36662551 car park designers handbook

8/13/2019 36662551 Car Park Designers Handbook

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/36662551-car-park-designers-handbook 1/29

Car park designers' handbook

Jim HillWith contributions from

Glynn Rhodes, Steve Vollar and Chris Whapples



Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD. URL: http://www.thomastelford.com Distributors for Thomas Telford books are USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400, USA Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3±10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103Australia: 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 RonBridle 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 ispublished 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 t

he authors or publishers. Typeset by Academic þ Technical, Bristol Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin, Cornwall



This book is dedicated to the memory of John Charles CannonMA (Cantab), CEng, MICE, FIStructE

1931±2005An outstanding engineer who, for 50 years, fought the eects of poliomyelitis with courage and determination.



Contents

Foreword Preface Glossary of terms Acknowledgements

xi xiii xiv xvi

1 Introduction1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Historical note Advice and guidance Scope Design exibility

11 2 2 2

2 Design brief2.1 2.2 The client The brief

44 4

3 Design elements3.1 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 Carpark 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 3.4.3Two-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

66 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

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6



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 forfull circle ramps between limiting wall faces 3.6.18 Recommended minimum widthsfor circular ramp lanes between wall faces 3.7 Interlocking ramps 3.7.1 Stadiumtype 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

3.6.6 3.6.7 3.6.8 3.6.9 3.6.10 3.6.11 3.6.12 3.6.13

17 18 20 20 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25

4 Dynamic considerations4.1 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

2626 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 29

5 Static considerations5.1 Static 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 eciency, discussion Relative eciencies Area per car space Recommended capacities

3030 30 31 31

6 Circulation design6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 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

33

33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 35

6.5



7 Circulation layouts7.1 7.2 7.3 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 w an excluded rapid outow route SLD 3 One-way-ow with side-by-side ramps (scissorstype) 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 On-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 5Interlocking 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 aninternal 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

3737 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

7.4 7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8



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-o 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-leveltype) 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 Straightramps 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 Stright ramps with a one-way trac ow ER 4 Storey height, straight ramps ER 5 Stadium-shaped interlocking ramps ER 6 Circular interlocking ramps

100 103

104 106 108 110 113 114 116 118 120 122 125 126 129 130 132 134 136 139 140 142144 146 148 150

8 Stairs and lifts8.1 8.2 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

153153 153 153 155 155 155 156

8.3 8.4

9 Disabled drivers and carers9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Discussion Stall locations Stall dimensions Access

161161 161 162 163

10 Cycles and motorcycles10.1 Discussion 10.2 Cycle parking

165165 165



10.3 Motorcycle parking 10.4 Lockers 10.5 Fiscal control

165 166 167

11 Security11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Discussion Lighting, music and CCTV See and be seen Women-only car parks

169169 169 170 170

12 Underground parking12.1 Discussion

173173

13 Lighting13.1 Discussion 13.2 Emergency lighting

175175 175

14 Signage

14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 Discussion Directional signs Information signs Variable message sign systems Emergency signs

177177 177 178 178 179

15 Drainage15.1 Discussion

181181

16 Fire escapes, safety and re ghting

16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 Discussion Escape distances Fire safety Fire-ghting measures Sprinklers Fire escapes

183183 183 183 183 184 184

17 Fiscal and barrier control17.1 Discussion 17.2 Control systems 17.3 Barrier control

187187 187 188

18 Ventilation

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

191191 191 191 191

19 Structure19.1 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



195195 195 196 196 197 197 197 198

20 Appearance

201



20.1 Discussion 20.2 Appearance requirements

201 201

Appendix A References Index

203 204 205



About the authors

James Hill CEng FIStructE (ret'd)

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 ofVCM, 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 `CurrentTrends 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 parkingrelated subjects since 1996: these include structured car parks, both above andbelow ground, as well as large capacity single deck layouts. His particular inte

rest is in the provision of suitably located parking for disabled drivers, two wheeled trac and general `waynding' for both motorists and pedestrians alike. Recent dsign projects include Birmingham Airport (precast with 1700 spaces), Ocean Terminal; Edinburgh (precast with 1000 spaces) and Clarence Dock; Leeds (precast with 1600 spaces).

Glynn Rhodes BSc (Hons) CEng MICE MIHT FConsE

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 st

ructures 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 technicalcommittees and has presented papers on parking related subjects. His particularinterest 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 ofprime 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 one's 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 I'm to contemplate returning there again and again. This is especially true in the retail and commercial world where (hopefully) my custom is valued. It is equally true when I visit an unfamiliar town or city, park at a rail station, or simply spend a day at leisure someplace. Equally important is theneed 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, describesand illustrates some 60þ variations on the many `layout themes', no doubt there are ot

hers. Their advantages and disadvantages are discussed, recommendations made for their practical application and suggestions made for other layouts that shouldalso be considered. More than just discussing layouts, the author has shown howramps 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 author's opinion, eective design is basedupon common sense, a little crystal ball gazing and experience: it is not a precise art. He suggests that, provided drivers will want to frequent the car park and clients are willing to pay for it, little else matters. I wouldn't want to disagree with him, but my comments about being `welcome' at any parking facility are the

key to its success. If the operator wants to do business, good customer service is vital; to do that needs good design. This book addresses the subject of carpark 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 beforebeen 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 andcapable of being constructed using structural steel as well as precast and castin situ concrete: this was a successful venture and after more than 35 years itis still being used in many car park designs. In time, however, it became clearthat 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 exp

ensive cosmetic `makeover', the money would have been better spent on improving thelayout, even at the cost of losing, possibly, a few parking stalls. Over the years, as we became more experienced, so our awareness of the number of dierent layouts available increased. Fifteen years ago I decided to list them and recommendwhen and where they could be put to best use. This endeavour was interrupted in1992 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 justplain 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 slopenot 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 directionon 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.



7

Circulation layouts

7.1 Discussion

Of the more than 5000 structured car parks believed constructed in the UK alone, it can be readily appreciated that no single person can have knowledge of every circulation layout variation that has been proposed and built. Practical considerations, personal experience and the 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-parkingfacilities 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. There are few precise dimensionsthat 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 arecontent. 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 Â 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'.

7.2 Dimensions used

7.3 User-friendly 7.3.1 Discussion features There are many existing car parks where, in retrospect, it can be seenthat the layout would have been much better if only the designer had recognisedthat a problem existed. In such cases, if improvements had been incorporated atthe 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



motorist's 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 directlyfrom 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 isof 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 layoutit is preferable to have a left-turning circuit whereby trac drives on the correc

t 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 driver's lateral vision is relatively unimpaired. Turningright onto an exit barrier enables a ticket to be inserted more easily into theacceptor 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 whenconsidering 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

Members of the public and some clients, ask why angled parking is not used morefrequently 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 with908 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.

38




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 stallsand 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 parkwill 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 aislewidths narrow even further. At a parking angle of 458, a 96-space

Circulation layouts

39



Index

Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations and diagrams. access ways 13, 14, 15 see also ramps dynamic capacity 27±28 aesthetics of design 200, 201±2, 202 circular sloping deck types 124, 125 air change rates, ventilation 192 aisles angledstalls 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 26±7 viewing angles 8 widths 10±11 angled stalls 10 angles 11, 12 circulation eciency 38±40, 39 design implications 39±40, 39 dynamic eciency 29 minimum dimesions 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 1±2 user friendly 2, 37± CCTV 168, 169±70 optimum monitoring 169±70 presence of 169 changes of use, car parks 2±3 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 37±8 circulation eciency angled stalls38±40, 39 crossovers 38 importance of 35±6 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 controlsystems barriers 186 exit 38 numbers of 189 two-way-ow 188 disabled drivers 163 p

ay and display 187 payment by mobile phone 187±8 payment on exit 186, 187 paymenton 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 cycleparking lockers 164, 165 stands for 165, 166 decks combined at and sloping 91 directional markings 177 drainage falls 181 dynamic capacity 28±9 exposed eects of rain 26 roong 33±34, 195±6 stopping distances on 27 temperature dierences 196 waterproo33 at, with internal ramps 103 frost prevention 198 gradients 25 level indicators 176, 178

205



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 FSD 6 (doublehelix/side connected/one-way-ow) 86, 87 FSD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-ow) 86, 87 FSD 8 (single helix/one-way-ow/internal ramp) 88, 89 alternatives to89 static eciency 89 gradients parking decks 25, 59 disabled drivers 59 sloping 59 ramps pedestrian 24 vehicle 15, 16±17, 16, 18, 103 single storey rise 103 ground clearances, standard design vehicles 7±8, 10 half external ramp types 128, 129 see also HER series capacity 31 driver 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

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 1

96±7 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 24±5 lengths parking stalls 9 standard design vehicles 6, 10 levels, optimum numbers 33 lifts buttons, disabled pedestrians 177 capacity per hour 158 considerations for 153 door widths 157, 161 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 156±7 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 at and sloping decks 75 lifts 153, 157 recommendations for 55, 57, 63, 97 main terminal car parks see long stay car parks manoeuvring envelopes (ME) historical 1±2, 2 ramps 18

, 19, 20 stall access 18, 19, 20 market values, multi-storey car parks 3 MD 1 (one-way-ow/circular end ramps) 112, 114, 115 as alternative 121 alternatives to 115

Index

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 6±8 (one- and two-way-ows 8 stalls wide) 120, 121 as alternative 123 alternatives to 121 static eciency 121 MD 9±11 (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 45lifts 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, 178±9 metal plate decks 196 minimum dimension layouts 113 see also MD series underground 112, 113 motorcycle parking free-standing 164, 165±6, 166 hard surface 166 helmet/clothes lockers 166 security surveillance 166 motorists' destinations, car park inuences 1±2 multi-purpose vehicles (MPV) 6 multi-storey car parks (MSCP) aisle viewing angles 8 categories 9 changes of use 2±3 rst 1 hillside conditions 15 market values 3 running costs 187 sale of 2±3 music, and security 169 natural ventilation 191 obstructions, between parking stalls 9±10 occupancy maximum 154 notional 153±4 one- and two-way-ow types combined, threeþ bins wide 52, 53 combined helix side connected 70, 71, 80, 81 eight stalls wide 120, 121 split-level 122, 123 single ramp 98, 99 ten stalls wide 118, 119

one-way-ow aisle widths minimum 13 reduced 11, 19 circular ramps 22, 24 preference for 8 ramp widths 20±1 one-way-ow types see also one- and two-way-ow types combined, threeþ bins wide 50, 51 combined helix, side connected 82, 83 contra-ow rapid ex

it 56, 57 double helix end connected 64, 65 side connected 72, 73, 86, 87 end ramps 95, 96 circular 114, 115 excluded outow 28±9, 29, 42, 46, 47 full circular ramps 142, 143 half spiral 130, 131 interlocking double helix 68, 69 internal ramps92, 93 one-way ramps, separated 110, 111 rapid outow 44, 45 capacity 31 circulation eciency 35 scissors ramps 48, 49 at right angles 106, 107 single helix internal ramps 88, 89 rapid outow 63, 64, 78, 79 straight ramps 132, 133, 144, 145 end located 134, 135, 136, 137 two-way ramps at right angles 104, 105 parallel 108, 109 warped decks 100, 101 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 187±8 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 153±4, 183 distances from 155±6, 183 stairs as 153, 154±5 at and sloping de

ks 75 guard rails 197 lifts 153 ramps 16 gradients 24 layouts 156, 156 split-level decks 43

208




signage 177±8 sloping decks 59 and vehicle ramps 15 kerb separation 24±5 petrol interceptors, drainage 181 plans, availability 178 powered two wheelers (PTW) facilities for 164, 165 separate entries and exits 165 rain 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 27±8 end 95, 97 circular 114, 115, 116, 117 exits, headroom 15 gradients 15 recommended 16±17, 16, 18 ground clearance on 7±8 half external 126, 127 interlocking circular type 24, 150, 151 stadium type 24, 148, 149 internal 88, 89 internal cross- 91 manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20 open-aspect 14 outer clearances 14, 15 pedestrians and vehicle 15 scissor-type 22, 23 scissors, one-way-ow types 48, 49, 106, 107 separated, one-way-ow types 110, 111 side-by-side 22 storey height17, 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, 20±1 turning circles 22, 23 two-way-w 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 short stay car parks 26 supermarkets, lift requirements 156±7

roofs exposed decks 33±4, 195±6 drainage 181 running costs, multi-storey car parks 187 Safer Car Parks scheme 169 sales, multi-storey car parks 2±3 scissor-type ramps 22, 23 one-way-ow (SLD 3) 48, 49 scissors ramps one-way-ow types 48, 49 at rightangles 106, 107 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-o

w/rapid outow) 62, 63 alternatives to 63 static eciency 63 SD 3 (double helix/endconnected/one-way-ow) 64, 65 as alternative 67, 69, 89, 101 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 as alternative 51, 53, 67, 89 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, 169±70 car park shapes 170 optimum monitoring 169±70 presence of 169 lighting 169 motorcycle parking 166 music as aid 169 public perceptions 169, 170, 175 women-only car parks 170 short stay car parks 9 capacities 31 large-capacity 45 lift requirements 156±7 lifts 153, 157 recommendations for comb

ined at and sloping decks 93, 97 sloping decks 61, 73 split-level decks 47, 57 retail outlets 26 side-by-side ramps 22

Index

209



signage control 178 deck levels, indications 176, 178 deck markings, directional 177 emergency 179 lighting 175 headroom 25 overhead 176, 177 pay stations 178 pedestrians 177±8 schedule 179 variable message 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178±9 single helix one-way-ow internal ramps 88, 89 rapid outow 62, 63, 78, 79 two-way-ow at and slping decks 76, 77 sloping decks 60, 61 SLD 1 (one-way-ow/rapid outow) 44, 45 as alternative 47, 57 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 47static eciency 47 SLD 3 (one-way-ow/scissors ramps) 48, 49 as alternative 81, 85,93 alternatives to 49 capacity 31 static eciency 49 SLD 4 (combined one-way-ows, threeþ stalls wide) 50, 51 alternatives to 51 circulation eciency 51 SLD 5 (combined one- and two-way-ows, 3þ bins wide) 52, 53 as alternative 83 alternatives to 53 static eciency 53 SLD 6 (two-way-ow/combined ramps) 54, 55 as alternative 49, 61, 77 alternatives to 55 static eciency 55 SLD 7 (one-way-ow/contra-ow exit) 56, 57 as alternative 97, 99 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

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 154±5, 154 re regulations 153 widths 155 stalls see also angledstalls; disabled parking stalls; parking decks access, manoeuvring envelopes 18, 19, 20 dimensions area per car space 31 length 9 width 9, 27 driver searches 35

dynamic capacity 27 obstructions between 9±10 rectangle 6, 9 searching inecient 51, 53, 81, 83 trac congestion 73, 81 static eciency 30±1 standard design vehicles (SDV) see also vehicles 95factor 6, 10 departures from 6, 7 ground clearance 7±8, 10height 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-binlayout 30 steelwork 195 coatings 197 storey height ramps 17, 18, 103, 105 structure alternative materials 195 deections 198±9 reinforced concrete 195 nishes 197 life expectation 195 shrinkage joints 196 steelwork 195 coatings 197 supermarkets,lift requirements 156±7 surveillance see CCTV; lighting; security swept paths, turning circles 22, 23 tag systems of payment 188 taris see control systems temperature dierences, exposed decks 196 tidal car parks 9, 49 capacities 32 with ow reversal 69 lifts 157

210




recommendations for at and sloping decks 97 sloping decks 61, 63, 65, 69 split level decks 49, 55, 57 two-way-ow, ramps 21±2 top decks see decks, exposed turning circles circular ramp systems 139 minimum dimension layouts 113 standard design vehicles 8, 10 swept paths 22, 23 two-bin layout, static 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 26±7 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, 191±2 uninhabited layouts, denition 33 USA, high level parking33, 34 user-friendly car parks 2, 37±9 user-unfriendly car parks 125 variable message signs 34, 67, 81, 89, 115, 178±9 VCM 1 (one-way-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

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 as alternative 49, 55, 61, 77 alternatives to 97 static eciency 97 VCM 4 (one- and two-way-ow/single ramp) 98, 99 as alternative 57, 61 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 bytype 203 sports utility 6 ventilation air change rates 192 fans 190, 191±2 natural

191 underground parking 190, 191±2 viewing panels, for disabled pedestrians 177 warped parking decks 91 see also WPD series washing-down facilities, decks 181 waterproong decks 197±8 wheelbase, standard design vehicles 7, 10 widths aisles 10±11 minimum 13 parking stalls 9 stairs 155 standard design vehicles 6, 10 women-onlycar parks 170 WPD 1 (warped deck/one-way-ow) 100, 101 alternatives to 101 staticeciency 101

Index

211

36662551 car park designers handbook

Documents