow

ramp
colliding at the exit and entrances. It is dicult for turns to be made

without straying into the opposing lane (see Fig. 3.16).
3.6.12 Turning circle templates
Swept paths for the recommended minimum (9.000 m radius) 908 and
1808 SDV turns are shown in Fig. 3.18 to a scale of 1:200. They can
be photocopied to an appropriate scale and used for checking purposes.
3.6.13 Two-way-ow: recommended minimum clear ramp widths
Preferred
6.800 m
Absolute
6.500 m
3.6.14 Scissors-type ramps
These ramps are generally designed to t, in pairs, between three stall
spaces in a one-way-ow circulation system. Having an overall width
the same as a two-way-ow ramp but with a central supporting structure, the resulting individual widths will be below the recommended
absolute minimum of 3.600 m. Nevertheless, they have been, and are
still being, used in a number of buildings, mainly of the smaller private
type where the majority of vehicles can turn more tightly than the SDV
(see SLD 3 later in chapter 7, see page 48).
3.6.15 Side-by-side ramps
A fundamental problem occurs where trac on both ramps (one climbing and one descending) arrive at the same deck level side by side
(similar in appearance to scissors ramps) and turn in the same direction
resulting in conict between drivers. If intended for the larger (300)
public car parks, there should be a minimum of two stall spaces located
between them.
3.6.16 Circular ramps
These are less popular with the parking public than straight ramp
circulation systems. One of the reasons for this may well be due to the
fact that many have been constructed to a smaller diameter than the
motoring public is willing to accept. There is a considerable dierence
between a vehicles minimum turning circle and the minimum turning
diameter that the average motorist will tolerate when committed to
driving through one or more complete spirals. A wall of death type
sensation can occur in drivers when exiting through several oor levels
in a tight turn. The recommended minimum diameter, given in Section
22
Fig. 3.18 9.000 m-diameter turning circles
Fig. 3.19 Scissors-type

ramps
Design elements
23
3.2, of 18.000 m when turning on routes with straight aisles and crossramps, is not an appropriate dimension for circular ramps rotating
through 3608 or more. The constant turning and the inability for drivers
to see any reasonable distance ahead renders greater diameters desirable
if they are to be readily accepted by the motoring public. It has been
noted that in at least one car park of the SD 2 (sloping parking deck)
type a small-diameter rapid exit ramp has been abandoned and the
car park converted to an SD 1-type operation, even though the aisles
were not designed originally for two-way trac ows.
3.6.17 Recommended minimum diameters for full circle ramps between
limiting wall faces
One-way ow
For good practice
24.000 m
Absolute
20.000 m
Two-way ow
For good practice
31.000 m
Absolute
27.000 m
3.6.18 Recommended minimum widths for circular ramp lanes between
wall faces
One-way ow
For good practice
4.400 m
Absolute
3.800 m
Two-way ow
For good practice
7.800 m
Absolute
7.200 m
3.7 Interlocking
ramps
3.7.1 Stadium type

Where lengths of straight ramp connect semi-circular ramps, drivers can
relax on the need for constant turning. Compared with continuous circular ramps they appear, visually, to be more spacious and hence less
daunting. It has been noted that they remain acceptable to the driving
public even when the diameters of the circular ends are somewhat
below those recommended for full circular layouts. When the going
for a 3608 rotation is better than about 56.000 m, another ramp, owing
in the opposite direction, can be inserted within the same plan form and
can be a space-saving way of achieving access to a parking level located
above commercial or retail premises (see ER 5 in chapter 7, see page 148).
3.7.2 Circular type
At a diameter of 24.000 m, a 9% gradient on the ramp centre-line
produces a rise of about 5.600 m for each 3608 rotation. In the same
manner as for a stadium-type ramp, another ramp can be introduced.
When used in the interlocking mode they take up less site area than
a pair of circular ramps or a single, two-way-ow circular ramp (see
ER6 in chapter 7, page 150).
3.8 Kerbs
24
Kerbs, historically, separate pedestrians on footpaths from vehicles.

Pedestrian ramps should not exceed a slope of 5% while vehicle ramps
can slope up to 16%. Kerbs down the sides of vehicle ramps, therefore,
are not intended for pedestrian use but provide a warning to motorists
that the turning vehicle is getting close to a wall. The problem is that
some pedestrians will see them as an invitation to access an adjacent
parking level and use them accordingly. If kerbs are to be used, they
should be of a width that does not encourage pedestrian use (not more
than 600 mm wide).
If the preferred minimum dimensions for car parking are observed,

then the provision of kerbs may well be unnecessary and pedestrians
will not be tempted to use them. It must be left to each designer to
make a decision in this matter. Many car parks have been constructed
without kerbs and operate successfully.
The provision of a kerb between lanes on a two-way-ow aisle is an
option that is necessary only when cars are travelling on the right-hand
side of the ramp. When cars are driven on the correct side of a two-way
ramp, the situation is little dierent from that of a circular car park,
where lane-dividing kerbs are not used because access to the stalls is
required from either side.
3.9 Super-elevation
Super-elevation of circular ramps is not a necessary feature in car parks

where the maximum recommended speed does not exceed 10 mph.
3.10 Parking deck

gradients
Where cars are parked sideways on a sloping deck, the maximum

gradient should not exceed 5%. For pedestrians who also use the
deck further restrictions may apply (see page 203).
Cars can be parked successfully on much steeper sideways slopes, but
the eect of gravity on the opening and closing of their doors is a factor
limiting the slope for use by the general public.
3.11 Headroom and

storey heights
Headroom dimensions are often a compromise. They are frequently

controlled by building height limitations for a particular site, coupled
with the desire to incorporate as many parking levels as possible.
Vertical circulation is a function of the storey height, the greater the
dimension the longer and/or the steeper the ramp slopes become.
In order to contend with the height of modern vehicles, the minimum
clear headroom throughout a parking building, measured under all
light ttings, hanging signs and structure, should not be less than
2.100 m. It should be checked, especially at the bottom of ramps,
where the wheelbase spans the change in slope and increases the
apparent height of the vehicle.
It is important to predetermine the eect that down-standing light
ttings and signs may have on headroom, particularly where at sots
are involved, and also where ventilation ducts, fans and sprinklers
occur in facilities constructed below ground level.
3.12 Height
limitations
Height limitation gantries should be located at the entrance to every car

park (see Fig. 3.20) to prevent oversized vehicles from entering. They
should be brightly painted and indicate clearly the maximum height
of the vehicle allowed to enter the facility.
Fig. 3.20 A height limiter
Design elements
25
4 Dynamic considerations
4.1 Discussion
Dynamic capacity and eciency is a measure of the rate at which trac

can pass any designated location, trac aisle or even a complete
circulation layout within a car park, and enables potential bottlenecks
to be identied. It can indicate the limitations of a particular layout and
the need for change or improvement by the incorporation of by-pass
routes or other special features.
4.1.1 Impact speeds
Calculations for the impact resistance of structural elements within a
parking facility are based on a vehicle speed of 10 mph, (BS 6180 and
6399) and should be assumed as the maximum permitted speed in
any car park.
4.1.2 Eects of rain
In surface-only car parks and on the open-top decks of multi-level
facilities, wet and slippery conditions will occur from time to time. In
such situations, drivers will be more cautious and dynamic capacities
will be reduced. If a surface car park is operating at maximum dynamic
eciency when conditions are dry, it is likely that trac congestion,
queuing and delays will occur when it rains. For a structured car
park, a covered roof may solve the problem. Designers should take
these factors into consideration. On average, in the UK, rain occurs
on one day in every three.
4.1.3 Exit and entry rates and internal movement
Calculations for dynamic capacity should be checked against gures for
the anticipated hourly vehicle movements but, in the absence of such
information, it is generally accepted that 25% of a car parks static
capacity should be able to enter or leave within a 15-minute period.
Short-term parking at busy supermarkets and major retail outlets
builds up steadily from about 8 a.m., with peak activity occurring
between 10 and 12 a.m. By that time, early customers are beginning
to leave and others are slowing down to search (and sometimes wait)
for spaces in a favoured location, e.g. adjacent to a lift or shopping
access lane. The eect that pedestrians, some with prams and others
with shopping trolleys, have upon trac movements has not been
thoroughly investigated, but it has been observed that, in facilities
where this occurs, dynamic capacity can be aected adversely to
varying degrees, dependent upon the parking standards encountered.
Figures on dynamic capacity, proposed in RRL Report LR 221, are
based on the assumption that an aisle lls in a logical manner, starting
at the beginning and nishing at the end, with no cars leaving as it lls,
no cars arriving as it empties and no pedestrians on the trac aisles.
This report formed part of the rst edition of the 1976 Des Recs but
was omitted from subsequent editions. Observations made in a
number of car parks indicate that the RRL gures for dynamic capacity
can be applied, within reason, to Cats. 3 and 4 car parks. For the others,
however, there is evidence that a reduction may be justied.
Where two-way-ow aisles are used, an additional problem can occur
when vehicles, entering and leaving stalls, cross the oncoming lane and
26
interfere with trac travelling in the opposite direction. When occurring in facilities with mainly tidal ow, dynamic capacity will be similar
to the gures provided for one-way trac ows, but for short stay,
intensive-use facilities it is aected adversely.
In large car parks, the build up of trac from successive upper
parking levels can be greater than the dynamic capacity of the lower
levels of an exit ramp. It must also be appreciated that, if the exit
control or external road system is unable to cope with the ow rates,
trac congestion will occur within the car park, regardless of any
other factor.
4.1.4 Dynamic capacities for dierent stall widths and categories
The gures given are averaged out from the result of observations
made, over 15-minute periods at peak times, in a number of car
parks. The variations between them were such that precision is not a
factor. They are, however, considered to be a conservative but realistic
assessment. The variations between dierent car parks are attributed
mainly to the dynamic eciency of the individual layouts.
Sta parking tended to be more rapid than the other types and it
proved impossible to obtain meaningful 15-minute gures from Cat. 3
long-stay car parks.
The dierence between the inow and outow gures can be
explained by the fact that most motorists can turn and drive straight
into a stall but, when exiting, a more hesitant reversing manoeuvre is
involved. A small proportion of drivers, however, reverse into the
stalls in order to drive straight out.
Notional gures for all parking categories with 6.000 m-wide aisles
2.300 m
2.400 m
2.500 m
Inow
820
860
910
Outow
710
750
800
4.1.5 Stopping distance

An extrapolation of the stopping distance, given in the Highway Code,
for cars travelling at 10 mph on dry roads, is about 6.000 m. Designers
must be aware, however, that wet, exposed decks can double the stopping distance.
4.1.6 Speed limits
There are no national regulations governing vehicle speeds within a car
park, but it has become established practice to adopt the same speed that
the structure must be designed to withstand (10 mph). Some authorities,
however, are now proposing speed limits of 5 mph. If adopted nationally, the trac ow numbers used in dynamic design for aisles and
ramps should be reduced accordingly: congestion will occur at a much
lower gure than the recommended maximum search path of 500
stalls (Des Recs, 4.4.7) and should be adjusted downwards. Dynamic
design has, historically, been based upon speeds of about 10 mph and
the gures for inow and outow given in Section 4.1.4 are based
upon observations made in car parks where trac has not been
restricted to 5 mph. It is unrealistic to impose lower vehicle speeds and
yet still expect the original circulation eciency to be achieved.
4.1.7 Dynamic capacities of ramps and access-ways
At a maximum speed of 10 mph, keeping the correct stopping distance
between vehicles and assuming that all vehicles are the same length as
Dynamic considerations
27
the SDV, it can be calculated that the unobstructed vehicle rate should
not exceed about 1450 vehicles per hour (vph). Many cars, however, are
shorter than the SDV and a more realistic gure can be based upon an
average vehicle length of 4.300 m, in which case the allowable gure
rises to about 1500 per hour.
It would be imprudent to design a car park using ow gures that are
greater than those developed from conforming data. Designers should
be able to demonstrate that they did not use gures that relied upon
motorists driving in excess of the maximum recommended speed.
The rate of entry into a cross-ramp or access-way depends upon its
width and the appearance it presents to the motorist. Above a clear
dimension of 4.200 m, the 1500 vph rate does not appear to be aected,
but, as the entry width reduces, drivers become more cautious and tend
to slow down as they turn. The situation is also exacerbated by sidewalls, or other visual obstructions (see Figs 3.5, 3.73.9).
Observations of the eect that ramp widths have upon motorists,
indicates that, when they are driving on ramps free of lateral obstructions to vision, the following dynamic capacities can be recommended.
4.1.8 Dynamic capacities of cross-ramps and access-ways, per hour
>4.200 m wide
1500
3.600 m wide
1200
Straight entry ramps
3.000 m wide
1500
Under 3.000 m wide, no information is available, but it is reasonable to
assume that a progressive reduction will occur down to about 2.700 m
when most drivers will refuse to enter.
In some large-capacity, short-stay facilities the exit rate could exceed
the trac capacity of the external road system. It is often prudent to
check this condition before reaching a nal decision on the design.
4.1.9 Dynamic capacities of parking decks; calculations
From 4.1.4, the notional dynamic capacity of a 6.000 m-wide aisle can
be seen to be 860 and 750 vehicles per hour, respectively, for inowing
and out-owing trac. The dynamic capacity of the ramps is constant
at 1500 vehicles per hour.
The calculations are based upon the premise that, without parking
trac, it would be possible for 1500 vehicles per hour to progress on
the trac aisles at 10 mph, regardless of the length of travel. The
parking of cars, however, will reduce this speed and, hence, dynamic
capacity, dependent upon the number of stalls involved. A very few
stalls will have little eect, but a large number could slow down the
ow rate to a gure approaching that given for the notional dynamic
capacity.
Regardless of aisle length and capacity the one-hour ow rate cannot
be less than that given in 4.1.4 or greater than that given in 4.1.8. It can
be expressed by the formula:
Actual dynamic capacity (ADC) 1500 a b c 1=d
where a is 1500 minus the notional dynamic capacity, b is the number
of anking stalls divided by a, c is the number of aisles, d is the stall
turn-over rate.
Example
Calculations for a Fig. 4.1, Cat. 1-type layout with 2.400 m-wide stalls,
four storeys (ten aisles) and a 1.5 hour stall turnover.
28
Fig. 4.1 A Cat. 1, SLD 2

car park
Inow
Aisle 1, Level 1 (36 stalls)
ADC 1500 640 36=640 1 1=1:5 1476 vph
At the end of the inow route, having passed through ten aisles, ADC
will be reduced by 240 to 1260 vph.
For outow routes, the calculations need to be made from the top
deck down.
Outow
Aisle 10, Level 5 (12 stalls)
ADC 1500 750 12=750 1 1=1:5 1490 vph
At the end of the exit route, having passed through ten aisles the ADC
will have reduced to 1400 vph.
Although this is a small example, it can be appreciated that when
much larger facilities are involved, and aisles need to be driven through
more than once, the calculation can be used to determine where congestion is likely to occur and where an alternative route can be used to
advantage.
4.1.10 Dynamic eciency
Angled parking is more ecient, dynamically, than right-angled parking when both incorporate stalls having similar dimensions. As the
angle reduces so the stalls become easier to enter and leave, and it
becomes increasingly dicult for cars to turn against the trac ow.
This improvement results, generally, in a reduction in static eciency,
a narrowing of the aisles wherein trac and pedestrians mingle and a
reduction in the distance available for turning between the outside
faces of adjacent aisles.
There is a case for parking at angles down to 708 on the internal bins
in a multi-bin conguration (Table 5.3) where the static and dynamic
eciency is slightly superior to that required for 908 parking. It must
be remembered, however, that as the parking angle reduces the stall
pitch increases and this could be detrimental to the static capacity of
a facility with a xed overall length.
Dynamic considerations
29
5 Static considerations
5.1 Static eciency,

discussion
The static eciency of a car park is a function of its static capacity and
the area of the parking decks. It is used as a means of comparison
between parking facilities and is couched in general terms such as
good, average or poor. Large-capacity decks, where the ratio of parking
spaces to total oor area is high, will produce better gures than smallcapacity facilities, where a higher percentage of the parking decks is
given over to ramps and access-ways. However, the terms are relative
to the most ecient layout that can be achieved for any particular
deck capacity (see Fig. 3.6 and Section 3.4).
For example, a 300 space per deck layout requiring 28 m2 for each car
space can be described as Poor, since it is possible to achieve a gure of
20 m2 with an ecient layout. Conversely, a 30 space per deck layout
requiring 28 m2 for each car space can be described as good, since it
is about as ecient as it is possible for it to get.
5.1.1 Relative eciencies

A long, two-bin layout has a greater static eciency than a shorter
three- or four-bin layout of a similar oor area, due to the reduction
in the number of access-ways required for access between adjacent
stalls, each of which takes up the space of four stalls at the ends. It
can be a useful consideration when deciding upon the layout for a
new car park.
Floor area requirements for dierent angles of parking, as a ratio
compared with that for 908 parking, are provided in Tables 5.1, 5.2
and 5.3. They are based on stall widths of 2.400 m and one-way trac
ows (see also Fig. 3.6).
Column A shows the pitch of the stalls in metres.
Column B shows bin width dimensions.
Column C shows the percentage area variation.
Two-way-ow layouts can only be used sensibly with 908 parking.
Table 5.1 Single bins
Angle
908
808
708
608
508
458
2.400
2.437
2.554
2.771
3.132
3.394
15.600
15.530
15.362
14.914
14.240
13.782
100.0
101.0
105.0
111.0
119.0
125.0
Table 5.2 External bins
30
Angle
908
808
708
608
508
458
2.400
2.437
2.554
2.771
3.132
3.394
15.600
15.328
14.952
14.314
13.469
12.939
100.0
100.0
102.0
106.0
112.0
117.0
Table 5.3 Internal bins

Angle
908
808
708
608
508
458
2.400
2.437
2.554
2.771
3.132
3.394
15.600
15.120
14.541
13.714
12.697
12.085
100.0
100.0
99.0
101.0
106.0
110.0
Compared with the area for one-way-ow 908 parking, the (column
C) gure for two-way ow is 106.4%.
5.1.2 Area per car space
As a guide, the oor areas per car space that can be termed good, for
ve dierent deck capacities with 908 parking, including a reasonable
allowance for stairs, lifts etc. are shown in the following table.
300 stalls per deck
200 stalls per deck
100 stalls per deck
60 stalls per deck
30 stalls per deck
20 m2
21 m2
22 m2
24 m2
28 m2
For angled parking, these can be multiplied by the column C gures

shown in Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
Signicant variations can occur, especially where awkward shaped
sites are involved and the gures should be used as no more than a
guide to the areas per vehicle space that can be achieved under suitable
conditions.
5.1.3 Recommended capacities
For good practice, the maximum static capacities of various car parks
having circulation eciencies better than 60% should be of the following numerical order.
Parking categories 1 and 2
Combined one-way ow
SLD 1 type
400 spaces
Two-way ow
SLD 3 type
600 spaces
Extended one-way inow route with a separated rapid outow route
VCM 1 type
800 spaces
Extended and rapid inow route with a separated rapid outow route
VCM 1 type
1100 spaces
Flat decks with half external rapid outow routes
HER type
1200 spaces
Flat decks with fully external ramps
FER type
1400 spaces
Parking category 3
Long-stay, non-tidal main terminal-type car parks, where the trac
ow is not anticipated to reach the dynamic capacity of the trac
ow routes, need not be restricted in static capacity. However, rapid
ow routes that enable drivers to reach any part of the layout within
ve-minutes should be incorporated.
Static considerations
31
Parking category 4
Tidal ow layouts have at least two peak vehicle movements per day. If
it can be anticipated that the peak rates will not exceed 25% of the car
parks capacity over a 15-minute period, the Cats 1 and 2 gures can be
used.
Where layouts with circulation eciencies less than 60% are considered, they can be compared with the 60% recommendations and
their capacities reduced proportionally.
32
Circulation design
6.1 Discussion
Parking layouts are either inhibited or uninhibited depending on the

inuence that other disciplines have upon them. An inhibited layout
is where parking has to t between a predetermined disposition of
vertical services and structure, such as the basement car park of an
oce building. In such situations, designers have little opportunity to
develop a fully eective layout and must do the best that they can.
An uninhibited layout is one where the designer has a clean slate
on which to work; where the only limiting factors are those of static
capacity and the dimensional restrictions imposed by the site. The
layouts described in Chapter 7 are of this type.
Surface car parks requiring a high static capacity will generally
follow the tenets contained in Chapter 3, modied as necessary to
follow the contours of the site and other geographical features. Such
layouts are invariably one-o designs and it is impractical to provide
examples other than as general recommendations.
6.2 How many

levels?
There is no technical limit to the number of suspended levels a structured

car park can have, but it is generally accepted that six is a reasonable
maximum for it to be freely accepted by the motoring public. Factors,
such as the intensity of demand, availability of a suitable site and,
of course, requirements of the relevant planning authority will also
inuence this decision.
In the USA car parks have been constructed with more than 12
parking levels (see Fig. 6.1), although, on average, the number of
oors in most buildings is not dissimilar to UK practice; there are no
xed rules in this matter and much depends on public demand, the
skill of the designer and the tolerance of the motorist.
6.3 Roof
considerations
Most car parks in the UK are open to the elements. Roong over the
top parking deck occurs in only a relatively few cases. There are
arguments for and against protecting the top deck with a lightweight
roof.
.
A waterproof membrane on an exposed top deck will require

substantial renewal at least three times during a projected life of
60 years. It will also require expenditure on maintenance from time
to time.
A lightweight roof over a top parking deck will cost about three times
more than that for a single application of a waterproof membrane
and, without attracting signicant maintenance costs, should last
the life of the building.
An open deck building can be constructed, initially, at a lower cost
than a roofed-over car park and if the dierence was invested, over
a projected life of some 60 years, the overall costs will not be dissimilar.
Where the overall height is limited and the static capacity needs to be
as high as possible, it makes sense to utilise all of the available building
height for parking and construct an open top parking deck. If
inclement winter weather eliminates roof parking for a time, it will
still have the static capacity of a roofed-over car park in that particular
location.
33
Fig. 6.1 A 12-storey car

park in New Orleans
.
6.4 Circulation
eciency
Where it is reasonable to construct a lightweight roof without

reducing static capacity, the advantages are that the building remains
dry at all times; the top deck parking is not weather sensitive, protection from the summer sun is provided and long-term maintenance
costs are reduced, if not eliminated altogether. The building is also
less prone to structural deterioration and will have an enhanced
market value.
6.4.1 Discussion
In some car parks, the circulation design enables most or all of the stalls
to be searched with just one circuit of the aisles and access-ways. In
other car parks, however, aisles must be driven through more than
once to achieve a similar result. It is a factor worthy of consideration
and aects dynamic eciency, as well as parking times, especially in
large-capacity, multi-bin layouts. It is a complex problem to solve
precisely since much depends upon whether the car park is empty
and lling, full and searching or full and emptying. The use of
variable message signs also aects circulation eciency, since they
enable drivers to by-pass aisles that are full and drive more eectively
to an available stall.
The object is not one of precise assessment but rather one of establishing the relative circulation eciency for one layout and comparing
it with that for another. Provided that both are assessed in the same
way, comparisons can be made without undue complexity.
6.4.2 Shortest travel distance
The shortest travel distance possible, to pass stalls located on each side
of a trac aisle, is 2.400/2 1.200 m per stall and can be equated to a
circulation eciency of 100%. It can only be achieved in a single-bin
facility where motorists enter at one end and exit at the other. Where
cross-ramps and access-ways are used to complete the circulation in
multi-bin layouts, the circulation eciency will be reduced and will
vary dependent upon the chosen layout design.
6.4.3 Examples of circulation eciency

Example 1
Reference to the SLD 1 layout on page 44 shows that all 96 of the stalls
on each deck, plus getting to the next upper storey, can be achieved with
a single circuit consisting of four right-angled turns. Measuring along
the centre of the aisles and access-ways the travel distance is:
52 2.400 m 132.800 m
2 15.600 m 31.200 m
Total distance 164.000 m
Divided by the number of stalls the travel distance per stall is 1.700 m
producing a circulation eciency of 1.200/1.700 70%.
Example 2
Reference to the FIR 1 layout on page 104 shows that three circulation
options are available.
Option 1
A single circuit, with four right-angled turns and climbing to the upper
deck level, passes 58 stalls out of the 108 on each deck. It produces a
circulation eciency of 53% for the stalls passed and is only really
suitable for getting quickly to the upper parking levels. Even so, that
route is not very rapid.
Option 2
To include the stalls on the central aisle will increase the number to 82,
but entails driving twice through one of the aisles and making eight
right-angled turns. The eciency of this route is 43%.
Option 3
To cover all of the stalls on each deck, before driving up to the next
level, involves passing twice through one aisle, three times through
another and making 12 right-angled turns. The eciency reduces to
33%.
It can be seen that motorists can spend up to twice the time searching
for an available stall in the FIR 1 type layout than in an SLD 1 layout.
Poor circulation eciency is a major factor in creating trac congestion and one of the main reasons why some car parks are less popular
than others.
6.5 Parking
times
Circulation design
6.5.1 Discussion
Five minutes is about the maximum time that an average driver is
willing to spend searching for a stall in which to park, beyond which
dissatisfaction and frustration with the building begin to develop.
They can be a factor in deciding a motorists future parking destination.
There are reports of car lights left on, boot lids left open, even drivers
who have left their car doors open with the engine still running in their
panic not to miss an appointment or catch a plane or a train. Poor
circulation eciency and the frustration it causes can be a contributory
factor in creating such situations.
The decision whether to alter the layout or incorporate rapid inow
routes can be inuenced by an assessment of the time it takes to search
all of the stalls. In the absence of more accurate information it
is normal practice to assume that the peak ow rate in either direction
will be 25% of the static capacity in any 15-minute period. This rate can
be applied, within reason, to most single- and multi-level parking
layouts.
35
The notional inow capacity of an aisle with 2.400 m-wide stalls is

860 vph. This produces an average speed just under 6 mph (10 kph) or
3.000 m per second. However, the time spent on access-ways and
ramps connecting adjacent aisles slows the average stall searching
time to about 2.400 m per second. It is not a precise gure and so
does not justify recalculation for minor dierences created by varying
stall widths. It should be used simply to establish the approximate
times it takes to reach various parts of a car park and to compare the
relative eciencies of dierent circulation layouts.
Application of the ve-minute recommendation limits simple follow
my leader layouts, with circulation eciencies better than 60%, to a
maximum of about 600 spaces and correspondingly smaller capacities
for less ecient layouts. If, however, a speed limit of 5 mph is adopted
for any particular building, the vph gure should be reduced to, about,
360 spaces.
In many large capacity layouts, mainly of the SLD and VCM series,
rapid exit routes form part of the basic design, but rapid inow routes
can also be incorporated. Passing as few as 24 stalls for each storey
height, the introduction of such routes enables drivers to by-pass congested lower decks and reach the emptier upper parking levels without
exceeding the preferred maximum search time.
36
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 constant pressures for nancial 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 signicantly defective in circulation design, static and dynamic eciency. If designers are to gain
condence 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 aected 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 (oneway ow), 7.000 m (two-way ow) 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

There are many existing car parks where, in retrospect, it can be seen
features
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 acceptable 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
rst, might look like a clever idea to a designer could well end up as a
37
motorists nightmare. In a structured car park the layout should endeavour 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 trac aisle and
searching for the rst available space, it is disconcerting and potentially
dangerous to nd a car suddenly appearing at right angles from behind
a parked vehicle. The driver of this car may also be concentrating on
nding 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 eect upon circulation eciency in
one-way-ow systems. Provided that the route is of an adequate width
it matters little in which direction the trac is made to ow. It has been
said that left-turning circuits are not as popular in one-way-ow systems 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-ow ramp occurs in a one-way-ow layout it is
preferable to have a left-turning circuit whereby trac drives on the
correct side of the ramp.
When entering a trac aisle from a right-turning ramp, a front-seat
passenger could obscure trac approaching from the left, but when
trac approaches from the right the drivers 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
ow by themselves, but it is useful to appreciate that they occur when
considering the ow direction.
7.3.5 Dead ends (culs-de-sac)
When viewing down a dead-end aisle, it is dicult 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

right-angled parking:
a comparison
38
Members of the public and some clients, ask why angled parking is not
used more frequently in the UK. They point out that it is popular in the
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 towncentre 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.
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 dierence 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 representing a reduction of 1.5%.
The trac 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 mwide 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 question that can only be answered by designers and clients, individually.
Widening the trac aisles in the 708 car park will increase construction 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
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 trac
ow 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
Fig. 7.2 An SLD-type 2 layout
42
7.5 Split-level decks

(SLDs)
Circulation layouts
Split-level decks (SLDs) are the most popular circulation layouts in the
UK for multi-level urban car parks. They can be simple to drive
around, and generally have a good static and dynamic eciency (see
Fig. 7.2). The combination of half storey-height internal ramps and
at bins enables some types to be constructed down to ten stall
widths in length for two-bin layouts and eight stall widths for multibin layouts while still retaining a complete vehicle circulation and recirculation capability. In large-capacity facilities, rapid inow and
outow routes can occur. They must, however, be introduced at the
design stage if expensive alteration costs are to be avoided. They can
be used with any angle of parking, although only right-angled parking
can, sensibly, be used in conjunction with a two-way-ow circulation
pattern. Normally the decks are constructed level and only incorporate
drainage falls, in which case storey heights are dictated by the slope and
length of the cross-ramps.
When part, or all, of a trac aisle is made to slope along its length,
storey heights can be increased and/or the gradient of the ramps can be
reduced. In this manner, a split-level layout can be gradually modied
to become another circulation type.
The point at which the transition from one type to another occurs
can be assumed to be where the slope of the cross-ramps reduces to
5% (1 in 20) enabling them to conform to the requirements of the Building Regulations for pedestrian use (K1 Chapter 2 clause 2.1).
Historically, because of their construction simplicity, circulation
eciency and ability to be constructed on small sites, an inherent
defect caused by poor access for pedestrians between split levels has
tended to be ignored. If they needed to cross over to an adjacent bin,
pedestrians were expected to mingle with trac on the steep vehicle
ramps. Sometimes pathways were introduced down the ramp sides
but, mostly, pedestrian considerations were ignored in the search to
produce the most economical building in a highly competitive market.
Gradually, car park operators and designers began to rectify this
defect by introducing dedicated pedestrian ramps and/or stairs between
the split levels. This, however, reduced static eciency and increased
costs. It was not a statutory requirement, however, and in a competitive
market many car parks continued to be constructed without the benet
of this improvement.
Current regulations relating to the maximum allowable gradient for
pedestrian access between adjacent bins, the desire for enhanced security, supervision across the decks and the development of other, superior,
layout types has rendered the split-level layout a less attractive proposition than it has been in the past.
43
SLD 1 One-way trac ow with an included rapid outow route
SLD 1 One-way ow with an included rapid outow route
44
Advantages
. All of the stalls are located on the main inow route.
. Rapid outow route.
. All turns are in the same direction with no single turn greater than
908.
. Simple recirculation capability.
Disadvantages
Both trac ows combine on the outow route, a condition that can
result in trac congestion in busy car parks.
. Seven stalls per storey will be lost if a 5% pedestrian access ramp with
steps is constructed between the split levels (see Fig. 8.2).
.
Comments
The inow circulation is highly ecient. All of the stalls can be passed
with just four right-angled turns per storey. However, trac waiting
to exit the car park must not be allowed to block the inow route; in
that event the car park will be unable to continue operating.
. Large-capacity layouts for Cats 1 and 2 use have been noted where
stalls on the outer side of the outow route, on the lower deck
levels, have been omitted in order to create an uncongested route
for the inow trac resulting in a reduction of at least 12 spaces
on each split level.
. Static eciency is good with only 16 stall spaces being required to
complete the circulation routes.
. The proximity of the up-coming inow ramp to the down-going
outow ramp should not be closer than two stall widths if conict
between drivers is to be avoided.
. The layout should operate satisfactorily for all parking categories up to
a maximum of, about, 400 stalls. Above that number designers should
become more cautious about using it for Cats 1 and 2 buildings.
. In large-capacity car parks, dynamic eciency could be increased
substantially if a rapid inow route was incorporated that enabled
motorists to bypass the outow route, especially on the lower
parking levels.
. If the aisle lengths are not too long, locating the main stair/lift tower
at one end could eliminate the need for an internal pedestrian ramp.
This would render it more ecient, cheaper to construct and make a
signicant improvement to its market value.
. If circumstances change, the future market value of a Cat. 3 or 4 car
park could depend upon its ability to operate in a dierent parking
category.
.
Static eciency
As drawn, the number of stalls is 96 and the static eciency, at
21.840 m2 per car space, can be deemed, Good.
Other layouts
. For large-capacity layouts, an SLD 2 layout is dynamically superior.
It will also be statically superior if a by-pass outow route has to be
installed.
. A VCM 1 is as dynamically ecient as the SLD 2 layout and in not
requiring a pedestrian ramp it is statically superior. The reduction
of the split-level condition, also, renders it more user friendly and
economical to construct.
Circulation layouts
45
SLD 2 One-way trac ow with an excluded rapid outow route
SLD 2 One-way-ow with an excluded rapid outow route (2 four stalls wide; 2A three stalls wide)
46
Advantages
908.
. The inow and outow routes are separated, reducing the possibility
of trac congestion in busy car parks.
. The internal ramps can be of the combined type (SLD 2A) in smaller
capacity or non-intensive-use car parks, thereby improving static
eciency.
Disadvantages
Seven stalls per deck will be lost if a pedestrian ramp access with steps
is required between split levels.
Comments
As drawn, the inow circuit enables 80% of the stalls to be searched
eciently, with just four right-angled turns. Many of the remaining
stalls can be seen and judgements made on whether to search on
the outow circuit. In practice, there is little extra search distance
driven when compared with a similar capacity SLD 1 layout.
. The separation of the two ow routes more than justies any slight
reduction in circulation eciency, especially when used in Cats 1
and 2 layouts of a greater capacity than 400 stalls.
. As the static capacity increases, the separated outow route reduces
the possibility of trac congestion on the lower levels and so its
relative eciency improves.
. The introduction of a rapid inow route in large-capacity Cats 1 or 2
layouts enables motorists to bypass full or congested lower oors and
make their way, rapidly, to emptier upper parking levels.
. The layout is suitable for all parking categories where the capacity of
the lowest aisle on the outow route is not exceeded.
. For Cats 1 and 2 uses, the recommended maximum stall capacity,
when incorporating a rapid inow route, is in the order of 1100
spaces.
. Static eciency is good with only 16 stall spaces per deck used to
complete the circulation route.
. For car parks of less than, say, 500 spaces and without intensive
utilisation, a combined ramp can be considered, as shown in SLD
2A. This will improve static eciency by two stalls per storey.
. Given the choice of layout, two-bin width layouts will always be
more ecient than those with three or more bins.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. An SLD1 layout has a similar eciency when used in smaller capacity car parks.
. A VCM 1 layout is dynamically similar and the need for a dedicated
pedestrian ramp between the split levels is eliminated. The at across
deck areas also renders them more user friendly and economical to
construct.
Circulation layouts
47
SLD 3 One-way-ow with side-by-side ramps (scissors type)
SLD 3 One-way-ow with side-by-side ramps (scissors type)
48
Advantages
. Can be used in layouts down to 24.000 m in length.
. All turns are in the same direction with no single turn greater than 908.
. Simple recirculation and recirculation capability.
Disadvantages
The outow route passes all of the stalls.
. The use of narrow (3.300 m) width ramps reduces dynamic eciency
and they are not popular with motorists.
. Potential conict between drivers when they arrive, side by side, from
dierent levels and turn in the same direction.
. Pedestrian access requirements between split levels will reduce static
capacity and, on the smaller layouts, may be dicult to incorporate
(see SLD 1).
.
Comments
The circulation eciency is high. All of the stalls on the inow route
can be passed with just four right-angled turns. Unfortunately, it is
also the outow route and at busy times trac congestion can
occur as the inow and outow trac combines.
. As shown, only 12 stall spaces per deck are needed to complete the
circulation route. This is highly ecient and can only be bettered
by an SD 5 layout.
. When constructed in pairs, between three stall widths, side-by-side
ramps are below 3.300 m in width between faces of structure. This
is less than the minimum entry width recommended for crossramps (see Section 3.6.10).
. Mainly suitable for private parking (sta and hotel type), where the
available site area is small and the need to squeeze in as many spaces
as possible is great.
. Unless drivers use the full width of the trac aisles to eect their turn
into the narrow ramps they risk scraping their vehicles on the sidewalls (see Fig. 3.15 and Section 3.6.12).
. Although many car parks in the 1960s and 1970s were constructed
with these narrow ramp widths, they are unpopular, especially with
drivers of larger-type vehicles, and cannot be recommended for use
by the general public.
. In small facilities they could be justied on the grounds of improving
static capacity, but in such cases it is important not to obstruct lateral
vision as drivers approach the ramp ends.
.
Static eciency
Increasing the deck length to 28 stalls, for comparison purposes, produces an area per car space of 21.060 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.
. As the length reduces so the area requirements increase. At its
shortest length (24.000 m), the area per car space becomes 26.750 m2 .
.
Other layouts
An SLD 6 or a VCM 3 is to be preferred provided that the increased
aisle width can be tolerated but there is no alternative layout incorporating a one-way trac ow that can be constructed under an
overall length of 36.000 m (15 stall widths).
Circulation layouts
49
SLD 4 Combined one-way-ows, three bins or more wide
SLD 4 Combined one-way-ows, three bins or more wide
50
Advantages
. Simple circulation and recirculation capability.
. Good static eciency using only 16 stall spaces to complete the
circulation route.
Disadvantages
66% of the stalls have to be passed on the outow route (no rapid exit
route).
. Both ow routes combine on the central aisle, a condition that could
result in trac congestion at busy times.
. At one end, when turning onto the central aisle, drivers confront each
other.
. A minimum of seven stalls will be lost at each of the two split levels if
a pedestrian ramp access is required between adjacent bins.
.
Comments
Stall searching on the inow circuit passes 66% of the stalls. To pass
all of the spaces on each storey and reach the next deck above
involves driving once through aisle 1, three times through aisle 2
and twice through aisle 3.
. The circulation eciency of this search pattern is quite poor.
. The alternative of climbing all the way up on the inow circuit and
returning back down on the outow circuit is more ecient but
still involves driving through the central aisle twice per storey. It is
not a search pattern that normally appeals to motorists.
. The introduction of variable message signs, showing the availability
of stalls on the outow aisle, will reduce the search pattern to a simple
rectangle with four turns to the right for each storey.
. At the entry to the central aisle, where the inow and outow routes
confront each other, the situation can be improved by introducing a
peninsula, shaped to prevent motorists from driving straight across
to the other ramp.
.
Static eciency
A deck length of 28 stall widths produces an area per car space of
20.700 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.
Other layouts
. An SD 5 or an FSD 3 or 4 layout that is at across the decks for
pedestrians at each end has similar static eciencies, provided that
there is no need for internally located cross-deck pedestrian access.
. A three-bin VCM 1 eliminates most of the split-level condition and
the need for pedestrian ramps, thereby osetting the greater
number of stall spaces needed for circulation purposes. The at
deck areas are easier to supervise and more user friendly.
Circulation layouts
51
SLD 5 Combined one- and two-way-ows, three bins or more wide
SLD 5 Combined one- and two-way-ows, three bins or more wide
52
Advantages
. Outow and inow routes circulate in the same direction.
Disadvantages
66% of stalls are passed on the outow route.
. The central aisle requires widening to accommodate two-way ow
trac.
. Seven stalls will be lost at each split level if pedestrian ramp access
between split levels is required.
.
Comments
Stall searching on the inow circuit passes 66% of the stalls. To pass
all of the spaces on each storey and reach the next deck above
involves driving twice through aisle 1.
. This is a superior circulation pattern to the SLD 4 layout although
aisle 2, with two-way ow, is wider.
. The alternative of climbing all the way up on the inow circuit and
returning back down on the outow circuit is no more ecient since
it still involves driving through the central aisle twice per storey. It is
not a search pattern that normally appeals to motorists.
. In similar fashion to the SLD 4 layout, circulation eciency will be
enhanced by the introduction of variable message signs.
. The two-way trac ow eliminates confrontation between drivers
arriving on the central aisle and also reduces the possibility of trac
congestion.
. Pedestrian access between the split levels is a problem and if required
will reduce static capacity by 14 stalls per storey height.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. An SD 5 or an FSD 2 or 3 layout embodying at access at each end
for pedestrians has similar static eciencies and could eliminate the
need for a pedestrian ramp.
. Although a three-bin VCM 1 would eliminate the need for pedestrian
ramps, tting it onto a sloping site may cause problems of access and
egress.
Circulation layouts
53
54
Advantages
. Can be used in layouts down to 24.000 m in length (10 stall widths).
. All stalls are located directly o the main inow route.
Disadvantages
All stalls are located directly o the outow route.
. Two-way trac-ow layouts are less ecient, statically and dynamically, when compared with one-way-ow layouts.
. Recirculation is not a natural feature of two-way-ow layouts.
. If pedestrian access is required between split levels, it will reduce
static capacity.
.
Comments
This is a two-way-ow variation on an SLD 3 layout but without the
potential driver conict. The same number of stall spaces (12) is used
to complete the circulation route.
. It is more suitable for Cat. 3 or 4 uses, especially tidal, where the full
width of the two-way-ow ramp can be used for one-way-ow trac
(a.m. and p.m.) and light two-way-ow trac during the day.
. For Cat. 4-type layouts, or where very light usage is anticipated, the
recommended minimum width of 7.000 m can be reduced, provided
that the client agrees with the reduction in standards. Consideration,
however, should be given to possible future changes in the layouts
parking category.
. It is desirable to eliminate obstructions to lateral vision at the top and
bottom of the ramps if maximum dynamic eciency is to be
achieved.
. In Cat. 4 layouts, especially where the trac ows are mainly tidal,
combined ramps are superior in dynamic eciency when compared
with scissors-type (SLD 3) ramp layouts.
. Suitable for all parking categories up to, about, 300 spaces and somewhat larger car parks only with caution. The lack of a rapid outow
route and the two-way-ow preclude this layout from serious consideration for large-capacity Cats 1 and 2 car parks.
.
Static eciency
Increasing the deck length to 28 stalls for comparison purposes
produces an area per car space of 21.060 m2 . This can be deemed,
Good.
. As the length reduces so the area requirements increase. At its
shortest length (24.000 m), the area per vehicle space becomes
26.750 m2 .
.
Other layouts
A VCM 3 layout is superior in dynamic eciency and user-friendly
features.
. Above a length of 43.200 m, an SD 1 layout can also be considered.
.
Circulation layouts
55
SLD 7 One-way-ow with an included contra-ow rapid exit route
SLD 7 One-way-ow with an included contra-ow rapid exit route
56
Advantages
. All stalls are passed on the main inow route.
. Good recirculation capability.
Disadvantages
Right and left turns are required with some small reduction in
dynamic eciency when compared with one-way-ow layouts.
. Seven stalls per deck will be lost if pedestrian ramp access is required
between the split levels.
. Confrontation between drivers can occur at the entrance to the
internal outow ramp.
.
Comments
This is, in eect, a minimum length SLD 6 layout with a one-wayow split-level extension.
. The inow circuit passes all of the stalls with four right-angled turns
per storey, but only the rapid contra-ow circuit has a combined
trac ow. This provides it with an improved dynamic and static
eciency when compared with a similar length SD 6 layout.
. A penalty, however, is that an extra two stalls per storey are required
to complete the circulation route and there will also be a driver
conict point where left and right turns occur at the entry into the
rapid exit ramp.
. The one-way-ow section can be constructed 2.000 m narrower than
a two-way-ow deck, with a consequent reduction in construction
costs.
. It is not a layout that has been used often, but could help if the
designer was presented with a restricted site width and the main
entry/exit was located at the end of the access road.
. Give way signs, where trac joins the rapid outow route, reduce
the problem of driver confrontation but cannot solve the problem
altogether.
. This layout is suited to all parking categories up to a maximum of,
say, 400 spaces. Larger car parks should be of the Cat. 3 or 4
types, where intensive ow rates occur only in one direction at any
particular time.
.
Static eciency
. At its shortest length it reverts to an SLD 6 layout.
.
Other layouts
A VCM 4 layout has a similar circulation pattern but without the
split level, the central vehicle ramp and the need for a dedicated
pedestrian ramp.
. Provided that the location of the main entry/exit is acceptable, above
a length of 36.000 m an SLD 2 or a VCM 1 or 2 layout could be used
to better eect.
.
Circulation layouts
57
Fig. 7.3 An SD5 layout
58
7.6 Sloping parking

decks (SDs)
Sloping parking decks (SDs) (see Fig. 7.3) have parking aisles that slope
along their length, the cross-ramps between adjacent bins can be laid
at and become access-ways for both vehicles and pedestrians. The
parking gradient must not exceed 5% (1 in 20). Vehicles can be
parked on steeper sideways slopes but the requirements of BS
8300:8.2.2, for pedestrians must be observed in the UK.
It should also be appreciated that a limiting criterion, especially for
public car parks, is not the eect that sideways slopes have on parked
cars, but the eect of gravity on the opening and closing of the
doors. There are, however, drawbacks that render this type of layout
less attractive than a split-level car park in other respects. They are:
.
Rapid inow and outow routes that enable motorists to bypass full
or congested levels are not a practical proposition.
Pedestrian access between adjacent decks, other than at the accessways, is not a practical proposition.
Flat parking areas for disabled drivers must be provided that could
extend the minimum length of the building.
Sloping parking decks are a popular format in the south and west of
the USA, where they are used extensively for sta parking, invariably
linked to an adjacent oce block.
Some examples of the SD 1-type layout occur in the UK, but very few
compared with split-level layouts. It is, however, worthy of note that
both SD 3 and WPD1 circulation patterns are the same.
These layouts can be statically ecient and capable of oor areas per
car space of 21 m2 , or even less in large-capacity facilities.
An SD 7 layout has the best static eciency of any car park type with
two or more bins.
Circulation layouts
59
SD 1 Single helix with two-way-ow
SD 1 Single helix with two-way-ow
60
Advantages
. Only 12 stall spaces per deck are required to complete the circulation
route.
. Flat access for pedestrians, between adjacent bins, at each end.
. The sloping decks provide an unmistakable indication of the direction of trac ow: inow is upwards and outow is downwards
(reversed in underground facilities).
. Storey heights can be varied almost innitely by means of the deck
length and slope.
Disadvantages
No rapid outow route.
. Two-way trac ows are less ecient, both statically and dynamically, than one-way-ow layouts.
. The maximum sideways parking slope of 5% results in a minimum
length overall, of 43.200 m (18 stall widths) for a 2.900 m storey
height.
. There is no natural recirculation capability. Drivers must turn
through 1808 on the aisles, or use a turning head that is usually
located at the end of the aisle furthest from the entrance.
. Pedestrian access between adjacent bins can only be made at each
end.
.
Comments
At busy times, the two-way-ow circulation route, with vehicles
entering and leaving stalls from both sides of the aisle, can result in
a trac congested situation developing quite rapidly, especially at
the lower levels of a large-capacity building.
. Although vehicles can safely park on much steeper sideways slopes
than 5%, it is the eect of opening car doors against gravity that
must be considered for weaker members of the parking public.
. BS 8300 stipulates that when the going is in excess of 10.000 m, the
maximum slope for pedestrians must not exceed 5%.
. This is a sloping deck version of an SLD 6 layout, but has at access
for pedestrians between adjacent bins each end.
. Suitable for all category facilities up to 300 spaces capacity approximately and somewhat larger Cats 3 and 4 car parks with caution. The
lack of a rapid outow route and the two-way-ow precludes this
layout from serious consideration for large-capacity public facilities.
.
Static eciency
For comparison purposes, a deck length of 28 stall widths produces
an area per car space of 22.300 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.
. At its shortest length (18 stall widths) the area per car space increases
to 23.900 m2 .
.
Other layouts
An SLD 6 has a similar static eciency but lacks the pedestrian
access between adjacent bins at each end.
. A VCM 3 layout has a superior dynamic eciency and user-friendly
features.
. A VCM 4 layout is similar in dynamic eciency and static capacity,
but is superior in user-friendly features.
.
Circulation layouts
61
SD 2 Single helix with one-way-ow and a rapid outow route
SD 2 Single helix with one-way-ow and a rapid outow route
62
Advantages
. Twelve stalls per storey height are used to complete the circulation
route.
. Flat access for pedestrians across the deck at each end.
. Full recirculation capability.
Disadvantages
Pedestrian access is limited to the ends of the parking decks.
. Including the ramp, a minimum site length of 50.000 m, approximately, will be required.
.
Comments
The smaller dimensions required for one-way-ow parking ramps
enables savings of 161 m2 per storey to be made when compared
with the featured SD 1 layout. The rapid outow ramp has an area
of 184 m2 per storey height and when the layout is extended to a
length of 52.8 m, the parking area savings will balance the increase
in ramp area. It also has the added benet of a separated rapid
outow route and an ability to re-circulate throughout all of the
parking decks.
. Although shown with a three-slope outow circuit, any of the
featured HER series ramps can be used.
. ER series ramps can also be used although they will be more expensive to construct and will take up a larger site area.
. Recommended for all parking categories up to about 600 spaces,
above which the lack of a rapid inow route restricts its ecient
use to Cat. 3 and 4 layouts. The upper limit is dependent upon the
maximum trac-ow rate anticipated on the lowest level of the
outow ramp.
.
Static eciency
A deck length of 28.5 stall widths (68.400 m) produces an area per car
space of 22.070 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.
Other layouts
. Although dynamically superior to an SD 1 layout for all car park
capacities, it is statically inferior in its utilisation of the site area.
An SD 1 layout over the site length will contain more stalls.
. Constructing the ramp as the outow route for a VCM layout, with
parking on each side, can oset the static inferiority. But then
why not go all of the way and construct an SLD- or VCM-type
layout?
Circulation layouts
63
SD 3 Double helix, end connected with one-way-ow on the central access-way
SD 3 Double helix, end connected with one-way-ow on the central access-way
64
Advantages
. Flat access-ways between adjacent bins for vehicles and pedestrians,
in the middle and at each end.
. Simple circulation and recirculation capability. The inow route
slopes upwards and the outow route slopes downwards.
slope and length.
Disadvantages
50% of the stalls are located on the outow route.
. If intended for large-capacity Cat. 1 or 2 use, the possibility of confrontation between inow and outow trac entering the central
access-way will require careful consideration.
. Separating the trac by widening the central access-way reduces the
possibility of confrontation on entry but can create vehicle conict
points at the exit.
. No rapid inow or outow route capability.
. Requires a minimum building length of 72.000 m (30 stall widths).
.
Comments
This is a popular layout in parts of the USA where it is often linked to
an adjacent oce block and used for sta parking. In such buildings
the trac ows are mainly tidal and the use of the central accessway for both inow and outow trac is not an important factor.
. When proposed for Cat. 1 or 2 parking the circulation pattern is not
good. Searching all of the spaces on the way up involves driving twice
through the inow route on each parking level in order to recommence the search on the oor above.
. At busy times in Cats 1 and 2 layouts, the doubling of the driving
distance on the inow route will extend parking times and become
a cause of trac congestion.
. The introduction of a variable message sign system on each deck level
will eliminate the need for motorists to drive unnecessarily through
the outow route and also remove the need to double the driving
distance on the inow route.
. Slopes for pedestrians and sideways parking vehicles should not
exceed 5%.
. Dependent upon parking capacity and category of use, 12 to 16 stall
spaces per deck are used to complete the circulation route.
. The layout has the inow and outow trac combining on the central
access-way and is best suited where the main vehicle entry and exit
points are located on opposite sides of the central access-way.
.
Static eciency
The minimum deck length of 31 stall widths produces an area per car
Other layouts
. VCM 1 and 2, incorporating rapid outow routes and good crossdeck pedestrian access are more acceptable layouts for Cats 1 and 2
use.
. SLD 2 is also worth considering, provided that pedestrian access
between adjacent bins is not a necessary design feature.
Circulation layouts
65
SD 4 Double helix, end connected with two-way-ow on the central access-way
SD 4 Double helix, end connected with two-way-ow on the central access-way
66
Advantages
. Flat access-ways between adjacent bins for vehicles and pedestrians,
in the middle and at each end.
. Storey heights can be varied almost innitely by means of the sloping
deck.
Disadvantages
Half of the stalls are located on the outow route.
. Requires a minimum building length of 76.800 m (32 stall widths).
.
Comments
A variation on the SD 2 layout, the trac circulation incorporates
908 turns to the left with a two-way trac ow on the central aisle.
With this layout, the preferred main entry/exit location will be on
one side of the central aisle.
. The circulation route is somewhat simpler than SD 3. Figure-of-eight
turns and confrontation are avoided but in other respects it remains
the same, with only 50% of the stalls located on the inow route.
towards the end of the inow ramp, just before the left turn onto
the central access-way, will eliminate the need for motorists to,
fruitlessly, drive around the outow route and render the search
for parking space much more ecient.
. Sixteen stall spaces per deck are used to complete the circulation
route. In suitable conditions this can be reduced to 14 by making
the central access-way three stalls wide.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. VCM 1 and 2, with rapid inow and outow routes and good crossdeck pedestrian access are more acceptable for Cats 1 and 2 use.
. SLD 2 is also worthy of consideration, provided that pedestrian
access between adjacent bins is not a necessary design feature.
. SD 3, 4 and 5 layouts have similar characteristics. They are all
capable of being used for Cat. 4 purposes with ow reversal where
both routes are used for inbound trac in the mornings and outbound trac in the afternoons.
. SD 3 and 4 layouts incorporate superior recirculation capabilities
and SD 5 has a superior static eciency.
Circulation layouts
67
SD 5 Interlocking double helix, with one-way-ows
SD 5 Interlocking double helix, with one-way-ows
68
Advantages
. Only eight stalls per storey height are used to complete the circulation
route.
. Flat access for pedestrians across the deck, at each end.
Disadvantages
No rapid inow or outow route capability.
. No re-circulation capability within the car park.
. Pedestrian access is limited to the ends of the parking decks.
. Cannot be constructed less than 70.000 m in length.
.
Comments
Each complete circuit of 3608 raises two storeys, with the outow
route sandwiched between the decks of the inow route.
. If motorists are not to drive against the trac ow, then regardless of
where they have parked on the inow circuit, upon leaving they must
carry on up to the top deck in order to join the outow circuit and
then drive back down.
. It is, essentially, an SD 3 layout but without the central access-way on
the intermediate deck levels and the ability to change from one ow
route to another.
. The main merit in adopting this layout is its good static eciency that
saves six stalls per deck when compared with an SD 3 layout and
eight stalls per deck when compared with an SD 4 layout.
. A pedestrian walkway between the adjacent decks can be introduced
in the middle of the layout that uses two stalls.
. Variable message sign systems are not appropriate for use with this
layout.
. It cannot be recommended for Cat. 1, 2 or 3 use but, if used as a Cat. 4
car park with tidal ow, the outow route can be reversed in the
mornings and the inow route in the afternoons to make twin
entry and exit locations. If used in this manner, it will be dynamically
and statically more ecient than an SD 1, 2, 3 or 4 layout.
.
Static eciency
space of 20.060 m2 . This can be deemed Very Good.
Other layouts
It cannot be matched by any other two-bin layout for static eciency.
However, for Cats 1, 2 and 3 use, SD 3 and 4 layouts are dynamically
superior, more exible and user friendly.
. If used for Cat. 4 purposes with ow reversal, it will be statically
superior to all other types of car park.
.
Circulation layouts
69
SD 6 Combined helix, side connected with one- and two-way-ows
SD 6 Combined helix, side connected with one- and two-way-ows
70
Advantages
. Flat access for pedestrians between adjacent bins at each end.
. The sloping decks provide an unmistakable indication of the direction of trac ow; inow is up and outow is down.
length and slope.
Disadvantages
No rapid outow route.
. Two-way trac ows are less ecient, both statically and dynamically, than one-way-ow layouts.
. Pedestrian access between adjacent bins is restricted to each end.
. Access between adjacent decks occurs only at the ends of the aisles.
.
Comments
The inow circulation route only passes 66% of the stalls, and the
outow route also passes 66% of the stalls.
. This is a three-bin width version of an SD 1 layout. The central aisle
needs to be widened to accept a two-way trac ow and all turns are
made in the same direction.
. The mixing of trac on the central aisle and the extended outow
circuit renders this layout unsuitable for large capacity Cats 1 and
2 uses.
. Two-way trac ows are dynamically less ecient than one-wayow layouts.
. Searching for stalls on each level involves driving twice through the
external aisle on the inow route: it is inecient and can lead to
unnecessary trac congestion.
. The introduction of a variable message sign system on each deck
level, positioned just before the left turn onto the central accessway, will eliminate the need for motorists to, fruitlessly, drive
around the outow route and render the search for parking space
more ecient.
.
Static eciency
A deck length of 16 stall widths contains 80 stalls and produces an
area per car space of 22.900 m2 . This can be deemed, Average.
Other layouts
. Good static eciency is a strong feature of this layout, but, in most
other respects, an SLD 2, VCM 1 or 2 layout, three bins wide, with
superior dynamic eciency and more user-friendly layout, could be
used to advantage for all categories of use.
Circulation layouts
71
SD 7 and 8 Double helix, side connected, with one-way-ows
SD 7 Double helix, side connected, with one-way-ows
SD 8 Double helix, side connected, with one-way-ows (version of SD 7)
72
Advantages
. Flat access for pedestrians across the deck at each end.
Disadvantages
50% of the stalls are located on the outow route.
. Pedestrian access is limited to the ends of the parking decks.
.
Comments
These are two variations on the same theme. SD 7 is the more
popular layout with two of the four sloping decks side by side, all
of the turns in the same direction, a superior circulation ow and
no vehicle confrontation. SD 8 has been shown merely to emphasise
this superiority.
. The use of 24 stall spaces per deck to complete the circulation route is
quite high when compared with an SD 1 layout that uses only 12. The
orientation of the trac aisles, however, can result in them being
shorter, thereby reducing the travel distance for pedestrians to the
at access-ways at either end of the trac aisles. The multiplicity
of shorter aisles could be of benet to pedestrians in a Cat. 1 or 2
car park.
. Searching for stalls on each level involves driving twice through each
of the external aisles before climbing to an upper level. This is not an
ecient search pattern and can lead to early trac congestion at busy
times.
. An alternative search pattern is to drive directly up to the top parking
level, then transfer to the outow route and continue searching on
the way back down. This is more ecient dynamically, but not one
that the parking public is likely to accept readily.
will eliminate the need for motorists to needlessly drive around the
outow route, thereby improving the circulation eciency.
. SD 7 occurs occasionally, but SD 8 is not known to occur in the UK.
.
Static eciency
A minimum deck length of 16 stall widths contains 88 stalls and
produces an area per car space of 23.040 m2 . This can be deemed,
Average.
Other layouts
Four-bin width versions of SLD 2, VCM 1 and VCM 2 provide
superior layouts on suitably sized sites, especially if considered for
Cat. 1 or 2 purposes.
. If there is room on the site to accommodate HER- or ER-type ramps
then at parking decks will also provide a superior option for largecapacity car parks.
.
Circulation layouts
73
Fig. 7.4 An FSD 5 layout
74
7.7 Combined at
and sloping deck
(FSD) layouts
Circulation layouts
The practical advantage of these layouts (see, for example, Fig. 7.4)
over those featured in the SD series is that the parking decks can be
laid horizontally on three sides of the building in a two-bin conguration and on all four sides of buildings which are three or more bins
wide.
The at elevation feature has possible benets of an architectural
nature in some circumstances.
The at deck elements can incorporate stalls for disabled drivers and
carers.
The length of the deck, raising a complete storey height, renders these
layouts suitable only for buildings of a length greater than about
72.000 m (30 stall widths).
The physical barrier to pedestrians progressing across the decks
limits these layouts to sites where the main point of pedestrian access
occurs at the ends of a trac aisle.
Rapid inow or outow routes are not a practical proposition.
End-connected ow routes require a minimum building length of
128.800 m to operate successfully. They are not considered to be a
viable construction form for UK use and for this reason they have
not been featured.
They are a popular format in the USA, where they are used mainly
for main terminal use and sta-type parking in multiple bin layouts,
linked to large oce buildings.
They are a rare occurrence in the UK.
75
76
Advantages
. Horizontal elevations on three sides.
. All stalls are located directly o the main inow route.
. Flat pedestrian access between adjacent bins at each end.
deck length and slope.
Disadvantages
All stalls are located directly o the main outow route (no rapid exit
route).
. Access between decks is restricted to the ends of the aisles.
. There is no natural recirculation capability. Drivers must turn
through 1808 on the aisles, or use a turning head that is normally
located at the end of the aisle furthest from the entrance.
. A minimum building length of 72.000 m (30 stall widths) is required
to incorporate a 5% parking slope.
. Introducing a 5% pedestrian slope on the end access-ways can reduce
the overall building length by 20.000 m, but in so doing two of the
three at elevations will be eliminated.
. Two-way trac ows are less ecient both statically and dynamically, when compared with one-way-ow layouts.
.
Comments
The circulation pattern is the same as any of the other two-bin
layouts with two-way trac ows. The main dierence with this
layout is in the storey height sloping parking deck on one side, resulting in a minimum building length longer than most others.
. Locating the main stair/lift tower in the middle of one of the ank
walls is to be preferred to reduce walking distances, but an access
ramp between the bins is awkward to construct on a sloping deck
and will lose several parking spaces.
. The most eective location for the main pedestrian stair/lift tower
will to be at either of the two ends, although this will entail
pedestrians walking up to 70 m on a sloping deck to and from their
vehicles.
. The use of 12 stall spaces (or 16 if wider access-ways are used) to complete the circulation route renders it similar in operation to an SLD 6
or SD 1 layout.
. The two-way trac ow and lack of a separated rapid exit route
renders this layout unsuitable for large-capacity Cats 1 and 2 use.
.
Static eciency
A minimum deck length contains 108 stalls and produces an area per
car space of 22.100 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.
Other layouts
. An SLD 6 and an SD 1 are similar in operation and can be constructed to a shorter overall length.
. VCM 3 also has a similar circulation pattern, but the at deck areas
provide improved pedestrian access across the decks.
Circulation layouts
77
FSD 2 Single helix with one-way-ow and a rapid outow route
FSD 2 Single helix with one-way-ow and a rapid outow route
78
Advantages
. Ten stalls are used to complete the circulation circuit.
. Flat access between adjacent bins for pedestrians at each end.
Disadvantages
A pedestrian access ramp between adjacent decks is not a practical
proposition.
. Including the ramp, a minimum site length of 87.000 m, approximately, will be required.
.
Comments
The smaller dimensions required for one-way-ow parking ramps
enables a saving of 224 m2 per storey to be made when compared
with the featured FSD 1 layout.
. The rapid outow ramp has an area of 184.000 m2 per storey,
approximately.
. At its minimum length of 30 stall widths savings of 40.000 m2 per
storey can be achieved with all of the benets of a separated rapid
outow route and an ability to recirculate throughout all of the
decks.
. Although shown with a three-slope outow circuit, any of the
featured HER series can be used.
. ER series ramps can also be used although they will be more expensive to construct and will take up a larger site area.
. Recommended for all parking categories up to about 600 spaces,
where the lack of a rapid inow route restricts its use for Cats 1
and 2 layouts.
. For Cats. 3 and 4, the limit will be dependent upon the maximum
trac ow rate anticipated on the lowest level of the outow ramp.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. Although dynamically superior to an FSD 1 layout for all parking
categories, it is statically inferior in its utilisation of the site area.
An FSD 1 layout over the length, including the ramps, will contain
more cars.
. Constructing the ramp as the outow route for a VCM layout with
parking on each side can oset the static inferiority, but why not
go all of the way and construct a complete VCM-type layout?
Circulation layouts
79
FSD 3 Combined helix, side connected with one- and two-way-ows
FSD 3 Combined helix, side connected with one- and two-way-ows
80
Advantages
. Horizontal elevations to all four sides.
. One-way-ow circulation with all turns in the same direction and
with no single turn greater than 908.
Disadvantages
66% of the stalls are located on both the inow and outow route.
. A minimum building length of 72.000 m is required (30 stall widths).
. Two-way trac ow on the central aisle.
.
Comments
Searching for stalls on each level involves driving twice through the
external aisle on the inow circuit before climbing to an upper
level. This is not an ecient search pattern and can lead to early
trac congestion at busy times.
. The alternative is to drive directly up to the top parking level, then
transfer to the outow route and continue searching on the way
back down. This is, dynamically, more ecient but not one that
the parking public is likely to accept readily.
level, positioned just before the left turn onto the central aisle, will
eliminate the need for motorists to, fruitlessly, drive around the
outow route and render the search for parking space much more
ecient.
. Locating the main pedestrian stair/lift tower in the middle of one of
the ank walls is to be preferred, but constructing two pedestrian
access ramps between the bins will lose some 14 stalls per oor, be
awkward to construct on a sloping deck and be costly.
. The most ecient location for the main pedestrian stair/lift tower
will to be at either of the two ends, although this will entail
pedestrians walking up to 70 m on a sloping deck to and from their
vehicles.
. The use of 16 stall spaces per deck to complete the circulation route
renders it similar in static eciency to an SLD 4 and a FSD 3 layout.
. The lack of a rapid inow or outow route renders it unsuitable for
large capacity Cat. 1 or 2 purposes.
. The main advantage of adopting this layout is the at elevations to all
four sides.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. Apart from the four at elevations, a VCM 1 layout, three bins wide,
with its superior dynamic eciency and user-friendly layout, could
be used to advantage for all categories of use.
. If pedestrian access between bins is not a requirement, an SLD 3
layout could also be considered.
Circulation layouts
81
FSD 4 Combined helix, side connected with one-way-ow
FSD 4 Combined helix, side connected with one-way-ow
82
Advantages
. Although the two outside aisles have been shown sloping with a at
central aisle, it can be reversed, with the outside aisles laid at and a
sloping central aisle (not dissimilar to FSD 2). The trac circulation
remains the same.
Disadvantages
The central aisle is common to both the inow and outow routes.
. Opposing driver conict is possible at the entry to the central aisle.
. A minimum building length of 72.000 m is required (30 stall widths).
.
Comments
The reduced width of the one-way-ow central aisle renders this
layout more economical to construct than an FSD 3 layout (about
2%).
. Searching for stalls, storey by storey, is less ecient than an FSD 3
layout, involving the external aisle on the inow route being driven
through twice, the central aisle, three times (twice on an upper level
and once on the level under) as well as the external aisle on the outow
route. This is double the driving distance required in an SLD 1 layout
and will lead to premature trac congestion at busy times.
transfer to the outow route and continue searching on the way
back down. This is dynamically more ecient, but is not one that
the parking public is likely to accept readily and still requires both
trac ows to merge on the central aisle.
. The introduction of a variable message sign system, positioned at the
far end of the central aisle will eliminate the need for motorists to,
needlessly, drive around the outow route.
. It is almost essential that the main pedestrian stair/lift tower will have
to be located at either of the two ends although this will entail some
pedestrians walking more than 80 m on a sloping deck to and from
their vehicles.
. The use of 16 stall spaces per deck to complete the circulation route
renders it similar in operation to an SLD 5 or FSD 3 layout.
large-capacity Cat. 1 or 2 purposes.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. Good static eciency is a strong feature of this layout, but, in all
other respects, a VCM 1 layout, three bins wide, with its superior
dynamic eciency and user-friendly layout, could be used to advantage for all categories of use.
. If pedestrian access between bins is not a problem, an SLD 5 layout
could also be considered.
Circulation layouts
83
84
Advantages
. All turns are made in the same direction.
Disadvantages
No rapid inow or outow route capability.
. Twenty-four stall spaces per deck are used to complete the circulation
route.
. Pedestrian access ramps between adjacent decks are not a practical
proposition.
.
Comments
Searching all of the spaces, storey by storey, involves driving three
times on the external inow aisle, twice on the internal inow aisle,
once on the internal outow aisle and twice on the external outow
aisle. This produces low-circulation eciency and can be a direct
cause of trac congestion at busy times.
. Introducing a left turn at the bottom of the outow circuit on each
level can create a short cut, eliminating two of the legs, but this
uses four stalls, reducing static eciency.
transfer to the outow route and come back down again. This is
more ecient, dynamically, but not one that the parking public is
likely to accept readily.
. The introduction of a variable message sign system on each deck level,
positioned just before the left turn onto the central aisle, will eliminate
the need for motorists to, fruitlessly, drive around the outow route
and renders the search for parking space more ecient.
the ank walls is to be preferred but, as a pedestrian access ramp
between adjacent bins is not a practical proposition, it will entail
those drivers who park in the far bin walking to the ends of the
aisles, crossing on the access-ways and returning to the middle.
This will not be popular with the parking public.
. There are few examples in the UK, but versions do occur in the USA,
some with 708-angled parking and used mainly for sta- and airporttype parking.
Cat. 1 or 2 purposes.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. Four-bin versions of SLD 3, or VCM 1 or 2 with their superior
dynamic eciency and user-friendly layouts, could be used to advantage for all categories of use.
. If there is room on the site to accommodate external ramps, without a
reduction in static capacity, then at deck layouts could also provide
a superior solution.
. FSD 5 and 6 have similar characteristics.
Circulation layouts
85
FSD 6 and 7 Double helix, side connected with one-way trac ows
FSD 6 Double helix, side connected with one-way-ows (version of FSD 5)
FSD 7 Double helix, side connected with one-way-ows (version of FSD 5)
86
Circulation layouts
These are versions of the FSD 4 layout, obtained by sloping the decks
in dierent ways. The circulation pattern is poor without the use of
variable message sign systems and they embody no advantages or
disadvantages. They are shown merely to indicate the circulation
variations that can be obtained with multi-bin layouts.
87
FSD 8 Single helix with one-way-ow and an internal ramp
FSD 8 Single helix with one-way-ow and an internal ramp
88
Advantages
. Horizontal elevations on three sides.
. Flat pedestrian access between adjacent bins at each end.
deck length and slope.
Disadvantages
Only 50% of the stalls are passed on the inow route.
. Access between decks is restricted to the ends of the aisles.
. A minimum building length of 76.800 m (32 stall widths) is required
to incorporate a 5% parking slope.
. Introducing a 5% pedestrian slope on the access-ways can reduce the
overall building length by 20.000 m, but in so doing two of the three
at elevations will be eliminated.
.
Comments
The circulation pattern is much the same as any of the other two-bin
layouts with one-way trac ows. The main dierence with this
layout is in the two half storey-height sloping decks on one side.
the ank walls is to be preferred. The central vehicle ramp is to be
considered non-pedestrian and a dedicated pedestrian access ramp
between the bins is awkward to construct on a sloping deck. It will
also lose several parking spaces.
. The most ecient location for the main pedestrian stair/lift tower will
be at either of the two ends, although this will entail pedestrians
walking up to 70 m on a sloping deck to and from their vehicles.
. The use of 16 stalls per deck to complete the circulation route renders
it similar in operation to an SD 4 layout.
level, towards the end of the inow ramp just before the right turn
onto the central ramp, will eliminate the need for motorists to,
fruitlessly, drive around the outow route and render the search
for parking space much more ecient.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. VCM 1 and 2, with rapid inow and outow routes and good crossdeck pedestrian access, are more acceptable for Cats 1 and 2 use.
. SLD 2 is also worthy of consideration provided that pedestrian
access between adjacent bins is not a necessary design feature.
. SD 3, 4 and 5 layouts have similar characteristics. They are all
capable of being used for Cat. 4 purposes with ow reversal, where
both routes are used for inbound trac in the mornings and outbound trac in the afternoons.
. SD 3 and 4 layouts incorporate similar recirculation capabilities and
SD 5 has a superior static eciency.
Circulation layouts
89
Fig. 7.5 A VCM 1 layout
90
7.8 Combined at
and sloping deck
layouts with internal
cross-ramps
(VCM and WPD)
Stacking one module upon another creates a continuous vertical circulation ow for a structured parking facility and joining two modules at
their ramps (one the mirror image of the other), creates a complete car
park circulation system where pedestrians can reach all parts of the
deck without negotiating any slope in excess of 5% (VCM 1).
The modules can be a minimum dimension of eight stall widths in
length with a slightly twisted or a 5% sloping access-way, or they can
be extended in length to ten stalls which renders them more suitable
for precast concrete structures. Outside of the modules, the parking
decks are laid at, resulting in a signicant improvement in crossdeck accessibility for pedestrians. The modules can be moved to
other locations, as can be seen in VCM 2, although this is not such a
popular layout as VCM 1. Modifying a module to accept two-way
trac ows creates a layout that can be constructed down to ten stall
widths (24.000 m) in length, yet still retaining pedestrian access to any
part of the deck (VCM 3).
A VCM layout is more user friendly than other internally ramped
systems and the 5% slopes provide access to any part of a parking
deck, thereby eliminating the need for a separate dedicated pedestrian
ramp. This reduces construction costs, enhances static eciency and
increases user friendliness. In large-capacity parking decks, rapid
inow routes can be introduced at any future time and at minimal
cost; it is simply a matter of line painting. One-way-ow layouts can
be constructed with a minimum dimension of eight stall widths while
still retaining at access for pedestrians along one long side (see the
MD series on pp. 113123).
Warped parking deck (WPD) is a circulation system that provides
the external appearance of a residential or oce building, with all
four sides appearing to have at decks, without slopes or steps.
This has some architectural advantages, but involves warping the
parking decks that slope up to 9% in a cross-fall direction and 5%
longitudinally.
It cannot be constructed less than 74.400 m in length. Rapid ow
routes are not a practical proposition and pedestrian access between
adjacent decks is restricted to the aisle ends. It cannot be achieved without losing several stalls on each deck. It was a popular construction
form some 30 years ago and examples of this type of building still occur.
VCM is a patented circulation system and must not be used without permission. For information
regarding its use, contact Hill Cannon UK LLP, Royal Chambers, Station Parade, Harrogate
HG 1EP, North Yorkshire. Telephone: 01423 562571.
Circulation layouts
91
VCM 1 One-way-ow with two one-way-ow ramps
VCM 1 One-way-ow with internal ramps
VCM 1 One-way-ow with two-way-ow ramps (version of 1)
92
Advantages
. All turns are made in the same direction with no single turn greater
than 908.
. Pedestrians do not encounter slopes steeper than 5%.
. A rapid inow route can be incorporated at any time without structural alteration. It is simply a matter of line painting.
. If access between adjacent bins is required, omitting two stalls can
provide it, or the rapid inow route can be used, thereby eliminating
the need for a dedicated pedestrian ramp.
. The inow trac route is separated from the rapid outow route with
exiting trac passing only 24 stalls on each deck level.
Disadvantages
Cannot be used in layouts less than 36.000 m (15 stall widths) in
length.
Comments
Sixteen stall spaces per deck are required to complete the circulation
route (14 if a combined ramp is used).
. The separation of the two ow routes results in a more ecient
circulation layout when compared with an SLD 1 layout, especially
when used in Cats 1 and 2 layouts of a greater capacity than 400 stalls.
. As drawn, the inow circuit enables 80% of the stalls on each level to
be searched eciently, with just four right-angled turns. Many of the
stalls on the outow route can be seen and judgements made on
whether to search that circuit.
. Dynamic eciency is good and similar to an SLD 3 layout, but it is
more user-friendly.
. The main pedestrian access tower can be located anywhere around
the building, but is most suitable where it can be located away
from the sloping deck elements.
. Suitable for all parking categories and building sizes where the
dynamic capacity of the rapid outow route is not exceeded.
. VCM 1A has the same plan form as VCM 1, but the elevations are
horizontal on all four sides and the decks warp to a maximum of
7% at the ramp.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. A VCM 2 layout could be considered where it is preferred to locate
the at deck element in the middle part of the deck.
. A site with steep cross-falls could render an SLD 3 layout worthy of
consideration.
Circulation layouts
93
94
Advantages
908.
. The need for dedicated pedestrian ramps, between adjacent bins, is
eliminated.
. Pedestrians need not encounter slopes steeper than 5%.
. The inow trac route is separated from the rapid outow route with
exiting trac only passing 24 stalls on each deck level.
. The trac ows are separated and outow route is rapid.
Disadvantages
Cannot be used in layouts less than 36.000 m (15 stall widths) in
length.
. Some static eciency will be lost if dead ends are to be avoided on
the lowest parking slopes.
.
Comments
Sixteen stall spaces per deck are required to complete the circulation
route (14 if a combined ramp is used).
. Circulation eciency and characteristics are similar to a VCM 1
layout, except that there could be a reduction in static capacity at
the very bottom of each ow route.
. Dynamic eciency is good and similar to an SLD 3 layout.
. More suitable for layouts where the main pedestrian access tower is
located at the side of the at deck element in the middle part of the
building.
. Suitable for all parking categories and building sizes where the
dynamic capacity of the rapid outow route is not exceeded.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. If dead ends at the lowest parking levels are omitted, the static
capacity will be slightly less than a VCM 1 layout.
. A site with steep cross-falls could render an SLD 2 layout worthy of
consideration provided that the loss of spaces to pedestrian ramps
can be tolerated.
Circulation layouts
95
96
Advantages
. Only one VCM module is required, suitably modied for two-way
ow.
. Pedestrians do not encounter slopes steeper than 5%.
. Can be constructed down to an aisle length of 24.000 m (10 stall
widths) and still retain at access for pedestrians progressing between
adjacent bins.
Disadvantages
Reduced dynamic eciency when compared with one-way-ow
layouts.
Comments
At any time, a rapid outow route can be introduced (as shown). It is
simply a matter of line painting.
. Twelve stall spaces per deck are required to complete the circulation
route (16 if a rapid outow route is incorporated).
. The ramp and sloping deck element occurs over a length of 21.600 m,
leaving the remainder of the parking deck to be constructed at
across the bins.
. Without a rapid exit route it is only suitable for Cats 1 and 2 facilities
up to about 400 spaces. If one was incorporated, up to about 700
spaces could be used without the fear of early trac congestion.
. It can be used in larger Cats 3 and 4 facilities, but if lacking a rapid
outow route it remains unsuitable for really large-capacity layouts.
.
Static eciency
Other layouts
. An SLD 7 layout can be considered, especially if the site has a significant cross-fall, but will be inferior in user-friendly features and static
capacity if pedestrian ramps between adjacent bins are required.
. For aisle lengths greater than 43.200 m, an SD 1 layout can also be
considered.
Circulation layouts
97
VCM 4 One- and two-way trac ows with a single ramp
VCM 4 One- and two-way trac ows with a single ramp
98
Advantages
. Only one VCM module is required, modied for two-way ow.
. A single circuit of each deck searches all of the stalls.
. A rapid outow route can be introduced when required.
. One-way ow on the at decks.
. Pedestrians need not encounter slopes steeper than 5%.
Disadvantages
Some reduction in dynamic eciency when compared with one-wayow layouts.
. Confrontation between opposing drivers can occur where they both
turn onto the rapid outow access-way.
.
Comments
At an aisle length of 24.000 m (10 stall widths) it reverts to a VCM 3
layout.
. The ramp and sloping deck element occurs over a length of 21.600 m,
leaving the remainder of the parking deck to be constructed at
across the bins.
. Not suitable for Cats 1 and 2 purposes over, say, 300 spaces, it is
equally unsuited for tidal type trac conditions where exiting trac
from opposing directions turns onto the internal access-way.
. A give-way box will help to improve the confrontation situation but
cannot cure it altogether.
. Larger car parks should be restricted to Cat. 3 use where problems
caused by opposing drivers will be minimised.
. The one-way-ow section saves 2.000 m on the width when compared
with a VCM 3 layout, with a consequent improvement in static
eciency.
. Fourteen stall spaces per deck are required to complete the circulation route.
.
Static eciency
21.080 m2 per car space can be deemed, Good.
Other layouts
. Above a length of 36.000 m a VCM 1 or VCM 2 layout could be used
to advantage.
. If access for pedestrians between adjacent bins is not a necessary
design feature, an SLD 7 layout can also be considered, especially
if the site has a signicant cross-fall.
Circulation layouts
99
100
Advantages
. The deck elevations are horizontal on all four sides.
. Pedestrian access between adjacent bins occurs at each end of the
trac aisles.
Disadvantages
The centrally located vehicle ramp in the middle of the layout is too
steep for allowable pedestrian use.
. Maximum allowable pedestrian slopes are also exceeded on the parking decks (see BS 8300:8.2).
. A minimum length of 74.400 m (31 stall widths) is required when
using 5% sideways parking slopes, but it is to be appreciated that
the slope in the other direction can be in excess of 9%.
. 50% of the stalls are located on the extended outow route.
. Fully laden shopping trolleys are dicult to control on parking decks
incorporating falls in excess of 5%, especially when the aisle slopes
are diagonal.
.
Comments
16 stall spaces per deck are used to complete the circulation route (14
if a combined ramp were to be adopted).
. The decks are horizontal at each end of the building and warp to a
maximum at the central ramp locations.
. A layout much used 30 to 40 years ago. Examples of this car park
type have been constructed throughout the UK, some of which are
still in operation.
. Recent legislation has reduced the maximum slope allowed for
pedestrians on ramps.
.
Static eciency
21.430 m2 per car space, can be deemed good.
Other layouts
The SD series share similar circulation features, especially SD 3,
which incorporates an identical circulation layout and are more
user friendly in having a at central access-way for pedestrians.
They cannot, however, be constructed with the deck sides horizontal.
. A VCM 1 layout is more user friendly but without warping the decks
it cannot be constructed with the building sides horizontal. However,
the maximum deck slope in either direction does not exceed 5%.
.
Circulation layouts
101
Fig. 7.6 An FIR 1 layout
102
7.9 Flat decks with

storey height internal
ramps (at with
internal ramps FIR)
Circulation layouts
In layouts three or more bins wide, internal cross-ramps can be introduced which climb through a complete storey height. In the UK this
has been used, in the main, to create a horizontal elevation on all
four sides of a multi-bin system, without resorting to sloping or stepped
parking decks.
Two basic types occur, those with ramps running across the bins and
those where the ramps run parallel with the trac aisles. The slope
of the internal ramp is recommended to be a maximum of 10%.
Designers of existing buildings with cross-ramps have, in general,
increased the ramp slopes slightly, with no known complaints from
motorists.
When used across the decks the dimension available for a ramp is
usually 25.200 m. In the other direction, the length is unrestricted and
can be tailored to suit any storey height. The cross-ramp location
results in an interruption to the free ow of trac along the central
bin resulting in a loss of stalls if dead ends are to be avoided.
Dynamic and static eciency is not a good feature of this layout type.
The layouts featured show that drivers need to pass through some
trac aisles and access-ways more than once, in order to search all of
the stalls on any particular level.
103
FIR 1 One-way-ow decks with combined two-way-ow ramps at right-angles to

the aisles
FIR 1 One-way-ow with combined two-way ramps
104
Advantages
908.
. Flat access for pedestrians between adjacent bins.
. The outow route is reasonably rapid.
Disadvantages
The internal ramps climb through a full storey height. Their length,
between aisles, is 25.200 m; the maximum recommended slope is
10%.
. The ramp crosses the central bin creating dead ends.
. Thirty-two stall spaces per deck are required to complete the circulation route (36 spaces if all dead ends are to be avoided).
. The static and dynamic eciency is not good with many stalls having
to be passed twice as each deck level is searched.
.
Comments
If the maximum allowable ramp slope of 10% is not exceeded, the
storey height should not be greater than 2.560 m. For increased
storey heights it will be necessary to extend the central bin dimension
or create gaps between adjacent bins.
. If all of the stalls are to be searched on each level and motorists drive
up to the next parking level, they must drive more than twice the
distance around the length of the perimeter aisles and access-ways.
Circulation eciency is low and can be a major cause of trac
congestion at busy times.
. An alternative is to drive up to the top parking level on the inow
route, transfer over to the outow route and continue searching on
the way back down. Even so, on the inow route one of the aisles
has to be driven over twice.
. The introduction of a variable message sign system can improve
circulation eciency, but the extended length access-ways, ramps
and the need, still, to drive through some aisles more than once, do
not make this layout as ecient as most of the others.
. The high circulation requirement of up to 40 stall spaces per deck is a
poor feature.
. The minimum aisle length is 36.000 m (15 stalls), but at this length
more than 30% of the stall spaces will be required to complete the
circulation pattern.
. The low circulation eciency renders it unsuitable for any parking
category where intensive activity is anticipated.
.
Static eciency
24.070 m2 per car space, can be deemed, Average.
Other layouts
. A VCM 1 layout, three bins wide, has superior static and dynamic
eciencies, without dead ends and is more user friendly.
. If there were sucient space on the site, any of the external ramp
systems would also produce superior layouts.
Circulation layouts
105
FIR 2 One-way-ow decks with side-by-side (scissors type) ramps at right-angles to

the aisles
FIR 2 One-way-ow with side-by-side ramps (scissors type)
106
Advantages
. All turns are made in the same direction with no single turn greater
than 908.
. Horizontal elevations on all four sides.
Disadvantages
The storey height ramps exceed the recommended maximum slope.
. The ramps cross an inner bin creating a short dead-end condition.
. Thirty-two stall spaces per deck are required for ramps and accessways to complete the circulation route.
. Thirty-six stalls are located directly o the combined inow and
outow route.
. Potential conict between drivers when they arrive, side by side, at
the same parking level and turn in the same direction.
. The combined ow routes could result in trac congestion at peak
periods.
.
Comments
The circulation eciency is a little better than an FIR 1 layout, but
still requires two passes through the internal aisle to be driven in
order to cover all of the spaces at each deck level.
. Scissors-type ramps, at a width of 3.300 m, are not suitable for intensive trac use.
.
Static eciency
23.230 m2 per car space, can be deemed, Average.
Other layouts
. A VCM 1 layout, three bins wide, can also be constructed with horizontal elevations and has superior static and dynamic eciencies,
without dead ends.
. If there were sucient space on the site, any of the external ramp
systems would produce superior layouts.
Circulation layouts
107
FIR 3 One-way-ow decks with combined two-way-ow ramps parallel with the aisles
FIR 3 One-way-ow with two-way-ow ramps
108
Advantages
. Horizontal elevations on all four sides.
. The ramps are located at right angles to the direction for a type FIR 1
layout. This enables a 10% sloping ramp to be introduced for any
particular storey height.
. Dead ends are eliminated.
Disadvantages
The high circulation requirement of 44 stall spaces per deck is a poor
feature and can only really be justied by being incorporated within a
much larger deck layout.
Comments
The layout is uncomplicated, the trac pattern is simple to understand and is more ecient than that for an FIR 1 layout.
. The higher circulation requirement should be weighed against the
dynamic advantages when compared with an FIR 1 layout.
.
Static eciency
Dependent upon the capacity of the deck within which it is incorporated, the overall static eciency will vary. However, if constructed
as a small independent layout, static eciency will be in the order
of 28 m2 per car space. This can only be described as Poor.
Other layouts
A VCM 1 layout, three bins wide, has superior static and dynamic
qualities.
. If there were sucient space on the site, any of the HER and ER
series could also produce superior layouts.
.
Circulation layouts
109
FIR 4 One-way-ow decks with separated one-way-ow ramps
FIR 4 One-way-ow with edge ramps
110
Advantages
. Flat decks.
. The ramps are located at right angles to the direction for a type FIR 1
layout. This enables a 10% sloping ramp to be introduced for any
particular storey height.
. Dead ends are eliminated.
Disadvantages
As drawn, 46 stall spaces per deck are required for ramps and accessways to complete the circulation route.
. Potential conict occurs between trac exiting the ramps and ltering into the trac on the aisles.
.
Comments
Although shown four bins wide, it can operate equally well with three
bins. The ramps, however, will need to circulate in opposite directions.
. The circulation eciency is a little better than an FIR 1 layout, but
still requires two passes to be driven through the internal aisle in
order to cover all of the spaces at each deck level.
.
Static eciency
If it forms part of a much larger deck layout it might be justied, but
as a small stand-alone layout the static eciency can only be
described as Poor.
Other layouts
A VCM 1 layout, three bins wide, has superior static and dynamic
qualities.
. If there were sucient space on the site, any of the HER and ER
series could also produce superior layouts.
.
Circulation layouts
111
Fig. 7.7 An MD1 car park
Fig. 7.8 The entrance to an underground MD1 car park
112
7.10 Minimum
dimension (MD)
layouts
The smallest practical size for any parking layout is dictated by the
recommended minimum turning circles for the SDV. It does not
necessarily have to be over the full length of the building but at the
ends, at least, in order to achieve a turning dimension. In continental
Europe, ring-spanner shaped layouts on several levels (MD 1, as
shown in Figs. 7.7 and 7.8) occur under the main shopping streets of
some towns, e.g. Rheims.
They are ideal for very long and narrow sites both above and below
ground and as they increase in length so their static eciency improves,
but there are no facilities of this type known to occur in the UK at the
time of writing.
A two-bin, SLD 3-type car park can be constructed down to a plan
size of 31.200 m 24.000 m, dimensions that can only be matched by an
SLD 6 and a VCM 3 layout. When, however, three or more bin widths
can be incorporated in one direction, the other direction can be reduced
to eight stall widths (19.200 m). Stalls 2.300 m wide reduce this
dimension even further to 18.400 m and, if the parking need is great,
the site is small and the client is amenable, such a reduction in parking
standards may well be acceptable.
A nal reduction of the minimum dimension can be made, with
caution. By reducing the number of stall widths to seven, a turning
dimension of 16.800 m is produced. Although this is still greater than
the notional turning circle for an SDV, the scratches down the ramp
sides of existing car parks where it has been adopted, testify to the
inadequacy of this dimension for public usage. However, if the client
is amenable and the alternative is no car park at all, it could well be
justied.
A long MD 1-type layout can have a greater static eciency than any
other circulation design. (<20 m2 per space) followed closely by an MD
2 layout. For the other layouts in the MD series, increases in the building length actually reduce static eciency due to the internal bins
having the same deck area as those located at each end but containing
fewer stalls.
The static eciency of the MD 3 to MD 11 types compares unfavourably with most other layout types (28 to 30 m2 per vehicle space).
However, as there are no other types that can be used in their place,
any comparison is academic.
Circulation layouts
113
MD 1 One-way-ow between circular end ramps
MD 1 One-way-ow between end ramps
114
Advantages
. Can be accommodated on minimal width sites (16.000 m in the
middle and 19.000 m at each end).
. The inow route can bypass full or congested deck levels enabling
motorists to proceed directly to a level where spaces are readily available.
. Parking can occur on several levels at the same time resulting in a
high dynamic eciency.
. The outow route is also rapid and bypasses the parking decks.
. The static eciency of the bins is high, but overall static eciency can
vary dramatically, dependent upon the ratio of parking aisle length
to the vertical circulation ramps.
Disadvantages
The trac circulation route is vertical rather than horizontal.
Comments
In order to search all of the stalls, the trac circulation route is in
opposite directions, deck upon deck. It is not dissimilar to the circulation of many multi-bin car parks where the same pattern occurs but
in a horizontal rather than a vertical plane.
. Variable message signs can be installed at the entry to each deck level
in order to reduce the length of the search path.
. Car parks embodying this layout occur in continental Europe, e.g.
Rheims, where they have been constructed underground, below the
main shopping streets.
. There are no facilities utilising this type of layout known to occur in
the UK.
. MD 1A is a split-level ramp option, eight stalls wide (19.200 m) and
is, statically, more ecient than the MD 1 layout.
. MD 1B is more ecient, statically, than MD 1A, but the means of
escape for pedestrians parking on the split-level element requires
careful consideration.
. MD 1C is a VCM option. It has the same static eciency as MD 1B
but pedestrians are now able to escape to the main deck level by way
of the 5% parking slope.
.
Static eciency
As drawn, with 56 stalls per deck and no allowance for vertical access
for pedestrians, the area per car space for an MD 1 layout is
28.000 m2 . This can be deemed Average for its type.
. When each deck contains 100 stalls the area per car space reduces to
24.000 m2 , improving as the building increases in length. This can be
deemed, Good, for its type.
. Similar gures for an MD 1A are: 28.400 m2 and 25.000 m2 per car
space.
. Similar gures for an MD 1B and 1C are: 24.000 m2 and 22.800 m2
per car space.
.
Other layouts
For small-capacity car parks, MD 3 to MD 11 can be considered,
however, when more than, say, 100.000 m in length, no other
layout type is able to achieve a comparable static eciency.
Circulation layouts
115
MD 2 Two-way-ow with a circular ramp at one end
MD 2 Two-way-ow with a single two-way-ow ramp
116
Advantages
. Can be accommodated on minimal width sites.
. Can be extended in length almost innitely.
. The static eciency of the bins is good but overall static eciency can
vary dramatically, dependent upon the ratio of aisle length to the
ramps.
Disadvantages
The entry to each parking level involves a crossover condition.
. The extra width of the two-way-ow parking decks renders this
layout slightly less ecient, statically, than an MD 1 layout.
.
Comments
Can be used on long, thin sites that have insucient width for a
turning ramp at one end.
. The circular ramp for the MD 2 should be a minimum of 30.000 m in
diameter. It is not a very practical layout pattern and is wasteful of
site space.
. For MD 2A and 2B layouts, the minimum end dimensions can be
reduced to 24.000 m 28.400 m.
. The long dead-end condition on every oor makes variable message
sign systems an essential part of the layout if motorists are not to
become frustrated.
. MD 2A is a split-level option that is more ecient statically but could
have problems of escape for pedestrians on the half levels.
. MD 2B is a VCM option with the same eciency as an MD 2A
layout but the escape problem has been solved.
. There are no facilities utilising these layout known to occur in the
UK.
.
Static eciency
As drawn, with 75 stalls per deck, the area per car space for an MD 2
layout is 27.000 m2 .
. When each deck contains 100 stalls the area per car space reduces to
23.540 m2 .
.
Other layouts
This is an inferior layout to the MD 1 series and should only be
adopted when there is no alternative that can be made to work on
the designated site.
Circulation layouts
117
MD 3, 4 and 5 One- and two-way-ows, ten stalls wide
MD 3, MD 4 and MD 5 One- and two-way-ows, ten stalls wide
118
Advantages
. Can be accommodated on sites down to 24.000 m in width.
. MD 3 has a one-way trac ow throughout.
. Good recirculation capabilities.
Disadvantages
Their static eciency is not high and reduces as the layouts increase
in length. This is due to the internal bins containing fewer stalls than
the outer bins.
. The ramps are narrow.
. MD 4 and 5 incorporate two-way trac ows for the vertical vehicle
circulation.
.
Comments
The high proportion of access-ways to stalls for the internal bins
makes for a reduced static eciency when compared with long
MD 1 and 2 layouts. However, when the major dimension is six
bins or less, the static capacities can be similar and when only three
bins in width, they can be superior.
. MD 3 is based upon a minimum width (24.000 m) SLD 3 layout,
side extended. The ramps are below the recommended minimum
dimension and the half-level-parking element can cause re escape
problems for pedestrians.
. MD 4 is a minimum (24.000 m) SLD 6 layout, side extended. Fire
escape problems are the same as for MD 3.
. MD 5 is a VCM option, similar to MD 4, but the parking decks
sloping at 5% solve the problem of escape for pedestrians.
. Being wider than MD 6 to 11, these three layouts contain more
stalls for any given length and hence, have an improved static
eciency.
. Each internal bin contains only 12 stalls at an area per stall of
31.200 m2 . Compare this with a similar length of MD 1 parking
deck at 18.720 m2 per car space and it can be readily appreciated
that the more bins that an MD 3, 4 or 5 layout contains, the less
statically ecient it will become.
.
Static eciency
As drawn, with 52 stalls per deck, the area per car space for MD 3, 4
and 5 layouts is 28.800 m2 .
. When each deck contains 100 stalls, the area per car space increases
to 30.000 m2 .
.
Other layouts
Apart from an MD 2 layout, there are no other types with similar
minimum dimensions that can have both trac ows located at the
same end.
Circulation layouts
119
MD 6, 7 and 8 One- and two-way-ows eight stalls wide (VCM type)
MD 6, MD 7 and MD 8 One- and two-way-ows, eight stalls wide
120
Advantages
. Can be constructed down to 19.200 m in width.
. The ramps are, nominally, 4.400 m in width.
Disadvantages
Lifts and stairs located on the long, at side project beyond the
notional building width.
Comments
Static eciency reduces with an increase in the number of bins. On
long layouts an MD 1 layout will be more economical to construct,
but this advantage becomes less as the building reduces in size.
. All three types are based upon minimum dimension VCM modules
that are joined at their ends, either in pairs (MD 8) or with a
common central aisle.
. MD 8 can be extended from the centre, thereby locating the vertical
circulation elements at each end.
. MD 6 and 7 can be extended on either side depending upon the
preferred location for the inow and outow routes.
. All of the decks incorporate a 5% parking slope and drainage fall to
one side that is constructed at.
.
Static eciency
An MD 6 as drawn, with 32 stalls per deck, has an area per car space
of 28.080 m2 and when each deck contains 100 stalls the area per car
space increases to 34.320 m2 .
. An MD 7 as drawn, with 32 stalls per deck, has an area per car space
. None of these layouts can be deemed, Good, and can only be justied
when there is no other option available.
.
Other layouts
Apart from an MD 1, there are no other layout types with similar
minimum dimensions that can incorporate vertical trac circulation
routes at each end.
Circulation layouts
121
MD 9, 10 and 11 One- and two-way-ows eight stalls wide (split-level type)
MD 9 and MD 10 One- and two-way-ows, eight stalls wide (split-level type)
MD 11 One- and two-way-ows, eight stalls wide (split-level type)
122
Advantages
. Can be constructed down to 19.200 m in width.
. The ramps are, nominally, 4.400 m in width.
Disadvantages
Lifts and stairs located on the long at sides will project beyond the
notional building width.
Comments
These are an alternative to the MD 6, 7 and 8 layouts. They have the
same dynamic and static qualities and layout exibility. The basic
dierence being that the split levels for these three types create
escape problems for pedestrians.
. If pedestrian ramps are required for cross-bin access, then the
internal stalls located at the split-levels will be lost. This will render
the layout even more uneconomic and statically inecient.
.
Static eciency
An MD 9 or 10 as drawn, with 32 stalls per deck, has an area per car
space of 28.080 m2 and when each deck contains104 stalls the area
per car space increases to 31.680 m2 .
. None of these layouts can be deemed, Good, and can only be justied
when there is no other option available.
.
Other layouts
MD 6, 7 and 8, solve the pedestrian escape problems.
Circulation layouts
123
Fig. 7.9 A circular car park/access ramp
124
7.11 Circular sloping

decks (CSDs)
Circulation layouts
Two-way-ow is the only practical circulation pattern for a car park

layout based upon a hollow circle or ellipse. One-way-ow layouts
consisting of two interconnected rings in a gure of eight pattern
have been proposed but are not considered to be practical and as
such have not been featured.
Stand-alone circular car parks (as seen in Fig. 7.9) can only be
justied, realistically, on architectural grounds. The constant turning,
the follow my leader inow and outow route, the inability to see
any reasonable distance ahead and the lack of a rapid outow route
render them less popular with motorists than other circulation types
that are available to designers. Eective security surveillance is also
rendered more dicult when the parking is on a constant curve.
The smallest practical diameter with cars parked only on the outside
of the aisle is about 34.000 m and can accommodate some 30 spaces for
every 3608 of rotation. Static eciency is, Poor, being about 28 m2 per
space, but such layouts can be justied when stalls are added to the
outside of a two-way-ow circular ramp that would have been there
in any case (see Fig. 7.10). As the diameter increases, static eciency
improves and above 50.000 m it becomes quite good, but then the
hole in the middle also gets larger and generally becomes wasted site
space.
When the overall diameter reaches 65.000 m, the central hole
becomes large enough to contain another circular car park. Both can
then become one-way trac ows. However, the circulation pattern
requires all trac to drive up to the top parking level in order to join
the outow route. The awkward circulation, coupled with the large
diameter required, renders this an impractical proposition for the UK
and, as such, it has not been featured.
Almost any site capable of incorporating a circular car park could
also contain a rectangular layout that would be more user friendly
and have improved static and dynamic characteristics.
When located underground, circular layouts can be fully justied on
engineering grounds where the drum shape is an ideal form to resist
compressive forces exerted by the surrounding ground and the central
void is available for pedestrian access and mechanical ventilation.
125
126
Advantages
. All of the stalls are passed on the inow route.
. The cylindrical shape is well suited to resist compression forces
imposed by the ground when used in underground facilities.
. Good static eciency for the larger diameter facilities.
. The sloping decks provide an unmistakable indication of the direction of trac ow, the inow route is upwards and the outow
route is downwards (reversed in underground facilities).
Disadvantages
All of the stalls are passed on the main outow route.
. No natural recirculation capability.
. The need to turn constantly and the inability to see well ahead is an
unpopular feature of the design.
. The circular layout renders CCTV supervision less eective than one
with straight trac aisles.
.
Comments
On anything other than a circular site, it is dicult to justify this
layout above ground for reasons other than architectural. As the
diameter increases so does the wasted site area created by the hole
in the middle.
. It can be justied when it also doubles up as a spiral ramp providing
access to a high-level parking area (with parking on one or more
sides), but, even so, care has to be taken to ensure that the dynamic
capacity of the two-way-ow aisle is not exceeded.
. The circular layout makes security supervision more dicult. Sta
cannot see as far as when the aisles are straight and CCTV cameras
will be required more frequently.
.
Static eciency
The number of stalls varies, dependent upon the diameter. At the
smallest practical diameter of 40.000 m the area per vehicle space
requirement is 26.400 m2 but at a diameter of 60.000 m the area per
vehicle space requirement reduces to 22 m2 approximately: this can
be deemed, Good, but then the hole in the middle gets larger and
becomes wasted site space
Other layouts
There is no alternative layout that embodies a circular shape, but on
any site larger than, say, 32 m2 , a rectangular car park would produce
a more economical and ecient layout.
Circulation layouts
127
Fig. 7.10 A HER layout
128
7.12 Half external

ramps (HERs)
Circulation layouts
When semi-circular ramps are used, the connection with a at parking

aisle at each deck level reduces the sense of unease developed by some
drivers when they rotate through 3608 or more. Consequently, HER
ramp systems are quite popular with the parking public. In rectangular
formats they behave in the same manner as the internal ramping in
SLD- or VCM-type layouts. Although shown with linked ramps,
they can be separated and located on any wall face to best suit the
highway access requirements.
When leaving a right-turning ramp and entering a trac aisle, drivers
need to be aware of trac approaching from the left. The presence
of passengers, obstructing sideways vision, could well render this a
little awkward. When turning to the left, drivers can observe trac
approaching from the right, without front-seat passengers obstructing
the view. There are no absolutes in this consideration and often the
direction of circulation is pre-determined by other factors, such as
exiting the facility without crossing the path of entering trac.
When compared to car parks with internal ramps, the extra cost of
a half external ramp structure can be oset, to some extent, by the
reduction in stalls used to complete the circulation route. When used
in small parking facilities they can be uneconomic and site-area
consuming but, as the static capacity of the car park increases, this
factor becomes less signicant and their enhanced dynamic eciency
becomes an increasingly important factor. Often, the shape of the site
enables HER ramps to be introduced without aecting the area available for parking.
The lowest levels on any outow circulation route tend to become
congested rst, since trac from the upper levels is incremental as it
passes through the lower oors on its way out of the building. When
the anticipated ow rate exceeds, about, 1300 vehicles per hour, a
second ramp system or a fully external ramp access should be
considered.
In arriving at a decision between the ramp types, it should be
appreciated that the geometry of HER ramps enables motorists to recirculate, rapidly, throughout all of the parking levels. However,
being combined in part with the parking decks, their dynamic capacity
will be a little less than that for ER-type ramps.
129
130
Advantages
. Both ow routes can be rapid or extended.
. The ow routes can be located side-by-side, as shown, or separated.
. When located at the side of an aisle, eight stall spaces are required to
. When located at the end of an aisle, only four extra stall spaces are
required to complete the circulation route (see HER 4).
. Parking decks are clear of ramp obstructions.
Disadvantages
Both inow and outow routes combine with the aisle trac at each
parking level. This is not normally a serious matter.
. Semi-circular ramps are more expensive to construct than straight
ramps but in a large-capacity car park the extra cost per car space
can be nominal.
.
Comments
The spiral format, be it semi-circular or elliptical, renders this a more
sthetically pleasing shape than straight ramps.
. Measured on the centre-line, the going is 32.200 m, producing a
continuous gradient of 8.7% for a storey height of 2.800 m.
. A variable message sign system, located at the head of an inow ramp
at the approach to each parking deck, will considerably improve
dynamic eciency by eliminating the need to search, needlessly,
any particular oor.
.
Other layouts
Either of the other featured HER-type ramps work just as well. It is
more a matter of choice rather than any other factor.
Circulation layouts
131
HER 2 and 3 Straight ramps with one-way-ow
HER 2 Straight ramps with one-way-ow (side located)
HER 3 Straight ramps with one-way-ow (side located) (version of HER 2)
132
Advantages
. The ow routes can be rapid or extended.
. The ow routes can be joined or separated.
. When located at the side of an aisle, eight stall spaces are required to
. When located at the end of an aisle, only four extra stall spaces are
required to complete the circulation route (see HER 4).
. Parking decks are clear of obstructions.
Disadvantages
The inow and outow routes combine with the aisle trac at each
parking level.
Comments
On plan, both sets of ramps appear similar. The dierence being that
those for HER 3 raise half a storey height, and are similar to those
used in an SLD 2 layout, while those for HER 4 split the storey
height into three, thereby reducing the sloping elements to 10%,
approximately.
any particular oor.
. Suitable for all usage categories where the dynamic capacity of the
combined section of the aisle is not exceeded (about 1100 vehicles
per hour), they are mainly seen in large-capacity sta and airport
types buildings.
.
Other layouts
Either of the other featured half external type ramps work as well. It
is more a matter of choice rather than any other factor.
Circulation layouts
133
HER 4 Straight ramps with one-way-ow, end located
HER 4 Straight ramps with one-way-ow (end located)
134
Advantages
. Rapid, clear, access to and from all levels.
. The two-lane end access-way enables the inow and outow routes to
behave with the dynamic eciency of a fully external ramp layout.
. Parking decks are clear of obstructions.
. The end access-way can be reduced to two stalls in width for suitable
layouts.
Disadvantages
Down-owing trac on the ramps, turning left, can be in confrontation with out-owing and circulating trac on the parking decks,
turning right.
Comments
Although a straight, three-slope ramp system has been shown, any of
the other HER ramp series can be adapted equally as well.
any particular oor.
. As shown, the ramp slopes are 10% approximately.
types buildings.
. Provided that the trac ow around the end is light, it might be
acceptable to reduce the width of the access-way. It is only a
matter of line painting.
. Eight more stalls per deck can be introduced along the end accessway (similar to HER 5).
.
Other layouts
Either of the other featured HER-type ramps works as well on the
building ends, it is more a matter of choice rather than any other
factor.
Circulation layouts
135
136
Advantages
. Rapid access to and from all levels.
. The two-lane access-way enables the inow and outow routes to
behave almost with the dynamic eciency of a fully external ramp
layout.
. The end access-way can be reduced to two stalls in width for suitable
layouts.
Disadvantages
Down-owing trac on the ramps, turning left, can be in confrontation with out-owing and circulating trac on the parking decks,
turning right.
Comments
Although a straight, three-slope ramp system has been shown, any of
the other HER ramp series can be adapted equally as well.
any particular oor.
. As shown, the ramp slopes are 10% approximately.
types buildings.
.
Other layouts
Either of the other featured HER-type ramps works as well on the
building ends, it is more a matter of choice rather than any other
factor.
. A comparison with an HER 4 layout shows that, within the same
plan envelope, six more stalls can be accommodated on each level;
pedestrians have unobstructed access to all parts of the decks and
there is a 40 m reduction in the total length of perimeter walling
required on each deck level. Also, the ow routes are shorter, free
of parking stalls and, hence, will be more ecient.
.
Circulation layouts
137
Fig. 7.11 A pair of external ramps
138
7.13 External ramps

(ERs)
Circulation layouts
External ramps (ERs) function independently of the car parks they

serve and their only contact is the access-ways into and out of the
parking decks.
They are used mainly in large-capacity facilities and a single-ramp
system can cope with 1500 stalls, approximately, for Cats 1 and 2
layouts, 2000 for Cat. 4 and as many as 5000 stalls in Cat. 3 layouts.
The capacity of ramps that conform to the recommendations can be
assessed as 1500 vehicle movements per hour.
Although the one-way-ow ramps have been shown linked, they can
be separated and located on any elevation to best suit the site requirements.
As with circular car parks, circular ramp systems are less popular
with the public than straight ramps, due, quite possibly, to the fact
that designers have tended to underestimate the minimum diameter
needed to create an acceptable driving environment. The fact that
vehicles can turn more tightly than the diameters recommended for
good practice does not mean that drivers are prepared to accept the
situation.
The recommended minimum diameters are for general acceptance by
the public, not just for the vehicles that they drive.
139
ER 1 Full circular with a two-way trac ow
ER 1 Full circular ramp with two-way-ow
140
Advantages
. Both ow routes are contained in a single structure, which could
prove benecial in site utilisation and construction costs.
. Four stall spaces per deck are required to complete the circulation
route.
. The vertical circulation routes are unobstructed by other trac,
except when joining or leaving the ramp system, resulting in a
dynamic capacity on the ramps of 1480 vehicles per hour.
Disadvantages
Trac exiting the deck must cross the path of ramp trac climbing to
an upper level.
. The ability to observe approaching trac on the opposite lane is
limited by the ramp curvature.
. They are not a popular format with the parking public at the best of
times and rapidly become more unpopular if the diameter reduces
below the preferred minimum.
.
Comments
Unless appearance or site utilisation considerations are pre-eminent,
there is no advantage in choosing this format over other external
ramp types.
. Providing that trac drives on the correct side of the aisle and the
lanes are of an adequate width, a lane-dividing kerb is not considered
to be an essential feature: double yellow lines should suce.
. A variable message sign system, located at the head of the inow
ramp at the approach to each parking deck, will considerably
improve dynamic eciency by eliminating the need to search, needlessly, any particular oor.
. Suitable for all car park usage categories where the collective capacity
of the exiting trac at the lowest level is not exceeded.
. The capacity of the exit barriers and external road system requires
careful consideration if trac is not to back up within the car park.
.
Other layouts
An ER 2 ramp system is a logical option and projects less distance
from the parking deck.
Circulation layouts
141
ER 2 Full circular ramps each with a one-way trac ow
ER 2 Full circular ramps each with one-way-ow
142
Advantages
. Both ow routes can be conjoined or separated. They can be positioned at any convenient location around the car park.
route.
Disadvantages
They are not a popular format with the parking public at the best of
times and rapidly become more unpopular if the diameter reduces
below the preferred minimum.
Comments
Unless appearance or site utilisation considerations are pre-eminent,
there is no advantage in choosing this format over rectangular external ramp types.
.
Other layouts
An ER 1 ramp system is a logical option but the crossover condition
at the exit from each oor level renders it less ecient, dynamically.
Circulation layouts
143
ER 3 Straight ramps with a one-way trac ow
ER 3 Straight ramps with one-way-ow
144
Advantages
. Both ow routes can be conjoined or separated. They can be positioned at any convenient location around the car park.
route.
dynamic capacity on the ramps of about 1500 vehicles per hour.
Disadvantages
The projection from the side of the car park is some 10.000 m greater
than for a similar HER-type ramping system.
Comments
Shown with split levels for demonstration purposes, it is equally
adaptable to the other systems featured in the HER series.
.
Other layouts
Layouts utilising three-ramp or VCM-type systems could be used to
similar eect.
Circulation layouts
145
ER 4 Storey height, straight ramps
ER 4 Storey height, straight ramps
146
Advantages
route.
. The ramps can be combined on one side of the car park and that
could save some 5.000 m in overall width requirements, but this
will involve opposite direction trac crossing paths.
Disadvantages
For each level climbed or descended, the going, at 8.5%, is 14 stall
widths per 2.900 m storey height. The length of the site, therefore, will
dictate the number of parking levels.
Comments
A variable message sign system, located at the head of the inow
. The projection from the side of the building can vary but the turning
dimension onto the parking deck must be considered.
.
Other layouts
There are no other external ramp systems that project as little from
the sides of a building.
Circulation layouts
147
ER 5 Stadium-shaped interlocking ramps
ER 5 Stadium-shaped interlocking ramps
148
Advantages
. The system is intended for use when a single-storey height of 5.400 m,
or greater, is required. One of the ow routes can then be inserted
between the other. This eects a reduction in the plan area when
compared with other external ramp layouts where the ow routes
are constructed side by side.
. The straight ramp element of the layout is less daunting to motorists
than similarly dimensioned circular ramp systems.
Disadvantages
The entry and exit locations are not very exible and could cause
problems. To locate them side by side could involve increasing the
site width, locally, at ground level.
. Locating the entry and exit control barriers at the rst parking level
may well be the best solution for large-capacity car parks.
.
Comments
The main purpose of this ramp system is to gain access to a car park
located above a commercial or retail operation where an increased
storey height is required.
. Ramp width dimensions as little as 16.000 m between kerbs have been
noted without any apparent reduction in popularity but, generally,
the wider the better.
. It can be used to gain access to all of the parking decks, but it is to be
remembered that with normal storey heights only alternate parking
levels can be accessed on the way up.
. Suitable for all parking categories but another ramping system
should be adopted where more than one level of parking occurs.
. Within the body of the parking area, a vertical circulation system that
visits each level in turn will be preferable.
. An option is to carry on straight up but change to an HER system
above the rst parking deck level. The overall dimensions for the
ER 5 and the two HER ramps would need to be compatible for
the best structural eciency.
.
Other layouts
There are no other layouts that can operate to as high a standard
within the plan area of this system.
Circulation layouts
149
ER 6 Circular interlocking ramps
ER 6 Circular interlocking ramps
150
Advantages
. An alternative to ER 5, this system is also intended for use when a
storey height of 5.400 m, or greater, is required. One of the ow
routes can then be inserted between the other, thereby eecting a
reduction in the plan area when compared with other, side-by-side,
circular ramp layouts.
Disadvantages
The entry and exit locations are not very exible and could cause
problems. To locate them side by side could involve increasing the
site width, locally, at ground level.
. For large-capacity car parks, where a number of entry and exit
control barriers may be required, Locating them at the head of the
ramps, in the body of the car park may well be the only solution.
.
Comments
It operates in a similar fashion to an ER 5 ramp system and performs
the same function.
. If the site widths are restricted then a stadium-shaped ramp could
provide a better solution, but otherwise the choice of which ramp
system to adopt is mainly one of client choice based upon visual
appearance.
. Measured on the ramp centre-line, a slope of 8.5%, for a 5.600 mstorey height produces a required going of 64.800 m. The minimum
overall ramp diameter, therefore, will need to be in the order of
25.000 m.
.
Alternative layouts
There are no other circular ramp layouts that can operate to as high a
standard within the plan area of this system.
Circulation layouts
151
Fig. 8.1 Birmingham airport
152
Stairs and lifts
8.1 Discussion
The location of vertical services for pedestrians can have a signicant

bearing upon the choice of vehicle circulation layout. If located at the
end of a building, at-end vehicle access-ways, also capable of being
used by pedestrians, are preferable to ramps or steps between split
levels. When the vertical access is located along the building anks,
at external deck layouts are preferable to those incorporating sloping
decks.
Unless otherwise agreed with the local Fire Ocer, when used as re
escapes the number and location of stairs should comply with the
requirements of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations.
Although not specically referred to in Table 3 of that document,
they are normally classed as Purpose Group 7 (storage and other
non-residential) for intermediate decks, or Purpose Group 27 (plant
room or rooftop plant for top, exposed decks). Where the top deck is
roofed over this last requirement is not applicable. Extracts from the
relevant clauses are shown in Section 8.2.
The choice of whether to introduce lifts is one that has to be considered frequently. For Cats 1 and 3 use lifts and/or a pedestrian ramp will
be desirable even for a single suspended parking deck. For Cat. 2 or 4
use, with two suspended parking oors, lifts are not essential provided
that they are not required for transporting trolleys, luggage, disabled
drivers or carers with prams. For three or more suspended parking
decks, lifts are recommended for all car park categories. The number
and capacity of the lifts will vary dependent upon the parking category
and capacity.
8.2 Vertical and 8.2.1 Stairs, widths of ights

horizontal escape
The Building Regulations provide basic rules for determining ight
widths. Approved Document B states that in the absence of other
information on the likely number of occupants, guidance is given in
Table 1. For car parks the factor given is two persons per parking
space.
Use of this guidance tends to result in an overly conservative estimate
on the building occupancy at any one time for the following reasons:
.
Vehicle occupancy in urban areas at peak periods has consistently

been observed to be an average of no more than 1.4 persons per
vehicle.
Most of the time, parked cars are not occupied and so create no
requirement for pedestrian re escapes.
There are three basic occasions when car occupants and pedestrians
will require access to a re escape:
.
.
.
When the vehicle enters the car park and is being driven around to
nd a parking space.
When pedestrians are walking to and from the deck exit location.
When the vehicle is being driven out of the car park.
In addition there will be occasions when the car park sta will be
present, but their numbers are so small, relatively, that they can be
discounted.
Stairs and lifts
153
The maximum occupancy will relate to the peak trac ows, both in
and out. This information is usually available from the Trac Assessment that would normally accompany the planning application for a
new-build car park. In the absence of such information, an assessment
of the peak-hour trac ow can be taken as 65 to 70% of the total
capacity, i.e. for a 1000 space car park the peak ow over a one-hour
period will be between 650 to 700 vehicles.
It is reasonable to assume a maximum parking period of ve minutes
for an eciently designed layout (see Section 6.5) and another ve
minutes for pedestrians to exit the building: a total time of ten minutes.
The only people to exceed this time will be sta members and those very
few who are waiting in the vehicle for others to return. Using the
example of 700 vph, a ten-minute period results in 117 vehicles.
Using, also, the Building Regulation gure of two persons per vehicle,
the maximum total number of people present within the building
over any ten-minute period will be 234.
In the event of a re, when entering escape stairs without lobbies, it is
possible for one ight of stairs, on any particular level, to be put out of
Fig. 8.2 Escape stairways
154
action and this must be taken into account when calculating stair and
door opening widths. When lobbies are introduced all of the stair
cores can be counted. Stairs without lobbies are easier to enter, especially for disabled pedestrians, they take up less room but an extra
stair core is required.
From Table 7 of Approved Document B, it can be seen that, with three
suspended levels and three escape stairs without lobbies, stair ight
widths of 1000 mm will be adequate. For the main pedestrian stair
core, where there could be regular two-way pedestrian movements, a
ight width of 1200 mm is recommended. Landings must be of a
width no less than the ights they serve (see Fig. 8.2).
8.2.2 Vertical escape
Stair widths (source: B1, Vertical escape, Table 7)
Floor
levels 1000 mm 1100 mm 1200 mm 1300 mm 1400 mm 1500 mm 1600 mm 1700 mm 1800 mm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
150
190
230
270
310
350
390
430
570
510
220
260
300
340
380
420
460
500
540
580
240
285
330
375
420
465
510
555
600
645
260
310
360
410
460
510
560
610
660
710
280
335
390
445
500
555
610
665
720
775
300
360
420
480
540
600
660
720
780
840
320
385
450
515
580
645
710
775
840
905
340
410
480
550
620
690
760
830
900
970
360
435
510
585
660
735
810
885
960
1035
As an alternative to using the above table, the capacity of stairs

1100 mm wide or wider (for simultaneous evacuation) can be derived
from the formula:
P 200W 50w 0:3n 1; or W
P 15n 15
50 50n
where P is the number of people that can be served; W is the width of

the stairway, in metres; and N is the number of storeys served.
Notes
1 Separate calculations should be made for stairs/ights serving
basement storeys and those serving upper storeys.
2 The population, P, should be divided by the number of stairs
available.
8.2.3 Horizontal escape
Widths of escape routes (Source: B1, Table 5)
Maximum number of persons
50
110
220
More than 220
Minimum width
750 mm
850 mm
1050 mm
5 mm per person
Notes
1 Widths less than 1050 mm should not be interpolated.
2 5 mm/person does not apply to openings serving less than 220
persons.
8.3 Escape distances
Approved Document B species maximum pedestrian escape distances

of:
.
Stairs and lifts
Intermediate decks 25 m to an available escape in one direction only

or 45 m to available escapes in two or more directions.
155
Fig. 8.3 Pedestrian ramp

layout between split-level
decks
.
Top, exposed decks 60 m to an available escape in one direction

only or 100 m to available escapes in two or more directions.
When measuring escape distances, it is not acceptable for the route to

pass between parked cars unless a dedicated path is provided no less
than the width of the escape door. The door widths can be determined
from the rules provided in the Building Regulations. It is to be appreciated that the doors on each level only need to contend with the
number of vehicles occurring on the deck they serve.
Where an escape route encounters a split level between adjacent
parking decks, a ramp and/or steps may be required (see Fig. 8.3).
Ramps or stairs forming part of an escape route should comply with
Approved Document Part M, Access and Facilities for Disabled People.
The nal exit from the building should be to the open air. Ideally,
the escape stairs should be located around the perimeter of the
building. Should they be located internally then a re-protected corridor
must be provided that leads directly to the perimeter and the open air.
8.4 Lift sizing
156
Lift manufacturers usually provide a service for determining the

number and sizing of lifts required for any particular building. For
preliminary estimating purposes, however, a rule of thumb method
can be used for assessing the required lift capacity.
For Cat. 1 parking located on a single level directly over a supermarket, 33-person lifts that can contain four shopping trolleys,
double stacked, will produce an eective solution. Each supermarket
chain has its own special requirements, but for preliminary design
purposes, where the end user has not yet been chosen and where the
whole of the parking is above ground, the lift capacity can be estimated
at the rate of one 33-person lift for every 800 m2 of retail shopping area.
The total parking capacity and ratio of suspended level to surface

parking will aect the lift requirement. Total parking capacity can be
estimated at the rate of one parking space to every 8 m2 of retail
shopping area and the lift requirement can be reduced proportionally
to the ratio of suspended level to surface-level parking.
Where more than one upper parking level is involved, double trolley
stacking is less eective than single trolley stacking, using 21-person
lifts that are capable of containing two shopping trolleys each, side
by side. The complete lift cycle will take longer when compared with
single-level parking and will vary dependent upon the number of
parking levels to be served, but for preliminary design purposes they
can be estimated at the rate of one 21-person lift for every 300 m2 of
retail shopping area.
Other Cats 1 and 2 parking, not requiring shopping trolleys, can be
estimated using a lift space per person ratio of one for every 15 parking
stalls on the suspended levels. For a 600-place facility with ve suspended levels, 33 spaces will be required, say, three lifts of 13-person,
or four lifts of 8-person capacity.
Category 3 parking can vary dramatically, from light use where one
lift space per 25 served vehicle spaces can be adequate for much of the
time, interspersed with periods of extreme activity when motorists drive
to an airport to pick up, say, some 400 passengers arriving on the
weekly Jumbo ight from a far-o place. The lift capacities can be
assessed in a manner similar to that shown for supermarket use. However, a minimum of 25 trolley spaces should be provided for each major
passenger aircraft arrival per hour, similar to the one described above.
In airport-type situations, when it is known that future developments
will occur, such as the Airbus A380 capable of carrying more than
700 people, it is preferable to over-provide the lift services rather
than under-provide.
Category 4 parking, unless there is information to the contrary, can
be treated in a similar fashion to Cat. 2. Although the arrival and
departure times are more intense, there will be less luggage, prams and
trolleys, and more people will use the stairs if the lift capacity is over
extended.
Unless the car park is very small, two lifts should be considered as the
minimum in order to contend with a breakdown or maintenance down
time on one of them.
Lift doors must be of a minimum width that will enable disabled
persons in wheelchairs and double-width prams to enter.
Worked example for a Cat. 1 1000-space facility on four suspended
deck levels, (200 spaces per oor) with the main entry/exit at ground
level. The Trac Assessment estimates an a.m. peak of 692 vph and a
p.m. peak of 606 vph.
Ground-level parking will be the most popular (usual scenario from
observations), followed in reducing popularity by the upper levels.
Assume 4 17-person lifts operating as duplex units, in two stair/lift
towers and serving alternate oor levels, i.e. G, 1 and 3 on one side and
G, 2 and 4 on the other. The storey height is 2.8 m. (Note that the
practical lift capacity has been reduced to 14 persons.)
Each complete cycle for a pair of lifts averages 14 2:8 39:2 m
travel distance
Lift speed 1.6 m/sec
Time to open and close doors 10 secs
Time to load/unload passengers 10 secs
Note that at peak times each lift will stop three times per cycle.
Stairs and lifts
157
The total journey time for each complete cycle, per pair, will be:
Travel time
Door time
Passenger movements
Total time
39.2/1.6 25 secs
6 10 60 secs
6 10 60 secs
145 secs
Lift capacity per pair 14 persons 2 3600=145 694 persons

per hour.
Two banks of lifts, therefore, provide a total capacity of 1388 persons
per hour.
With an average of two persons per vehicle, the Approved Document
requirement is 692 2 1384. At the more realistic gure of 1.4 persons
per vehicle, the requirement will be reduced to 969 persons, implying that
the lift facility will be operating well within its capacity. If occasional
short periods of extended waiting time can be tolerated, 4 13 person
lifts can also provide an adequate capacity. It should be appreciated,
however, that maintenance and breakdowns will occasionally reduce
the number to three and 17-person lifts can better cope when such a
situation occurs.
It should be noted that calculations can only produce generalisations
and the answers should not be considered to be precise gures.
158
Fig. 9.1 Disabled parking stalls
160
Disabled drivers and carers
9.1 Discussion
Although the necessary number of stalls and their dimensions are well
documented, little comment has been made about the disposition of
stalls for disabled drivers within a car park. The required provision
for general public parking is up to 6% of capacity. This gure varies
dependent upon the use for which the car park is intended, but many
local authorities now insist on 6% regardless of the car parks function.
Some car parks have stalls spread around in ones and twos on a
number of deck levels, wherever there has been an extra width stall
available. This is a cynical solution to the requirements. It ignores
the special mobility problems of disabled people and is at odds with
current Disability Discrimination Act recommendations. There is
also a need to consider parking provision for disabled vehicles up to
2.6 m high. It is acceptable to provide external parking bays but if
that is not possible the ground parking level will have to be used. The
interior should be so designed that the increased headroom occurs
only locally and the vehicles can exit the facility without having to
drive through the whole of the ground parking level. It is unreasonable
to have to increase all of the ground-oor headroom just for a few
parking bays.
The requirements for pedestrian ramps are based upon places of
work and residence wherein disabled persons can spend many hours
per day. In such cases it is important that all consideration should be
given to minimise the problems of getting around. However, in car
parks, the only people remaining more than ve minutes after parking
their vehicle are employees, the very few waiting for the driver to return
and those with criminal intent. The others will have left to go about
their legitimate business.
The design criteria for dealing with persons with disabilities within
car parks are provided in BS 8300: 2001. The recommendations, however, do not adequately distinguish between dierent parking functions,
e.g. a hospital car park may well need to increase its provision for
disabled drivers as would areas with a high percentage of elderly
residents. Their location can also reduce the use, i.e. when constructed
on a steep hillside (see Fig. 3.11, Hillside Car Parks) or if ample onstreet parking is available for blue badge holders in the car parks
immediate vicinity. It is to be hoped that, eventually, car parks will
be recognised as a separate building type in this respect and treated
accordingly.
9.2 Stall locations
When endeavouring to provide stalls for the disabled, designers should

be aware of the following problems:
.
When located on oors other than the one that leads directly to the
main exit point, wheelchair users must use the lifts. In the event of
an electrical failure or mechanical breakdown they will either be
constrained to the oor on which they have parked, and have to
drive back out, or be unable to return to their vehicle.
Lift doors must be wide enough to accept wheelchairs and carers with
double-width prams (800 mm is adequate for wheelchair users but
1000 mm could be required to contend with some of the prams).
161
9.3 Stall dimensions
Locating disabled driver stalls at random throughout the building

means that drivers must be prepared to search the entire parking
area even though there may be standard width spaces available on
the lower levels. By the time that they have reached the farthest
level, stalls on the lower levels may have become available and they
must start all over again.
Supervision of randomly located stalls is made more dicult and,
hence, their misuse by other drivers becomes easier.
Occasionally it is prudent to adopt a pragmatic approach and accept
that a smaller number of spaces will be made available on the most
popular level (say 2 to 3% of the static capacity) and have another
block of overow stalls that satisfy the regulations located in a
less popular location. Eective supervision will be simplied and
the fewer empty stalls to be seen at the entry level will reduce the
annoyance of those who are queuing to enter.
Provided that problems of power failure, lift occupancy, extended
supervision and vehicle travel distances can be accepted, stalls may
be located on any level as long as they are in close proximity to a
lift core. They should be located proportionate to deck capacity
but, in any case, not less than four in a block. If possible, an indicator
system that informs drivers of the parking status on other levels will
improve circulation eciency.
Stalls are, typically, 3.600 m in width with a crosshatched lane 1.200 m

wide at the ends, continued along the face of the parking block. They
can also be 2.400 m in width provided that a 1.200 m crosshatched
area is located between every pair of stalls; it assumes that drivers
will not use adjacent bays at the same time. This results in savings of
an extra standard width stall for every four 3.600 m-wide disabled
stalls. It should be appreciated that the stall-end crosshatching remains
part of the trac aisle and is not additional to it. Stalls for carers, or
mother and child, can be shown in a similar manner to the 2.400 mwide disabled driver parking stalls but showing a dierent legend. In
this case, however, the crosshatched end lane can be omitted (see
Fig. 9.2).
Fig. 9.2 Two types of

disabled parking bays
162
9.4 Access
In some cases it may be prudent to separate disabled spaces from the

main parking area by introducing a separate access and egress point.
Disabled drivers, understandably, tend to reduce the inow rate,
which, in large car parks that are used intensively, could pose a
problem. It is also of benet for disabled drivers to readily identify
the special provision, be condent of gaining access and, possibly, provide direct access to a shop mobility unit. Dierential tari options can
also be introduced.
163
Fig. 10.1 Cycle and motorcycle parking
164
10 Cycles and motorcycles
10.1 Discussion
The growth in motorcycle ownership and other powered two wheelers

(PTWs) has created an ever increasing pressure on the need to provide
adequate facilities for their safe and secure parking. A study of the
London Congestion Area found that 33% of the total capacity of on
street parking was occupied by motorcycles.
Motorcycles and bicycles share the highway with four-wheeled
vehicles. In an open road environment, as a result of their relative
lack of manoeuvrability and protection for the rider, they are much
more vulnerable to accidents than other types of road user. They are
considerably narrower than four-wheeled vehicles and are able to
manoeuvre in smaller areas but they are much less stable at low
speeds.
Within most parking facilities, vehicles are parked at right angles
immediately at the sides of the trac aisles (see Fig. 10.1) and, in the
main, have to reverse across the aisles in order to turn towards the
exit. The relative narrowness of trac aisles and the problems of low
speed control for two-wheeled vehicles can put them at an even greater
accident risk than when on the streets outside. In the case of angled
parking, with even narrower aisles, the problem is exacerbated.
Over recent years an increase has been noted in proposals for cycle
and motorcycle parking within car parks. Some have been sensibly
located at street level and provided with separate entry and exit
points, while others have been proposed wherever there has been
spare space occurring on any or all parking levels and must share the
car access. There is no legislation covering this provision and it is
generally left to the designer or the client to specify the numbers and
locations that they consider to be reasonable. Often it is a case of
what can be tted in without losing car spaces.
On safety grounds alone, it is good policy to separate two- and fourwheeled vehicles by the provision of separate parking zones, each with
its own access location. Motorcycle, PTWs and, in particular, bicycle
provision, should only be considered adjacent to the main vehicle
access level. It also needs to have direct street access to be attractive
to riders.
10.2 Cycle parking
Often a requirement by planning authorities, cycle parking needs to

be designed so that its location does not interfere with pedestrian
movements. Typically, bicycle parking is free of charge and anchor
frames such as Sheeld stands are used to enable cycles to be secured
(see Fig. 10.2). An alternative is to provide a lockable security
cage that provides complete protection against theft and vandalism.
This is particularly eective in railway stations for commuter use.
They do, however, require more space for any given number of cycles
than the Sheeld stands. Cycle lockers can also be provided (see
Fig. 10.1).
10.3 Motorcycle
parking
Motorcycles are self-supporting and can be restrained at the rear (see

Fig. 10.3). When they are free standing they can be awkward to
manoeuvre backwards out of conned spaces and consideration
should be given to a layout that enables them to be pushed forward
Cycles and motorcycles
165
Fig. 10.2 Anchor stands

enable cycles to be secured
Fig. 10.3 Motorcycles can

be restrained at the rear
out of the stand. Large motorcycles occupy a space of about

2800 mm 1300 mm. Side by side they can be located at a spacing of
1300 mm. Powered two wheelers of smaller size can, if justied, have
their own reduced dimension parking area with a bay size of
2500 mm 1000 mm. However, supervising the use of dierent sized
parking stands can be an unrealistic exercise. It is recommended that
the areas be marked as a zone rather than bays unless it is intended
to use them as metered bays.
The resting surface should be hard and suciently strong so as to
resist the point load exerted by the motorcycle stand. Standard
tarmac exposed to solar gain can soften in hot weather and materials
such as grass blocks should be avoided. The surface should have
good drainage with gullies kept clear of the bays to avoid loss of
dropped keys and be near level to avoid motorcycle instability. The
site of bays should be close to the main entry point to attract use and
be in an area subject to casual surveillance by other bikers and passers
by. To add to the security, adequate lighting and inclusion on CCTV
coverage should be included.
10.4 Lockers
166
A major problem for many motorcyclists and some cyclists is in nding

somewhere for their special clothing: helmets, leathers, boots, rainproof
wear, etc. Metered anchors with helmet lockers are an option as are
lockers situated close to supervised areas, to reduce the incidence of
theft and vandalism.
10.5 Fiscal control
It is unreasonable for motorcyclists to have to pay the same amount for

their parking as motorists, yet if they were to proceed through the
vehicle control barriers in a payment on foot system they would incur
the same charges. A separate entry/exit allows a diering charge rate.
A at payment could be charged on either entry or exit, or by a pay
and display system.
Cycles and motorcycles
167
Fig. 11.1 TV screen room
168
11 Security
11.1 Discussion
Security, or the lack of it within some car parks, is a major issue with the
parking public. The statistics indicate, however, that personal danger is
more perceived than actual. Feelings of insecurity can be engendered
when walking though a dimly lit car park late at night not dissimilar
to those developed when walking through, say, a dark street on a
dull evening. The actual danger is minimal, but the perceived danger
creates fears that, if not allayed, could result in the car park being
shunned by many motorists.
The advent of CCTV has seen a great leap forward in car park security.
However, it cannot see around bends or corners. Curvi-linear or circular
aisles are restricted in this respect. More curves mean more cameras,
more screens, more sta and more expense.
Feelings of security are also enhanced by a reduction of internal
vertical structure. Structures spanning clear over each bin are preferable to those where columns and shear walls are located adjacent to
the aisles, behind which potential felons can lurk. It has been proven,
by competitive construction over the years, that properly designed
clear-span structures are no more expensive to construct than those
with internal columns.
The Safer Car Parks scheme is promoted throughout the UK and
provides an award system for approved facilities with specialist
advice from police and other security experts. It recommends standards
to be achieved for the safety of motorists and pedestrians and includes
advice on the design of external landscaping to foil attempts at concealment by felons.
11.2 Lighting, music

and CCTV
The requirement for general lighting is covered in Chapter 13. However,

bright lighting enhances the feeling of security and dark areas should be
avoided. Soft relaxing music can be helpful, especially late at night and
the knowledge that CCTV cameras are supervising ones movements
can be very reassuring. It also helps if two-way communication could
be achieved between the customer and the supervising sta. Such
measures can go a long way to dispelling feelings of insecurity for both
men and women when in these buildings and eliminate any thought of
separating the sexes.
A major advance in the improvement of car park security has been
the adoption of CCTV that improves surveillance from a xed vantage
point (see Fig. 11.1) and has the ability to record anti-social activities.
To take the best advantage of making the most ecient use of this hightech surveillance, the car park needs to be designed accordingly. The
presence of surveillance cameras should be highlighted with signs and
visible cameras. An ecient layout should eliminate blind corners
and reduce the incidence of internal obstructions such as columns
and walls to an absolute minimum, especially when adjacent to the
trac aisles. Overly short distances that make inecient use of the
system should be avoided. Overcoming design inadequacies merely by
installing more cameras does not readily solve the situation. It has
been established that the maximum time that operatives can monitor
up to six screens eectively is about two hours. After that, they need
to stand down for two hours at least. The more screens that have to
Security
169
be monitored the more rapidly that an operatives eectiveness is

reduced to an extent that a display of anti-social behaviour cannot be
recognised as such. Increasing the surveillance sta will solve the
problem, but the car park running costs will also increase.
Circular car park layouts are the most inecient shape to monitor,
followed by curvi-linear forms that might look good but do nothing
for security issues. Split-level layouts restrict the width available for
surveillance and the best shapes for security are with straight decks
and a construction system that spans clear over trac aisles and their
adjacent stalls. (Generally, 15.600 m for one-way-ow layouts and
16.500 m for two-way-ow layouts.)
For security to be really eective it needs manpower to provide a
visual presence, undertake surveillance and be on call to assist: informative signing also helps. Knowing precisely where to go for assistance can
relieve a sense of unease. (Signing issues are covered in Chapter 14.)
11.3 See and be

seen
One of the major worries is for people to enter an enclosed stairwell and
be assaulted without being seen by others. Closed circuit television can
play a major role but the provision of glazed areas that enable any
potential attacker to be exposed to public gaze also helps. Wherever
there are areas where the public is vulnerable to attack, glazed doors,
windows or glass walls are desirable. There should be no hiding place
for anti-social behaviour. Vision panels in lift and lobby doors onto
decks should be provided and at a height that disabled pedestrians in
wheelchairs can see through.
11.4 Women-only car

parks
One solution thought to be able to eliminate the feelings of insecurity

among women when using car parks has been to propose the introduction of women-only car parks. Mainly proposed by politicians, the
subject is aired publicly every few years, but there are a number of
reasons why such a proposal is impractical, such as:
.
What is to prevent a man from cross-dressing and driving into the car
park and what socially acceptable procedures can be implemented to
prevent this happening?
Most car parks are not dicult to enter by way of the open sides, or
re escape doors, or even hidden in someones vehicle.
The operator will become even more responsible for the safety of the
user. Construction, supervision and insurance costs will rise, to be
reected in increased parking charges.
Who, or what authority, is prepared to underwrite the cost of introducing such a scheme?
Will there be enough women drivers of a nervous disposition in any
one place to justify their introduction?
The location of such a car park advertises where women can be found
alone in the streets outside as they make their way to and from it. It
will become a focal point of attraction for those who prey on the
female sex.
Proposals for women-only car parks should be resisted.
170
Fig. 12.1 Rheims
172
12 Underground parking
12.1 Discussion
Underground parking
The tenets contained in Chapters 3 to 9 are the same for underground

car parks as for those above ground. In practice, the only dierence is in
the design of the sub-structure. In all other respects they can be considered to be the same as for an enclosed car park above ground. The main
problems that occur are to do with earth pressure and keeping the water
out. The provision of mechanical ventilation, re and smoke control is
given in Chapter 18.
The drum shape of a circular car park is well suited to being located
underground and the unused space in the middle can provide ventilation, services and escape facilities. However, such layouts cannot, practically, incorporate separated ow routes, so their capacity should be
limited to 400 spaces when used by the general public. When largecapacity layouts are proposed the layouts will not dier greatly from
those proposed above ground.
The cost of an underground car park per car space, in general terms,
is at least twice that for an eciently designed, open sided, car park
above ground. Running costs are also higher. In many countries
(such as France, see Fig. 12.1) underground car parks are government
subsidised, but in the UK public car parks, usually, have to be paid
for by commercial enterprises or the general public. Other than in
exceptional circumstances, such as the centre of a major conurbation
where the need is great and land is at a premium, it is dicult to justify
their construction on economic grounds, no matter how socially
desirable they might be.
173
Fig. 13.1 Criterion Place, Leeds, at night
174
13 Lighting
13.1 Discussion
Car parks in the past have frequently been dull and dingy places that
created a sense of unease, especially in the minds of nervous pedestrians.
Current British Standards specify a much improved lighting standard
(see Fig. 13.1) with uniformity requirements that avoid the occurrence
of poorly lit areas. Higher lux levels are specied for entry and exit
conditions
and ramps. CCTV can operate with relatively poor light
levels but good, maintained lighting assists in promoting a sense of

well-being and condence in those who use the facility.
Painting the structure a light colour, especially the underside of the
decks, can transform the appearance of a dull and dingy park, and
gains a signicant uplift in reectivity. Lux levels can be improved to
an extent that, sometimes, an increase in wattage is unnecessary. Consideration at the design stage to such factors as the reectivity of sots and
the eciency of the ttings to be adopted can result in signicant reductions in running costs. The lighting chosen needs to be demonstrably
vandal resistant and it is good practice to minimise the exposure of
conduit serving the lighting by casting it into the deck structure.
Lighting does not have to be all on or all o. In a large car park
it can be zoned, external rows can be turned o early leaving the
internal lights on longer. Light controls can be made photosensitive
and turn the lights o automatically when no one is moving on a
particular deck. However, entering a darkened deck and hoping that
the lights will come on automatically can be disconcerting. It is also
disconcerting if they switch themselves o before a driver is ready to
drive away.
Top deck lighting can be designed to a lesser lux rating than the intermediate parking levels. Planning requirements may limit the height of
lighting masts and overspill light pollution. Foggy weather can also
be a factor aecting lux levels in some parts of the country.
13.2 Emergency
lighting
Illuminated signs should be installed at locations such that in the event

of a power failure at night they can guide pedestrians to the nearest
escape route. They should incorporate back-up battery power located
either in each individual sign or from a central battery source and
should conform to the requirements of BS 5266: Part 1.
Lighting
175
Fig. 14.1 Harrogate car park interior
176
14 Signage
14.1 Discussion
Signs and notices should advise, direct, be easily understood and easily
recognisable. Even when travelling at low speeds in an enclosed area the
drivers workload can be relatively high and a proliferation of dicult
to read signs and notices only serves to confuse. Conversely, too few
directional signs can create a sense of unease. The best circulation
layouts are those where the need for signage is minimal.
To cater for drivers with little knowledge of English, where possible,
signs should be graphic and incorporate symbols readily found on the
public highway. One-o graphics should be reserved for commercial
branding or other site-specic uses (as shown on Fig. 14.1). Guidelines
should be consulted for pedestrians with sight problems, such as the use
of Braille and for disabled drivers, such as the positioning of lift
buttons, viewing panels, etc. There will also be a need to provide
signs for protection of liability, such as Dont leave valuables,
Dont ll petrol, and located so as not to conict with other direction
or advice signs.
To assist the motorist there should be a combination of deck
markings and overhead signs located at key changes of direction. In
one-way-ow layouts, signs over the trac aisles showing single
arrows in the direction of the trac ow and no entry symbols when
going in the wrong direction, should occur frequently. Pedestrians
need to identify the level they are on and then be directed towards
the principal access core. This can be helped by colour coding each
oor level and having oor level indicator signs immediately outside
the lift doors. If there is more than one access core then each should
be identied with a unique reference such as the street name onto
which it exits. Working on the basis that some motorists will be
unfamiliar with the car park, clear directions to the inow search
path will be required, together with advice as to whether the trac
aisles are one-way or two-way and preferably, indications of the
parking status in trac aisles adjacent to the main circulation route
(variable message signs).
14.2 Directional
signs
Direction arrows are a familiar symbol for deck markings and overhead
signs. Arrows painted on the decks are viewed obliquely and need to be
large and long. Most turns will be at right angles and the arrow sign
showing this should be clear and unequivocal. Where a large car park
incorporates a rapid inow route that can bypass full or trac congested decks, variable message signs will also be useful in advising
motorists to avoid the aisle ahead and take the rapid route to another
deck level. This will improve dynamic eciency and assist in reducing
driver frustration.
Motorists will also require directional arrows coupled with EXIT
signs when leaving the car park. Where a rapid and excluded outow
route is incorporated it should be clearly marked at each direction
change to avoid mixing with the inow route.
Pedestrians readily understand signs incorporating a walking man,
coupled with an arrow showing the direction of travel. It is also
common practice to provide a 1 m-wide painted strip on the deck
with the walking man graphic to one side of the trac aisle, leading
Signage
177
to the access core. Pedestrians are made to feel secure by this action, but
it should be borne in mind that the painted strip remains part of the
trac aisle and they are being channelled immediately behind the
parking bays. It renders them vulnerable to vehicles leaving their
parking bays, particularly when reversing. Children running ahead or
lagging behind their carers can be obscured from the drivers view
and are put at risk.
With right-angled parking and a one-way trac ow, pedestrians and
cars share a 6 m-wide aisle and have a reasonable aisle width to see and
be seen but, when angled parking is adopted, aisle widths, say, for 458
parking can reduce to 3.600 m and, in so doing, place vehicles and
pedestrians into close proximity.
Control signs, such as, no entry, permit parking only and authorised
disabled drivers only, and similar signs should be designed such that
they stand out clearly from the directional signs. Where signs have
highway-approved equivalents showing the maximum allowable
speed, give way, stop, no entry and similar, the highway designs
should be adopted so that drivers will more readily conform to them.
14.3 Information
signs
Motorists and pedestrians need to know precisely where they are

parked. When in a hurry to keep an appointment, catch a train or
simply deal with children, it is easy to forget to note the whereabouts
of a particular car on a large-capacity deck and even the oor level
on which it is parked. Numbers painted at the ends of bays assist in
locating the vehicle on a particular oor and in really large-capacity
layouts, block zoning (A, B, C etc.) can also help. The colour coding
of individual levels also assists drivers to remember their parking
oor level.
Overhead signs specifying the deck level and, where applicable, the
specic zone, provide a good reminder and themes showing unusual
characters, such as bears, giraes and horses or, boats, trains and
planes can be stencilled around a parking oor. If they are repeated
suciently frequently they can be a good memory jog. The repeated
use of colour as bands on columns and walls also aids recall. Signs
showing the parking level together with the appropriate character
should be prominently displayed at the entrances to the access core,
with repeat signs within the core.
The location of pay stations in payment-on-foot and pay-and-display
systems need to be shown, preferably by using overhead signs that can
be seen from a reasonable distance. With a payment-on-foot system
drivers need to be informed that they are required to pay before returning to their vehicles. The preferable locations for this are at the entry
point and when they rst enter the stair core as pedestrians. A plan
of each oor level is useful in larger car parks to provide information
on destination points.
Advice signs to conform with legislation or limit the operators
liability should be located so as to be visible, but not conict with
key directional signs and not distract motorists. The type of sign and
colour should not be the same as the direction and principal information signs (see Fig. 14.2).
14.4 Variable
message sign
systems
These consist of metal-sensitive loops or infrared beams built into

ramps, access ways or stalls. Connected to electronic signs, they provide
information on the parking availability for a complete facility, deck,
section, or even an individual stall, dependent upon the chosen
system (see Fig. 14.1). Vehicles, passing over these loops or through
beams, activate the relevant signs, informing drivers of the parking
178
Fig. 14.2 Sign schedule
status and preventing needless circulation through areas that are

already full with parked vehicles. Their inclusion can often be of significant benet to circulation eciency.
14.5 Emergency
signs
Signage
Fire escape and emergency exit signage must conform to BS 5266: Part
1 and be located in appropriate positions, together with additional
directional signs. They must be illuminated and incorporate rechargeable batteries that, in the event of a power failure at night, will
enable pedestrians to nd their way to a re escape.
179
Fig. 15.1 Protected drainage
180
15 Drainage
15.1 Discussion
Drainage
Drain locations should be considered during the design process and not
added in as an afterthought. They should be inconspicuous, easy to
maintain and located where they cannot suer damage from vehicles
(see Fig. 15.1). When located where damage can occur, protective measures such as hoops or protective posts should not be located such that
they intrude into the parking stalls, especially where they reduce the
available width.
In the UK, drainage should be designed in accordance with BS 8301
and BS EN 12056. Exposed roof parking decks located directly over
shops, oces or other habitable areas should be designed for full
storm intensity (75 mm per hour) to ensure the system is capable of
coping with a ash ood, otherwise a lower intensity can be used
(50 mm per hour). Stair cores need special attention to ensure that
drainage falls do not channel water into them, particularly as mobility
regulations have negated the use of thresholds.
It should not be necessary to provide U-bends on outlets from the
upper parking decks. It should be sucient to provide this feature on
the lowest level only. Open-sided car parks have their gully outlets
vented to fresh air, even when they are within the perimeter of the
building. On the intermediate decks water occurs only intermittently,
allowing material on the underside of vehicles to drop o, be washed
towards the drains, where, if U-bends are incorporated, it solidies,
builds up and can, eventually, block them. Occasional maintenance,
if carried out, can overcome the problem, but U-bends are an
unnecessary feature.
Some authorities regulations require that the roof deck drainage be
separated from that on the intermediate decks. The incidence of petrol
and oil leaks is low at any time but it is argued that such leaks into the
drains from intermediate decks can be more concentrated than from a
weather-exposed roof deck, even though extended periods of dry
weather can occur. A petrol interceptor is required to intercept the
intermediate located drains before the system enters the main sewer
but if the roof drainage is to be separated it means that twice as
many down-pipes will be necessary.
Minimum drainage falls of 1.67% (1 in 60) are recommended on
exposed decks although 2% (1 in 50) are to be preferred to better
contend with structural deections. Where joints occur between decks
and are used for movement it is sometimes possible to leave them
open and provide a drain under to catch the rainwater. Proprietary
cast-in slot drains are, visually, less intrusive but can be dicult to
make watertight, especially if used in suspended slabs. On some
awkward shaped sites it is desirable to rotate part of the structure
through 908 or more. Unless carefully considered, this could lead to
problems in creating falls that are compatible at the change of direction.
Facilities for draining and washing-down decks should be provided
at each level and spaced such that the length of hosepipe to be used
can cover all of the deck area.
181
Fig. 16.1 Fire ghting
182
16 Fire escapes, safety and re ghting
16.1 Discussion
The rst rule for re safety relates to the provision of adequate escape
routes for pedestrians. Unless otherwise agreed with the local re
ocer, the number and position of re escape stairs should be located
such that they comply with the maximum allowable pedestrian travel
distances, shown in Approved Document B of the Building Regulations.
Although cars parks are not specically referred to in Table 3, they are
usually classed as Purpose Group 7, i.e. storage and other nonresidential for intermediate decks and Purpose Group 27, plant
room or rooftop plant for top, exposed decks.
16.2 Escape
distances
The limitations on travel distances are as follows:

.
.
.
16.3 Fire safety
Fire engineering predictions and an assessment of the likely conditions

that will occur during actual res (as shown in Fig. 16.1) should be
carried out, together with an ongoing re safety management system:
a particularly relevant matter when the car park adjoins another building, such as a shopping centre, leisure facility or a cinema. A typical re
safety strategy for a car park scheme should incorporate the following
elements:
.
.
.
16.4 Fire-ghting
measures
Intermediate decks 25 m for available escape in one direction only.

45 m for available escape routes in more than one direction.
Top, exposed decks 60 m for available escape in one direction only,
100 m for available escape routes in more than one direction.
A suitable re alarm system using manual break-glass contacts at

each re exit with auto-detection in lift shafts and lift motor rooms.
A means of control of smoke and fuel vapour hazards usually combined with the proposed method of ventilating the car park, i.e.
natural or mechanical.
Means of escape calculations for exit provisions (see Section 16.6).
Escape lighting (in accordance with BS 5266: Part 1) to provide
luminaries continuously energised for up to three hours by internal
or central battery standby to give full or reduced lighting output
from the lamps of the luminaries.
Maintained exit and emergency ttings provided over door exits to
stairwells, changes in direction and re exit doors.
Provisions for disabled pedestrians, i.e. escape routes suitable for
their use and refuges in an enclosure providing resistance to re for
up to half an hour (escape stairway landings).
Compartmentation between car park decks and re escape stair/lift
shafts, basement oors and adjoining buildings containing dierent
re-ghting measures.
The issue of vandalism has led to the removal of portable re-ghting

equipment such as extinguishers and hose reels from being freely available on parking oors. They are now, quite frequently, located in an
attendants oce, if there is one, or in manual break-glass cabinets
located adjacent to the staircase exit doors.
It has long been recognised that the re load in car parks is not
particularly high and vehicle res do not spread. Many re ocers
Fire escapes, safety and re ghting
183
nowadays ensure that the occupants have been evacuated and then
leave the re to burn out, rather than risk the safety of their personnel,
unnecessarily, in ghting the re.
Dry-risers should be located in the escape stair cores with an external
inlet box provided at an appropriate level for re service vehicles and
outlet valves for hose connection at each oor level.
When the building is more than 18.000 m above, or 10.000 m below,
the re service vehicle access level, it should be provided with reghting lifts. Some re ocers have interpreted this Building Regulation
requirement as 18.000 m measured to the highest enclosed or coveredover deck level: open-deck roof parking being excluded from this
assessment.
16.5 Sprinklers
Approved Document B of the Building Regulations acknowledges that it

is not essential to install sprinklers. Modern mechanical ventilation
systems are available that use impulse and jet fans to ensure that
smoke will be contained, channelled through an air corridor and
guided towards the extract point. It is now possible to keep one side
of a burning vehicle clear of smoke, thereby aiding visibility and the
approach of the re service personnel.
16.6 Fire escapes
The requirements for re escapes are provided in Sections 8.2 and 8.3
(see Figs 8.3 and 9.2).
184
Fig. 17.1 Barrier control
186
17 Fiscal and barrier control
17.1 Discussion
Parking free of charge in a structured car park is, very nearly, a thing of
the past. Ignoring the site value, the average cost per car space, for an
eciently designed new-build facility, is 7500 to 8500 at 2005 prices.
Add to that the running and stang costs, the rates, utility charges,
interest charges, an allowance for maintenance and a reasonable
prot margin, and it can be seen that 1 per hour is not an unreasonable
amount. Even so, it implies that every parking space will be used
eciently during the course of a week.
17.2 Control systems
There are several types of control systems that enable payment to be

made:
.
Fiscal and barrier control
Payment on exit where a time-stamped ticket is dispensed upon

entry (see Fig. 17.1) and handed back to an operative in a kiosk
when leaving. Payment is then assessed on the time dierence. The
main ongoing cost of this system is that of having an operative
manning the exit station at all open times.
Pay and display a system whereby motorists assess the amount of
time that they will be staying and pre-pay accordingly. The ticket
is then axed to the vehicle window. Fines are imposed for an
over-stay and money is not returned for an under-stay. When
adopted by a private operator the imposition of nes can be dicult.
The ticket dispensers are relatively economical to install and barriers
at the exit are not an essential feature. However, an entry barrier that
prevents the car park from becoming over-crowded is desirable to
eliminate the possibilities of vehicle congestion.
Payment on foot a similar system to pay on exit but the timed ticket
is inserted into an automatic pay station when leaving: upon payment
of the correct amount, the ticket is stamped and can then be inserted
into a ticket acceptor at the exit that operates the barrier. The ticket is
time limited to prevent motorists from short-circuiting the system.
This is the most expensive type of control but is essentially fairer
than pay and display and eliminates the possibilities of fraud where
operatives are involved. A typical installation for a 750-space
multi-storey car park would be as follows:
Four pay stations, a central computer with mouse, keyboard, screen,
printer and UPS-intercom facility, manually operated automatic till.
Two entry ticket spitters, two exit ticket readers, four rising arm
barriers. Cables and loops. The total cost of such a system will be
80 000, approximately (2005 prices).
Payment by mobile phone this is a fairly new system that is gaining
interest in the UK and operates on the basis of paying for parking
charges over the telephone. A number is given at the meter or
ticket machine and a text message or phone call is made purchasing
an amount of parking time. The vehicle registration number is given
and details are entered into a central computer to which parking
wardens can refer and check that payment has been made. Drivers
can set up an account and charges are added to their telephone
bill. Payment can be debited against a credit or debit card. Some systems are also set up to ensure that drivers receive a timely reminder
187
17.3 Barrier control
that the time booked is about to expire and are given the option of
purchasing more time.
Tag system used extensively on toll roads in Europe and now extending into car park use. An electronic tag is inserted into the windscreen
of the vehicle that can be read from cameras. It records the time of
entry and exit and bills are rendered accordingly. Drivers are not
required to take tickets on entry or when leaving; recognition of the
tag opens the barriers automatically. It is not in general use in the
UK as yet but is gaining interest. However, some provision must be
made for those who wish to enter the park and are not contributors
to the tag system (foreign visitors, rented or borrowed cars, occasional
drivers, etc.).
Rising arm barriers are provided to provide a function and performance

as specied in BS 6571. The rising arm should have a fracture plate or be
mounted on a clutch system such that it can be broken o of pushed up
in an emergency. The lower edge of the arm should be cushioned so as to
minimise damage if the arm descends on a pedestrian.
Lane widths at barriers should not be wider than 2.350 m to avoid
stand-o situations where motorists are unable to reach the ticket
spitter or card reader without leaving their vehicle. Left turns onto
barriers should be avoided for the same reason unless the control
barrier is set back from the turn. To avoid roll-back situations,
gradients at barriers should be kept as at as possible and preferably
no steeper than 1 in 30 (3.3%).
The number of barriers to be provided at the entrance and exit will
depend on the expected peak hour trac ows. The typical working
capacity of a single ticket operated barrier will be approximately 350
Fig. 17.2 A typical barrier layout with a two-way central control point opening directly onto a thoroughfare
188
vehicles per hour. If a tag system were to be adopted, the gures per
barrier will rise, possibly up to 1000 vehicles per hour.
In some town centre sites, where space is limited, a four barrier
requirement can be reduced to three by making the middle lane duodirectional, incorporating a barrier at each end, one of which is
raised dependent on the intensity of the trac ow in a particular direction. Where space is available, an additional barrier can be provided to
eliminate queuing problems caused by mechanical breakdowns that
occur from time to time (see Fig. 17.2).
Fiscal and barrier control
189
Fig. 18.1 Fan ventilation
190
18 Ventilation
18.1 Discussion
Insucient attention to ventilation problems can lead to a build up of

noxious fumes within the car park that can cause nausea and result in
the reduced use of the building by the parking public. Where car parks
are located underground, mechanical means of ventilation are almost
unavoidable, but when above ground it is possible to ventilate them
naturally or with mechanical assistance. Ventilation requirements are
not the result of precise analysis, but have developed empirically
through past experience. They are based upon common sense and
require a modicum of common sense to be used if, while satisfying
the requirements overall, local pockets of still air are allowed to
occur in which exhaust gases can build up.
Air is lazy and must be directed if it is to be eective. It is of little use
locating an extract fan next to an open window. Where natural ventilation is employed in a long, rectangular building, ventilating the two
ank walls will be quite eective. Where the building is square on
plan, distributing the required opening areas evenly around the perimeter can be equally eective. For non-rectangular shapes a common
sense approach to the requirements should be adopted.
Approved Documents B and F of the Building Regulations provide
guidance for compliance with the various conditions. BS 7346: Part 7
is soon to be published and will provide further guidance in respect
of assisted natural ventilation and mechanical ventilation.
18.2 Natural
ventilation
requirements
The basic tenets of natural ventilation are:

.
By the provision of openings in the elevations at each oor level. The

total area of these openings should be at least 5% of the oor area.
Usually, when two sides only are ventilated, the required open area
is divided equally on each side but it is allowable for one side to
have as little as 1.25% of the oor area, in which case the other
side must increase to 3.75% in order to conform with the 5% requirement. Proximity to boundary conditions that reduce the allowable
open area on the boundary side can benet from this rule.
Two opposing sides can each incorporate 1.25% openings, but the
remaining 2.5% must be located somewhere on the other two
sides.
The openings should be spread evenly along the wall lengths and, in
order to prevent the local build up of fumes within the parking areas,
extended lengths of solid-wall construction should be avoided, especially if they result in right-angled corners.
18.3 Mechanically
assisted natural
ventilation
requirements
When the opening areas total less than 5%, but more than 2.5% of the
oor area, a mechanical ventilation method can be employed to boost
the movement of air (see Fig. 18.1). It should be capable of providing
three air changes per hour, at least. Smoke vents at ceiling level may
be also be used when assessing the available open area.
18.4 Mechanical
ventilation
requirements
Fully enclosed basement and above-ground car parks must employ

mechanical ventilation systems that achieve minimum operating
standards as follows:
Ventilation
191
Six air changes per hour throughout the car park, increasing to ten
air changes per hour at exits, ramps and where vehicles are likely
to be queuing with their engines running.
Limiting the concentration of carbon monoxide particles to no more
than 50 parts per million averaged out over an eight-hour period and
100 parts per million for peak concentrations at ramps and enclosed
exits. This system also requires to be operated at ten air changes per
hour throughout the car park during re conditions. Occasionally,
this last requirement is relaxed when it forms part of an engineered
approach as discussed below.
Until recently, mechanical ventilation systems have adopted the use

of ducting to carry the air around, usually sot mounted and incorporating inlet and outlet grilles. These systems tend to be visually intrusive
and expensive and are losing favour compared with the most recent
approach of using sot-mounted jet or impulse fans. The systems are
based on ventilation principles developed from tried and tested
tunnel ventilation techniques and dier from traditional systems as
follows:
.
Ducting is not used: sot-mounted fans control the airow both at

oor and ceiling height.
Smoke management and control, not usually possible with ducts, is a
key feature of the system.
In larger car parks the engineering design is based on a design re size
rather than the simple air change requirements referred to in the
Building Regulations.
The basic principle is that main extract fans provide the air change
rate within the car park while the sot-mounted fans control the air
direction. The internal environmental conditions are constantly monitored by the use of carbon monoxide and smoke control detectors.
The system can be designed to such an extent that deck areas in the
vicinity of a re can be kept free of smoke, thereby aiding access for
the re-ghting personnel.
192
Fig. 19.1 VCM interior
194
19 Structure
19.1 Discussion
There are many excellent books on structural design, both in steel and
reinforced concrete, and it is not intended that this chapter should
attempt to emulate them. Car park structures, however, have several
features that render them dierent from other types of building. They
are:
.
.
.
.
.
A structure where the decks can be fully exposed to the elements.

Decks that are subject to spillages of oil and petrol and, in inclement
weather, the importation of salt tracked in on tyres and dropping
from the underside of the vehicle. Also, in coastal regions, airborne
salts.
High temperature variations, especially on exposed roof decks.
Floor wear, especially where vehicles turn.
Shrinkage-crack control and sealed construction joints to resist
rainwater leaking through the decks onto vehicles parked below.
Impact resistance considerations to prevent vehicles breaking
through the external walls and also damaging vertical structural
elements within the building.
Drainage that need not always be fully trapped and drainage falls
that can be aected by structure orientation.
In many respects, they are more akin to bridge structures than they
are to urban buildings.
19.2 Construction
materials
Structure
Reinforced concrete is the most popular construction form used for car
park structures, either cast in place or precast. Hybrid structures
comprising part in situ and part precast and/or pre-stressed occur
quite frequently, as does composite construction where in situ concrete
is bonded over a precast under-deck.
Structural steelwork is also used frequently, mainly as a framework
of columns and beams and also for resisting vehicle impact, but the
decks and internal walls are invariably constructed using concrete.
Steel-framed structures are, generally, a little lighter than concreteframed structures and re resistance is not a major problem.
Properly designed and constructed, concrete car parks can have a life
expectation exceeding 60 years. Car parks with structural-steel frames
can also last a similar length of time, but incur greater maintenance
costs if proper procedures are carried out. From an initial construction
viewpoint, there is little cost dierence between concrete and steel structures provided that both have been designed eciently. The choice
between construction forms is more a matter of personal preference
and maintenance requirements than anything else, although considerations such as irregularly shaped layouts, problems of access to the
construction site, construction programme and material transportation
problems could inuence the nal decision.
Other construction materials have been considered over the years,
such as timber frames and oors, and metal plate decking. Timber
deects and, under moving loads, it vibrates to a greater extent than
steel or concrete; it swells and shrinks with varying climatic conditions
that render eective waterproong of the joints more dicult; its re
resistance is poor and its resistance to abrasion and impact is low.
195
Metal plate decking is relatively light but its unsupported span is low; it
has a high resistance to abrasion but waterproong the numerous joint
runs is an expensive task and, unless it is securely xed down to the
supporting structure, it will move around, tearing the joints.
19.3 Joints
Measurements taken at a constant temperature over an extended period

of time show that concrete, cast in situ, shrinks as it gains strength by
an amount greater than that caused by increases in daily temperature:
so-called expansion joints are, in most cases, shrinkage joints. Narrow
and wide joints will grow by the same amount, but wide joints reduce
the tensile (tearing) stresses developed in the exible jointing material.
It is also advantageous to ll the joints as late as possible in the
contract.
In precast concrete structures, much of the shrinkage will occur
before being introduced into a building and so joint shrinkage problems
will be reduced. However, the restriction of unit dimensions for transportation and handling purposes results in a larger number requiring to
be sealed than for concrete structures cast in situ. Composite construction techniques where in situ concrete toppings are cast over precast
concrete units should be considered as in situ concrete structures for
jointing purposes.
Roof parking decks that incorporate a dark-coloured waterproof
membrane, when subjected to solar gain, can develop temperature
dierentials of more than 40 8C between the upper and lower surfaces.
In these extreme conditions the upper surface will expand more than its
original construction dimension. Insucient attention to joint locations
can result in cracking and even warping of the decks. Calculations to
establish the scale of these problems should be made when the structural form has been established.
19.4 Perimeter
protection
Vehicle impact is based upon a 1500 kg vehicle travelling at 10 mph or

16 kph (4.45 m/sec) and vehicle barrier systems or structural cladding
should provide restraint without failing catastrophically. There are
several ways in which this can be achieved:
.
Concrete walling, either cast in situ or pre-cast is, generally, the most
resistant to deection under impact.
Horizontal steel beams bolted between columns can deect signicantly when impacted at the middle of the span. The longer the
beam, the greater will be the deection. The height to the centre of
the horizontal member is generally taken as 450 mm with a minimum
depth of 200 mm to cater for vehicle bumper height variations. They
are generally constructed with their anges vertical, the better to
resist horizontal impact forces.
Proprietary restraint systems can deect up to 400 mm, but the deck
must be suciently strong to resist the tearing out-forces exerted by
the steel uprights.
Steel meshwork and wire cables are capable of deecting up to
600 mm. They are simple to install on the intermediate oors but
the roof parking deck requires special attention. The design of the
barrier system should be such that impact deections do not open
up gaps along the deck edges large enough to become dangerous to
pedestrians. Suitable measures should also be taken to prevent
non-structural cladding from being disturbed.
Impact forces reduce as barrier deections increase and, in consequence, vehicle damage is reduced. Impacting a non-yielding concrete
wall at 10 mph can result in the vehicle being crushed by 100 mm or
196
more, but if a exible barrier is introduced vehicle damage can be

minimal. Extreme vehicle impact, however, is a relatively rare occurrence and such considerations should not overly inuence designers
except when deciding upon the location of any non-structural external
walling relative to the barriers. Where a vehicle restraint system creates
a foothold below 550 mm above the deck level, pedestrian guarding
should be increased in height by a minimum of 1100 mm above the
foothold.
19.5 Concrete
nishes
Finishes serve two functions: to make the car park safe and to augment
its appearance. With the exception of the tracked areas, surface nishes
to concrete should be fair faced and exposed corners chamfered.
Where it is intended to leave the decks exposed, the tracked areas
should incorporate a lightly brushed nish to provide skid resistance.
Tamped nishes should be avoided as they interfere with drainage
paths and make it dicult to push trolleys, prams and wheeled luggage
across the surface. Salt, also, can build up in the hollows resulting in
premature corrosion. Smooth surfaces have low skid resistance, cause
tyres to squeal when cornering and leave tyre marks where vehicles
change direction. A smooth surface nish should only be specied
where a protective surface coating is to be applied.
A tamped nish should be applied to ramps to improve skid resistance.
The direction of tamping should be parallel with the slope to prevent
water and salts from building up in the hollows.
19.6 Protective
coatings
Although concrete appears to be dense, it is, actually, open textured

and relatively absorbent. Coatings serve two purposes: rst to improve
the appearance and second to prevent water and salt ingress, especially
where constructional errors have been made and the correct cover of
concrete to the reinforcement has not been maintained.
Surface coatings are of two types:
.
Painting that enhances the appearance and resists the passage of

water.
Applications that incorporate anti-carbonation qualities.
Both of these coatings are thin and require to be applied to a smooth

substrate. Where used on decks as a waterproof membrane they
should incorporate skid resistant qualities. They signicantly improve
the internal appearance of a car park and, due to their reectiveness,
enable the lighting levels to be achieved more eciently than when
concrete nishes occur.
Surface coatings for steelwork are mainly for corrosion protection.
When exposed to the elements hot dip galvanising can last up to 20
years to rst maintenance, depending upon the level of corrosion in
the atmosphere. When used on internally located steelwork it can last
much longer, 50 years or more, but it makes for a very austere appearance. Ideally, a light-coloured paint nish can be applied after suitable
surface preparation of the galvanising. Alternatively, a high-quality
paint system can be applied, without galvanising, that can provide a
service life of up to 15 years when used externally and much longer
when used internally.
19.7 Waterproong
Structure
Deck waterproong should create an impermeable layer suciently

exible to bridge cracks that can expand and also to provide a suitable
running surface with adequate abrasion and skid resistance characteristics. There are basically two types of waterproong:
197
Mastic asphalt that can be made more exible by the introduction of

polymers.
Elastomeric membranes that are much thinner, lighter and, unlike
mastic asphalt which is almost black, they can be coloured for dierent applications and to reduce surface heating.
Both types of membranes have their limitations, particularly with

respect to lifespan: that for mastic asphalt can be guaranteed by specialist
contractors up to 20 years and for high-quality elastomeric membranes
up to 15 years. To ensure that they can be honoured over such long
periods of time, single-source, insurance-backed guarantees should be
provided.
If the roof parking deck is used in freezing conditions the formation
of ice will need to be treated to prevent accidents. Salt is usually spread,
in which case a waterproof membrane will also protect the concrete
from corrosive attack.
For reasons of economy and reduced performance demands, intermediate deck membranes can incorporate a lower specication material
to that used in roof membranes, nevertheless, they should still be
capable of bridging over small cracks in the structure. Their location
renders them less susceptible to weathering and the eects of ultraviolet light but they can be subjected to more intense trac movements
and, hence, abrade more rapidly.
The cost of a waterproof membrane can be less than a third of that
for a lightweight roof covering a similar area, but the roof structure
can be made to last some 60 years with minimal maintenance and
enable all-year-round use to be made of the top deck, regardless of
the weather conditions.
19.8 Cambers
Although not strictly part of the initial car park design process, it
should be appreciated that oors and beams deect to varying amounts
dependent upon loading and stiness: shallow members deecting more
than deep members under the same loads.
Deections can be divided into two parts: elastic and plastic. Elastic
deection occurs when a member returns to its original position
after the removal of short-term loading and plastic deection occurs
where long-term loading, such as self-weight and other imposed
loads have to be carried permanently: also called creep, it develops
over an extended period of time and results in a permanent set in
the member.
Deections can be calculated but, if the following span/depth
ratios are adhered to, they should be acceptable unless extreme loads
are imposed:
.
.
For oors 20 to 25.

For beams 14 to 18.
Floors and beams that are simply supported will tend towards the
lower ratios and where continuous over supports they will tend towards
the higher ratios. The adoption of these ratios will, generally, limit
maximum eventual deections to no more than 0.4% of the span.
As an example, the allowable long-term mid-span deection on a
15.000 m-span beam could be 60 mm. If the oor slabs span 7.200 m
between the beams, their long-term mid-span deection could be
30 mm. If the members were laid at and without drainage falls,
ponding up to 90 mm deep could occur in the middle part of the
oor. An allowance for construction tolerances could see this gure
increasing to well over 100 mm. Gully outlets are generally located
198
adjacent to columns that remain at the high points and unless cambers
are built into the members and/or reasonable drainage falls adopted,
ponding may well be the result. It is recommended that cambers of
0.4% of the span be built into all load-bearing horizontal structural
members with spans exceeding 2400 m to avoid problems caused by
structural deection.
Structure
199
Fig. 20.1 Sundials, Amersham
Fig. 20.2 St Peters, Leamington Spa
200
20 Appearance
20.1 Discussion
Appearance is not just about the exterior envelope. It is essential to the

success of any car park that it should provide a safe and attractive
internal environment. Before the design of the external envelope is
xed too rmly, consideration should be given to optimising the
available site area and creating an ecient vehicle circulation layout.
Allowing purely architectural considerations to determine the interior
design can often aect, adversely, dynamic and static eciency and
increase the cost per car space beyond that which the client is prepared
to accept.
Multi-storey car parks are, basically, utilitarian buildings not too
dissimilar from large warehouses and in both cases it is, usually, the
aim of the client to gain maximum eciency of use and economy of
construction. The main dierence between them is their relative locations: warehouses frequently occur in commercial districts, docksides
and other transportation terminals, while car parks occur primarily
in urban centres and other highly visual locations.
For both, their architecture comprises mainly of an envelope containing a functional interior. In the case of car parks the function is
that of containing cars eciently, and eectively and providing an
adequate environment for pedestrians. In town centres, their massing
and shear bulk create unique visual problems, but also oer opportunities for interesting sculptural compositions.
The economic construction of a car park structure usually involves
some form of modular construction on a xed grid system. In the
case of a clear-span structure it will usually be 15.600 m (for one-way
ow) or 16.500 m (for two-way ow) in one direction and multiples
of the car bay widths in the other. An elevation treatment that allows
exibility in the choice of these grid congurations will, in the case of
design and build projects, provide contractors with maximum choice
when considering the most appropriate structural framework for a
sub-contract package. It should be appreciated that modules of two
or three stall widths can produce the most economical solutions for
frameworks. Clear-span pre-stressed ribbed deck systems can also
provide economical solutions.
When terracing a car park elevation, and where parallel to the
structural grid, it should occur in modules of parking bay widths or,
preferably, on grid lines. Where located at right angles to the structural
grid, terracing will require columns to support the new deck edges. In
most cases, the columns will need to be carried down through the car
park where they will have an adverse eect upon parking eciency
and user appreciation.
Car parks, nowadays, are bought and sold in increasing numbers and
market values depend more upon their popularity with the parking
public than on their external appearance. That does not mean to say
that appearance does not matter but that it should not detract, too
much, from the car parks dynamic and static eciency.
20.2 Appearance
requirements
Many local authorities have their own requirements relating to

the appearance of a car park. Typically these could include the
following:
Appearance
201
Height, scale, massing and choice of materials to be sympathetic with

the adjoining buildings and environmental requirements.
Stair and lift towers should be expressed by height and form to identify
pedestrian entry/exit locations.
Where blank walls are unavoidable, elevation relief features and
decoration are advisable.
The appearance and security aspect of ventilation openings can be
enhanced by the use of decorative grills and/or louvres.
Glazing features should be added to stair and lift cores to aid lighting
levels and promote personal security.
Parked cars should be screened from external view, but views out of
the car park from within should be promoted.
Building forms and elevations at street level should be to a human
scale and incorporate weather protection, canopies and low-level
landscaping.
Lightweight roof structures over the top deck or the inclusion of false
mansards are sometimes required to screen parked vehicles, especially when adjoining buildings overlook the car park.
In city and town centre sites it is becoming increasingly common for

local authorities to require commercial or retail areas be included at
street level, but where they intrude into the body of the car park they
can have an adverse aect on vehicle circulation routes and natural
ventilation. However, with careful creative planning from the outset,
such problems can be overcome.
202
Appendix A
A selection of new cars registered in the UK (2004):

Length
Width
Height
1515
1549
Superminis (30014000 mm long)

Citroen C4
3850
Ford Fiesta
3917
Honda Jazz
3810
Mini
3626
Nissan Micra
3715
Peugeot 206
3835
Renault Clio
3773
Seat Ibiza
3953
Toyota Yaris
3640
Vauxhall Corsa
3817
VW Polo
3897
All superminis
1667
1683
1665
1688
1660
1652
1639
1698
1660
1646
1650
1519
1432
1490
1396
1540
1432
1417
1441
1500
1440
1465
Small family (40014400 mm long)

Audi A3
4286
Citroen C3
4260
Ford Focus
4342
Honda Civic
4285
Nissan Almera
4197
Peugeot 307
4202
Renault Megane
4209
Toyota Corolla
4180
Vauxhall Astra
4249
VW Golf
4204
All small family cars
1765
1773
1840
1695
1455
1746
1777
1710
1753
1759
Large family (44014800 mm

Audi A4
BMW 3 Series
Ford Mondeo
Honda Accord
Jaguar X-Type
Mercedes C-Class
Peugeot 407
Renault Laguna
Rover 75
Toyota Avensis
Vauxhall Vectra
VW Passat
All large family cars
1772
1817
1812
1760
1789
1728
1811
1772
1761
1760
1798
1746
Minis (under 3000 mm long)

Smart Fortwo
2500
long)
4586
4520
4731
4665
4672
4526
4676
4576
4749
4630
4596
4703
Sold
Market share
36,171
1.4%
839,604
33.7%
729,116
28.4%
459,635
17.9%
179,439
121,000
73,940
2;438;905
82,153
5,700
4,000
11,000
2;567;269
7.0%
4.7%
2.9%
96:0%
3.2%
0.25%
0.14%
0.4%
100:0%
1423
1458
1497
1495
1448
1510
1457
1475
1460
1485
1427
1421
1429
1450
1392
1426
1445
1429
1393
1480
1460
1462
4 4 (up to 4800 mm long)

MPV (up to 4800 mm long)
Sports (up to 4800 mm long)
Total (under 4800 mm long)
Executive (up to 5000 mm long)
Luxury (up to 5800 mm long)
MPV (48015000 mm long)
4 4 (48015000 mm long)
Total (all vehicles)

2004 gures
Source: SMMT MOTOR INDUSTRY FACTS, 2005
WHAT CAR? ROAD TEST DIRECTORY, 2005
203
References
British Parking Association (1970) Technical Note # 1: Metric Dimensions for Car
Parks 908 Parking. BPA, Haywards Heath.
British Parking Association (1980) Multi-storey Car Parks in Shopping Centres and
Oce Blocks. Report of a seminar in October. BPA, Haywards Heath.
British Standards Institution (1995) Code of Practice for Building Drainage
(declared obsolescent). BS 8301, London.
British Standards Institution (1996) Vehicle Parking Control Equipment. Specication for Pay-on-Foot Parking Control Equipment. BS 6571, London.
British Standards Institution (1999) Emergency Lighting. Code of Practice for the
Emergency Lighting of Premises Other than Cinemas and Certain Other Specied
Premises Used for Entertainment. BS 5266, London.
British Standards Institution (1999) Barriers in and About Buildings. Code of
Practice. BS 6180, London.
British Standards Institution (2000) Components for Smoke and Heat Control
Systems, Part 7 Ventilation requirements. BS 7346, London.
British Standards Institution (2001) Design of Buildings and Their Approaches to
Meet the Needs of Disabled People, Section 8.8.8 Pedestrian ramps. BS 8300,
London.
Building Regulations (K1 Section 2 and Approved Documents B and F). HMSO,
London.
Ellson, P. B. (1969) Parking: Dynamic Capacities of Car Parks, Report LR 221.
Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.
Highway Code. HMSO, London.
Hill, J. D. and Shenton, D. (1985) Multi-storey Car Parks. British Steel Corporation, London.
Institution of Structural Engineers (2002) Design Recommendations for Multistorey and Underground Car Parks. IStructE, London.
Road Test Directory (2005) What Car? April.
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd (2005) Cars Sold in 2004.
SMMT, London.
204
Index
Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations and diagrams.

access ways 13, 14, 15
see also ramps
dynamic capacity 2728
aesthetics of design 200, 2012, 202
circular sloping deck types 124, 125
air change rates, ventilation 192
aisles
angled stalls 11
dead ends 38
inow capacity 36
minimum widths
one-way-ows 13
two-way-ows 13
pedestrians in 11
with angled parking stalls 11
ramp entries 21
ramp projections into 17
reduced
one-way-ows 11, 19
two-way-ows 12
turning between 12, 13
vehicles crossing 267
viewing angles 8
widths 1011
angled stalls 10
angles 11, 12
circulation eciency 3840, 39
design implications 3940, 39
dynamic eciency 29
minimum dimensions 13
pedestrians in aisles 11
ramp widths 21
barriers 186
exit 38
numbers of 189
two-way-ow 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 inuences 12
user friendly 2, 379
CCTV 168, 16970
optimum monitoring 16970
presence of 169
changes of use, car parks 23
circular decks, two-way-ow 126, 127
circular ramps 22, 24
end
one-way-ow 114, 115
two-way-ow 116, 117
full, two-way-ow 140, 141

turning circles 139
two full, one-way-ow 142, 143
circular sloping decks 124, 125
see also CSD series
user-unfriendliness 125
circulation design, simplicity 378
circulation eciency
angled stalls 3840, 39
crossovers 38
importance of 356
indicating 34
combined at and sloping decks
internal cross-ramps
see also VCM and WPD series
pedestrian access 91
combined helix
one- and two-way-ows
side connected 70, 71, 80, 81
one-way-ow, side connected 82, 83
contra-ow rapid exit, one-way-ow types 56, 57
control signs 178
control systems
barriers 186
exit 38
numbers of 189
two-way-ow 188
disabled drivers 163
pay and display 187
payment by mobile phone 1878
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-ow) 126, 127
static eciency 127
cycle parking
lockers 164, 165
stands for 165, 166
decks
combined at and sloping 91
directional markings 177
drainage falls 181
dynamic capacity 289
exposed
eects of rain 26
roong 3334, 1956
stopping distances on 27
temperature dierences 196
waterproong 33
at, 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
waterproong 1978
deections, structural 1989
design
aesthetics 200, 2012, 202
angled stalls, implications 3940, 39
briefs 45
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
at and sloping decks 75
hillside car parks 161
separation of 163
sloping parking decks 59
taris for 163
disabled parking stalls 160
dimensions 162, 162
legal requirements 161
location
parameters 1612
random 162
numbers 161
supervision 162
disabled pedestrians
see also disabled drivers
re escapes 156, 183
lift buttons 177
ramps 15, 156
refuges for 154
viewing panels 177
double helix
interlocking, one-way-ow 68, 69
one-way-ow
end connected 64, 65
two-way-ow, end connected 66, 67
drainage
deck falls 181
gully outlets 1989
location 181
petrol interceptors 181
protection of 180
roofs 181
stair cores 181
ventilating 181
washing-down 181
driver frustration
complex designs 378
potential conict 49, 51, 129
stall searching 35, 73
dry-risers 154, 184
dynamic capacity
decks 289
206
entries 26
exits 26
ramps 278
dynamic eciency, angled stalls 29
eciency see circulation eciency; dynamic eciency;
static eciency
emergency signs 179
lighting 175, 179, 183
entries
dynamic capacity 26
two-wheeled vehicles 165
environment, aesthetics 200, 2012, 202
ER 1 (full circular ramps/two-way-ow) 140, 141
alternatives to 141
ER 2 (full circular ramps/one-way-ow) 142, 143
as alternative 141
alternatives to 143
ER 3 (straight ramps/one-way-ow) 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-ow/two-way ramps/right angles) 102,
104, 105
alternatives to 105
circulation eciency 35
static eciency 105
FIR 2 (one-way-ow/scissors ramps) 106, 107
alternatives to 107
static eciency 107
FIR 3 (one-way-ow/two-way ramps/parallel) 108,
109
alternatives to 109
static eciency 109
FIR 4 (one-way-ow/one-way ramps) 110, 111
alternatives to 111
static eciency 111
re alarms 183
re escapes
access to 1534
disabled pedestrians 156, 183
distances from 1556, 183
horizontal 155
routes to 183
stairs as 153, 1545
re ghting 182, 1834
lifts 184
smoke containment 184
sprinklers 184
re lobbies 1545, 154
re regulations, stairs as re escapes 153
re safety strategies 183
at decks
external ramps, capacity 31
internal ramps 103
at decks with internal ramps

see also FIR series
multi-bin systems 103
ramp gradients 103
at 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-ow) 76, 77
as alternative 79
alternatives to 77
static eciency 77
FSD 2 (single helix/one-way-ow/rapid outow) 78,
79
as alternative 53
alternatives to 79
static eciency 79
FSD 3 (combined helix/side connected/one- and
two-way-ows) 80, 81
as alternative 51, 53
alternatives to 81
static eciency 81
FSD 4 (combined helix/side connected/one-way-ow)
82, 83
as alternative 51
alternatives to 83
static eciency 83
FSD 5 (double helix/side connected/one-way-ow) 74,
84, 85
alternatives to 85
static eciency 85
87
87
FSD 8 (single helix/one-way-ow/internal ramp) 88, 89
alternatives to 89
static eciency 89
gradients
parking decks 25, 59
disabled drivers 59
sloping 59
ramps
pedestrian 24
vehicle 15, 1617, 16, 18, 103
single storey rise 103
ground clearances, standard design vehicles 78, 10
half external ramp types 128, 129
see also HER series
capacity 31
driver conict in 129
half external ramps, vehicle 126, 127
half spirals, one-way-ow types 130, 131
headroom 25
light ttings 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-ow) 130, 131
HER 2 & 3 (straight ramps/one-way-ow) 130, 131
alternatives to 133
Index
HER 4 (straight ramps end located/one-way-ow) 134,

135
alternatives to 135
HER 5 (straight ramps end located/one-way-ow) 136,
137
alternatives to 137
hillside conditions
disabled drivers 161
multi-storey car parks 15
impacts
protection from 1967
speeds 26, 196
inhabited layouts, denition 33
interlocking double helix, one-way-ow type 68, 69
interlocking ramps
circular type 24, 150, 151
stadium type 24, 148, 149
internal environmental monitoring 192
kerbs, pedestrian separation by 245
lengths
parking stalls 9
levels, optimum numbers 33
lifts
buttons, disabled pedestrians 177
capacity per hour 158
considerations for 153
door widths 157, 161
re ghting 184
long stay car parks 153, 157
medium stay car parks 153, 157
short stay car parks 153, 157
space requirements 157
supermarket requirements 1567
tidal car parks 157
lighting 174
controls 175
emergency 175, 179, 183
signs 175, 185
ttings, 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
lifts 153, 157
recommendations for 55, 57, 63, 97
main terminal car parks see long stay car parks
manoeuvring envelopes (ME)
historical 12, 2
ramps 18, 19, 20
stall access 18, 19, 20
market values, multi-storey car parks 3
MD 1 (one-way-ow/circular end ramps) 112, 114, 115
as alternative 121
alternatives to 115
207
MD 1 (one-way-ow/circular end ramps) (continued )

static eciency 115
variations 115
MD 2 (two-way-ow/one circular end ramps) 116, 117
alternatives to 117
static eciency 117
variations 117
MD 3 (one-way-ow/10 stalls wide) 118, 119
static eciency 119
MD 4 (two-way-ow/10 stalls wide) 118, 119
static eciency 119
MD 5 (two-way-ow/sloping decks/10 stalls wide) 118,
119
static eciency 119
MD 68 (one- and two-way-ows 8 stalls wide) 120, 121
as alternative 123
alternatives to 121
static eciency 121
MD 911 (one- and two-way-ows/8 stalls wide/split
levels) 122, 123
alternatives to 123
static eciency 123
medium stay car parks 9
capacities 31
large-capacity 45
lifts 153, 157
recommendations for
combined at and sloping decks 93, 97
sloping decks 61, 73
split level decks 47, 57
message signs, variable 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 1789
metal plate decks 196
minimum dimension layouts 113
see also MD series
underground 112, 113
motorcycle parking
free-standing 164, 1656, 166
hard surface 166
helmet/clothes lockers 166
security surveillance 166
motorists destinations, car park inuences 12
multi-purpose vehicles (MPV) 6
multi-storey car parks (MSCP)
aisle viewing angles 8
categories 9
changes of use 23
rst 1
hillside conditions 15
market values 3
running costs 187
sale of 23
music, and security 169
natural ventilation 191
obstructions, between parking stalls 910
occupancy
maximum 154
notional 1534
one- and two-way-ow types
combined, three bins wide 52, 53
combined helix
eight stalls wide 120, 121
split-level 122, 123
single ramp 98, 99
ten stalls wide 118, 119
208
one-way-ow
aisle widths
minimum 13
reduced 11, 19
circular ramps 22, 24
preference for 8
ramp widths 201
one-way-ow types
see also one- and two-way-ow types
combined, three bins wide 50, 51
combined helix, side connected 82, 83
contra-ow rapid exit 56, 57
double helix
end connected 64, 65
end ramps 95, 96
circular 114, 115
excluded outow 289, 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 outow 44, 45
capacity 31
scissors ramps 48, 49
at right angles 106, 107
single helix
rapid outow 63, 64, 78, 79
straight ramps 132, 133, 144, 145
end located 134, 135, 136, 137
two-way ramps
parallel 108, 109
warped decks 100, 101
outow
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 1878
on exit 186, 187
on foot 187
pedestrians
see also disabled pedestrians
access at and sloping decks 91
angled stalls 11
encumbered 26
re escapes
access to 1534, 183
distances from 1556, 183
stairs as 153, 1545
guard rails 197
lifts 153
ramps 16
gradients 24
layouts 156, 156
split-level decks 43
signage 1778
sloping decks 59
and vehicle ramps 15
kerb separation 245
petrol interceptors, drainage 181
plans, availability 178
powered two wheelers (PTW)
facilities for 164, 165
separate entries and exits 165
rain
eects on decks 26
eects 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-ow 142, 143
two-way-ow 140, 141
cross- 13, 14, 15
dynamic capacities 278
end 95, 97
circular 114, 115, 116, 117
exits, headroom 15
gradients 15
recommended 1617, 16, 18
ground clearance on 78
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-ow types 48, 49, 106, 107
separated, one-way-ow types 110, 111
side-by-side 22
storey height 17, 18, 103, 105
straight
one-way-ow 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 144,
145
storey height 146, 147
two-way, one-way-ow types 104, 105, 108,
109
widths
and aisle entry eciency 21
angled stalls 21
one-way-ow 19, 201
turning circles 22, 23
two-way-ow 22
rapid exit routes 36, 78, 79
refuges, disabled pedestrians 154
reinforced concrete structures 195
nishes 197
life expectation 195
shrinkage joints 196
retail outlets
supermarkets, lift requirements 1567
Index
roofs
exposed decks 334, 1956
drainage 181
running costs, multi-storey car parks 187
Safer Car Parks scheme 169
sales, multi-storey car parks 23
scissor-type ramps 22, 23
one-way-ow (SLD 3) 48, 49
scissors ramps
one-way-ow types 48, 49
SD 1 (single helix/two-way-ow) 60, 61
as alternative 55, 63, 77, 97
alternatives to 61
congestion 61
static eciency 61
SD 2 (single helix/one-way-ow/rapid outow) 62, 63
alternatives to 63
static eciency 63
SD 3 (double helix/end connected/one-way-ow) 64, 65
alternatives to 65
static eciency 65
SD 4 (double helix/end connected/two-way-ow) 66, 67
as alternative 67, 69, 89
alternatives to 67
static eciency 67
SD 5 (interlocking double helix/one-way-ow) 58, 68, 69
static eciency 69
SD 6 (combined helix/side connected/one- and
two-way-ows) 70, 71
alternatives to 71
static eciency 71
SD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-ows) 72,
73
alternatives to 73
static eciency 73
SD 8 (double helix/side connected/one-way-ows) 72, 73
alternatives to 73
static eciency 73
searching
stalls
inecient 51, 53, 81, 83
trac congestion 73, 81
security
CCTV 168, 16970
car park shapes 170
optimum monitoring 16970
presence of 169
lighting 169
motorcycle parking 166
music as aid 169
public perceptions 169, 170, 175
women-only car parks 170
capacities 31
large-capacity 45
lift requirements 1567
lifts 153, 157
recommendations for
combined at and sloping decks 93, 97
split-level decks 47, 57
retail outlets 26
side-by-side ramps 22
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 1778
schedule 179
variable message 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 1789
single helix
one-way-ow
rapid outow 62, 63, 78, 79
two-way-ow
at and sloping decks 76, 77
SLD 1 (one-way-ow/rapid outow) 44, 45
alternatives to 45
capacity 31, 45
circulation eciency 35, 45
static eciency 45
SLD 2 (one-way-ow/excluded outow)
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 eciency 47
SLD 3 (one-way-ow/scissors ramps) 48, 49
alternatives to 49
capacity 31
static eciency 49
SLD 4 (combined one-way-ows, three stalls wide)
50, 51
alternatives to 51
SLD 5 (combined one- and two-way-ows, 3 bins
wide) 52, 53
as alternative 83
alternatives to 53
static eciency 53
SLD 6 (two-way-ow/combined ramps) 54, 55
alternatives to 55
static eciency 55
SLD 7 (one-way-ow/contra-ow exit) 56, 57
alternatives to 57
static eciency 57
sloping parking decks (SD)
see also SD series
denition 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
210
advantages 43
pedestrian ramps in 43
popularity 43
sports utility vehicles (SUV) 6
sprinklers 184
sta parking see tidal car parks
stairs
cores, drainage 181
as re escapes
re lobbies 1545, 154
re 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 910
rectangle 6, 9
searching
inecient 51, 53, 81, 83
trac congestion 73, 81
static eciency 301
standard design vehicles (SDV)
see also vehicles
95factor 6, 10
departures from 6, 7
ground clearance 78, 10
height 6, 10
length 6, 10
turning diameters 8, 10
wheelbase 7, 10
width 6, 10
static eciency
denition 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
deections 1989
reinforced concrete 195
nishes 197
life expectation 195
shrinkage joints 196
steelwork 195
coatings 197
supermarkets, lift requirements 1567
surveillance see CCTV; lighting; security
swept paths, turning circles 22, 23
tag systems of payment 188
taris see control systems
temperature dierences, exposed decks 196
tidal car parks 9, 49
capacities 32
with ow reversal 69
lifts 157
recommendations for
sloping decks 61, 63, 65, 69
split level decks 49, 55, 57
two-way-ow, ramps 212
top decks see decks, exposed
turning circles
circular ramp systems 139
minimum dimension layouts 113
swept paths 22, 23
two-bin layout, static eciency 30
two-way-ow
aisle widths
minimum 13
reduced 12
circular decks 126, 127
circular ramps 24
end 116, 117
full 140, 141, 142, 143
trac congestion 61
vehicles crossing 267
two-way-ow types
see also one-and two-way-ow 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
eciency 173
minimum dimension layouts 112, 113
ventilation 190, 1912
uninhabited layouts, denition 33
USA, high level parking 33, 34
user-friendly car parks 2, 379
user-unfriendly car parks 125
variable message signs 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 1789
VCM 1 (one-way-ow/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
Index
capacity 31
static eciency 93
VCM 2 (one-way-ow/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 eciency 95
VCM 3 (two-way-ow/single ramp) 96, 97
alternatives to 97
static eciency 97
VCM 4 (one- and two-way-ow/single ramp) 98, 99
alternatives to 99
static eciency 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, 1912
natural 191
underground parking 190, 1912
viewing panels, for disabled pedestrians 177
warped parking decks 91
see also WPD series
washing-down facilities, decks 181
waterproong decks 1978
wheelbase, standard design vehicles 7, 10
widths
aisles 1011
minimum 13
parking stalls 9
stairs 155
women-only car parks 170
WPD 1 (warped deck/one-way-ow) 100, 101
alternatives to 101
static eciency 101
211

Hill, J. - Car Park Designers' Handbook (2005) PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hill, J. - Car Park Designers' Handbook (2005) PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Car park designers handbook

Glynn Rhodes, Steve Vollar and Chris Whapples

Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd,

This book is dedicated to the memory of

The standard design vehicle (SDV): discussion

WPD 1 Warped parking decks with one-way-ow

8 Stairs and lifts

9 Disabled drivers and carers

10 Cycles and motorcycles

10.3 Motorcycle parking

16 Fire escapes, safety and re ghting

17 Fiscal and barrier control

About the authors

James Hill CEng

Glynn Rhodes BSc (Hons)

Stephen Vollar Eur Ing

Christopher Whapples BSc

understood by anyone with an interest in the subject. It will help to

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

Manoeuvring envelope (ME)

1.1 Historical note

Eugene Freyssinet, 18791962, a French structural engineer and the

Fig. 1.1 1910 Ford in a

1.2 Advice and

Multi-storey car parks are, basically, utilitarian constructions. Their

The contents cover the practical aspects of design for self-parking

1.4 Design exibility

A multi-storey car park, whether above or below the ground, is costly

Car park designers handbook

2.1 The client

2.2 The brief

The maximum and minimum number of spaces required.

The levels of interior lighting to be adopted (if it varies from British

3.1 The standard

3.1.1 Length and width

Fig. 3.1 Even in the USA,

Fig. 3.2 This Cadillac was

Fig. 3.3 In some car parks

A dimension of 100 mm, therefore, is considered to be a reasonable

Car park designers handbook

3.2.2 Car park categories

3.4 Aisle widths 3.4.1 Discussion

Car park designers handbook

Fig. 3.5 Columns located

3.4.3 Two-way-ow with reduced aisle widths

Car park designers handbook

3.4.4 Manoeuvring on aisles

It is not recommended that reduced aisle widths should be adopted as

3.6 Ramps and

Fig. 3.7 The sidewall has

Fig. 3.8 Vehicle scrape

Fig. 3.9 Scrape marks

Fig. 3.10 Shows a pair of

Car park designers handbook

can be reduced in width. After incorporation into a building, ramps are

Fig. 3.11 Hillside

3.6.2 Recommended maximum vehicle gradients

Fig. 3.12 Vehicle ramps with 1.500 m half-storey height

Car park designers handbook

3.6.3 Transitional slopes

Fig. 3.13 Vehicle ramps with 3.000 m storey height

3.6.7 Manoeuvring envelope

Car park designers handbook