You are on page 1of 27

Car park designers’ handbook

Jim Hill
With contributions from

Glynn Rhodes, Steve Vollar and Chris Whapples

Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD. URL: http://www.thomastelford.com Distributors for Thomas Telford books are USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400, USA Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3–10 Nihonbashi 2-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103 Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132, Victoria First published 2005 Also available from Thomas Telford Books The Motorway Achievement volume 1. The British motorway system: visualisation, policy and administration. Edited by Sir Peter and Robert Baldwin. ISBN 07277 3196 3 The Motorway Achievement volume 2. Frontiers of knowledge and practice. Edited by Professor Ron Bridle and John Porter

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 0 7277 3438 5 # Thomas Telford Limited 2005 All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as permitted by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Publishing Director, Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD. This book is published on the understanding that the authors are solely responsible for the statements made and opinions expressed in it and that its publication does not necessarily imply that such statements and/or opinions are or reflect the views or opinions of the publishers. While every effort has been made to ensure that the statements made and the opinions expressed in this publication provide a safe and accurate guide, no liability or responsibility can be accepted in this respect by the authors or publishers. Typeset by Academic þ Technical, Bristol Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin, Cornwall

MICE. for 50 years. CEng. FIStructE 1931–2005 An outstanding engineer who.This book is dedicated to the memory of John Charles Cannon MA (Cantab). fought the effects of poliomyelitis with courage and determination. .

4 Ramp projections into aisles 3.6.3 3.5 Turning dimensions 3.5 Storey height ramps 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 3.2.7 Left side.1 1.2 1.Contents Foreword Preface Glossary of terms Acknowledgements xi xiii xiv xvi 1 Introduction 1.6 Recommended minimum diameters for turns up to 1808 between obstructions 3.4.1.5 3. right side or in the middle? Parking categories 3.1.1.6.4.2 Car park categories Parking stalls 3.4.6.3.3.4 Ground clearance 3.1 Discussion 3.3 Transitional slopes 3.2 Recommended minimum bin dimensions for parking with 2.6 .2 One-way-flow with reduced aisle widths 3.1.3 Obstructions between stalls 3.6.3.6.4 3.4.1 Discussion 3.1 The standard design vehicle (SDV): discussion 3.5.400 m-wide stalls Ramps and access-ways 3.1 2.5.5 Turning between aisles Bin dimensions 3.1 Discussion 3.2 Height 3.2 Recommended dimensions for differing parking categories 3.1.3.4 Historical note Advice and guidance Scope Design flexibility 1 1 2 2 2 2 Design brief 2.4 Angled parking Aisle widths 3.4 Manoeuvring on aisles 3.1.3 1.2 The client The brief 4 4 4 3 Design elements 3.2 Recommended maximum vehicle gradients 3.1 Discussion 3.1.2 3.3 Wheelbase 3.3 Two-way-flow-with reduced aisle widths 3.1 Discussion 3.1 Length and width 3.2.4.

2 5.6.1 5.6.7.1 Discussion 6.17 Recommended minimum diameters for full circle ramps between limiting wall faces 3.6.9 3.1.6.1 Discussion 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 6.10 Parking deck gradients 3.8 Dynamic capacities of cross-ramps and access-ways. per hour 4.2 Effects of rain 4.2 Shortest travel distance 6.1.6.6 Speed limits 4.5 . discussion Relative efficiencies Area per car space Recommended capacities 30 30 30 31 31 6 Circulation design 6.14 Scissors-type ramps 3.5.8 3.1.6.2 6.4.4.1.6.11 3.6.4.1.7.7 Dynamic capacities of ramps and access-ways 4.1.1.3 efficiency.9 Dynamic capacities of parking decks.1.12 3.9 Super-elevation 3.13 17 18 20 20 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 4 Dynamic considerations 4.8 Kerbs 3.5 Stopping distance 4.15 Side-by-side ramps 3.11 Headroom and storey heights 3.1 Stadium type 3.1.4 Discussion How many levels? Roof considerations Circulation efficiency 6.6.10 3.4 Dynamic capacities for different stall widths and categories 4.6.6.Side clearance Manoeuvring envelope Stall access One-way-flow ramp widths: discussion Ramp widths and angled parking Two-way-flow ramps Turning circle templates Two-way-flow: recommended minimum clear ramp widths 3.7 3.6.1.18 Recommended minimum widths for circular ramp lanes between wall faces 3.12 Height limitations 3.3 Exit and entry rates and internal movement 4. calculations 4.6.3 6.1 Impact speeds 4.6 3.1 6.1.2 Circular type 3.1 Discussion 4.1.10 Dynamic efficiency 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 29 5 Static considerations 5.7 Interlocking ramps 3.1.1 Static 5.3 Examples of circulation efficiency Parking times 6.16 Circular ramps 3.

1 Discussion 7.and two-way traffic flows 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. side connected with one.4 Circulation direction 7. three bins or more wide SLD 5 Combined one. side connected. side connected with one-way-flow FSD 6 and 7 Double helix. end connected with two-way-flow on the central access-way SD 5 Interlocking double helix.1 7. side connected with one.3.3.and two-way-flows. three bins or more wide SLD 6 Two-way-flow with ‘combined’ ramps SLD 7 One-way-flow with an included contra-flow rapid exit route Sloping parking decks (SDs) SD 1 Single helix with two-way-flow SD 2 Single helix with one-way-flow and a rapid outflow route SD 3 Double helix.2 Simplicity 7.4 7.6 7. with one-way-flows Combined flat and sloping deck (FSD) layouts FSD 1 Single helix with two-way-flow FSD 2 Single helix with one-way-flow and a rapid outflow route FSD 3 Combined helix.5 Dead ends (culs-de-sac) Angled and right-angled parking: a comparison Split-level decks (SLDs) SLD 1 One-way traffic flow with an included rapid outflow route SLD 2 One-way traffic flow with an excluded rapid outflow route SLD 3 One-way-flow with side-by-side ramps (scissors type) SLD 4 Combined one-way-flows.3. side connected with one-way traffic flows FSD 8 Single helix with one-way-flow and an internal ramp Combined flat and sloping deck layouts with internal cross-ramps (VCM and WPD) VCM 1 One-way-flow with two one-way-flow ramps VCM 2 One-way-flow with end ramps VCM 3 Two-way-flow with a single end ramp VCM 4 One.3.5 7. end connected with one-way-flow on the central access-way SD 4 Double helix. with one-way-flows SD 6 Combined helix.7 Circulation layouts 7.8 .3 Crossovers 7.2 7.and two-way-flows SD 7 and 8 Double helix.3 Discussion Dimensions used User-friendly features 7.3.7 7.and two-way-flows FSD 4 Combined helix. side connected with one-way-flow FSD 5 Double helix.

11 7.2.2.4 Discussion Stall locations Stall dimensions Access 161 161 161 162 163 10 Cycles and motorcycles 10.2 9.10 7.1 8.2 Discussion Vertical and horizontal escape 8.and two-way-flows eight stalls wide (split-level type) Circular sloping decks (CSDs) CSD 1 Circular parking deck with two-way-flow Half external ramps (HERs) HER 1 Half spiral with one-way-flow HER 2 and 3 Straight ramps with one-way-flow HER 4 Straight ramps with one-way-flow.7. ten stalls wide MD 6.1 Stairs.13 WPD 1 Warped parking decks with one-way-flow Flat decks with storey height internal ramps (flat with internal ramps – FIR) FIR 1 One-way-flow decks with combined two-way-flow ramps at right-angles to the aisles FIR 2 One-way-flow decks with side-by-side (scissors type) ramps at right-angles to the aisles FIR 3 One-way-flow decks with combined two-way-flow ramps parallel with the aisles FIR 4 One-way-flow decks with separated one-way-flow ramps Minimum dimension (MD) layouts MD 1 One-way-flow between circular end ramps MD 2 Two-way-flow with a circular ramp at one end MD 3. widths of flights 8. 10 and 11 One.2. end located External ramps (ERs) ER 1 Full circular with a two-way traffic flow ER 2 Full circular ramps each with a one-way traffic flow ER 3 Straight ramps with a one-way traffic flow ER 4 Storey height. straight ramps ER 5 Stadium-shaped interlocking ramps ER 6 Circular interlocking ramps 100 103 104 106 108 110 113 114 116 118 120 122 125 126 129 130 132 134 136 139 140 142 144 146 148 150 8 Stairs and lifts 8.9 7. 7 and 8 One.2 Vertical escape 8.and two-way-flows eight stalls wide (VCM type) MD 9.3 9.1 Discussion 10.1 9.3 8.2 Cycle parking 165 165 165 . end located HER 5 Straight ramps with one-way-flow.3 Horizontal escape Escape distances Lift sizing 153 153 153 153 155 155 155 156 8. 4 and 5 One.and two-way-flows.12 7.4 9 Disabled drivers and carers 9.

2 16.1 18.3 19.7 19.2 11.1 11.3 18.1 16.8 Discussion Construction materials Joints Perimeter protection Concrete finishes Protective coatings Waterproofing Cambers 195 195 195 196 196 197 197 197 198 20 Appearance 201 .3 14.1 Discussion 181 181 16 Fire escapes.3 Motorcycle parking 10.4 19.4 Lockers 10.4 Discussion Natural ventilation requirements Mechanically assisted natural ventilation requirements Mechanical ventilation requirements 191 191 191 191 191 19 Structure 19.3 Barrier control 187 187 187 188 18 Ventilation 18.1 14.1 Discussion 173 173 13 Lighting 13.2 14.10.3 16.6 Discussion Escape distances Fire safety Fire-fighting measures Sprinklers Fire escapes 183 183 183 183 183 184 184 17 Fiscal and barrier control 17.2 Control systems 17.2 19.2 18.1 19.3 11. safety and fire fighting 16.5 Fiscal control 165 166 167 11 Security 11.4 16.5 16.4 14.1 Discussion 13.4 Discussion Lighting.5 Discussion Directional signs Information signs Variable message sign systems Emergency signs 177 177 177 178 178 179 15 Drainage 15.1 Discussion 17. music and CCTV See and be seen Women-only car parks 169 169 169 170 170 12 Underground parking 12.2 Emergency lighting 175 175 175 14 Signage 14.6 19.5 19.

2 Appearance requirements 201 201 Appendix A References Index 203 204 205 .20.1 Discussion 20.

Chris has been involved in the design of parking structures for more than twenty years. 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. 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. since when he has concentrated on the further development of VCM. Recent projects include the Jubilee car park in Harrogate (precast with 450 spaces). as well as large capacity single deck layouts. His particular interest is in the development of new structural forms. two wheeled traffic and general ‘wayfinding’ for both motorists and pedestrians alike. Zagreb and Dubai. His particular interest is in the provision of suitably located parking for disabled drivers. In 1970.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. He is currently writing a similar handbook on ‘good practice’ parking in the USA. Merryhill Shopping Centre. He also received the Ernest Davies Award for the best article published in Parking News entitled ‘Current Trends in the Design of Car Parks’. Norwich (steel frame with 1100 spaces). maintenance and management of car park structures. 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. Recent design projects include Birmingham Airport (precast with 1700 spaces). they developed the Tricon structural system and in 1993 Jim patented the Vertical Circulation Module system (VCM). . two of which have been voted Best New Build car parks at the annual British Parking Awards. designing appropriate circulation layouts for many projects and researching this book. He has served on European technical committees and has presented papers on parking related subjects. He has provided design advice for large underground car parking facilities in Manila. having retired in 1992. Leeds (precast with 1600 spaces). Glynn is a senior partner of the HCP and has been involved in the design of 30 multi-storey car parks since 1986. Ocean Terminal. Edinburgh (precast with 1000 spaces) and Clarence Dock. Andrews. Recent design projects include St. Livingston (in situ with 1600 spaces). West Midlands (precast with 1600 spaces) and Manchester Royal Infirmary (precast with 1600 spaces). He is a past President of the British Parking Association and a regional Chairman of the Concrete Society. Kuala Lumpur (Petronas Towers). Amersham (steel frame with 550 spaces) and Designer Outlet Village. both above and below ground. Sundials. He is now a consultant to the practice.

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

understood by anyone with an interest in the subject. 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. It will help to identify examples of best practice in making our parking facilities more accessible to all. .

possibly. Of the many buildings inspected. Our first effort was to develop a clear-span structure that was efficient. the reason for their unpopularity is not that that they have been allowed to become dirty and/or dingy (conditions that by themselves would not normally put off most motorists). Fifteen years ago I decided to list them and recommend when and where they could be put to best use. A local car park incorporating this system had become the subject of adverse comment by many who used it. and if any reader is aware of a practical circulation layout substantially different from those featured and lets me know. 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. but those that are featured in this book are practical and have been constructed somewhere but not always in the UK. Rather than giving these car parks an expensive cosmetic ‘makeover’. Over the years. incorporated inappropriate circulation designs. It was just as well. the money would have been better spent on improving the layout. 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. invariably. Finally. 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. as we became more experienced. it is unlikely that all of the possible variations will have been covered. it became clear that no matter how efficient the structural solution was and how attractive the architectural appearance. In time.Preface Information on the design of vehicle circulation systems in car parks is hard to find: had it not been so this book. if it is included in a future edition they will be acknowledged as the source. economical. would not have been written. a few parking stalls. but rather that they suffered from a poor choice of internal layout. In 1968. so our awareness of the number of different layouts available increased. Some have been rejected as being impractical or just plain whimsical. To my knowledge. With more than 6000 car parks in the UK. 30 000 in the USA and many thousands more in the rest of the world. This endeavour was interrupted in 1992 by the development and promotion of the vertical circulation module (VCM) circulation system. special features and relative efficiencies of car parks have never before been discussed in any great detail. the most unpopular have. however. . as the number of different layouts has risen even further since then. if it was wrapped around a poor choice of circulation layout the result was yet another unpopular car park. 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. probably. John Cannon and I first became involved in car park structures when we were retained to design the foundations and nonstandard elements for a proprietary precast concrete system. even at the cost of losing. In many under-used car parks. convincing us that we could do better ourselves.

(Given in vehicles per hour.) Congestion Applies to traffic that is unable to flow freely. 3rd edition. Excluded Applies to an inflow route that is separated from an outflow route. also capable of being used by pedestrians.) Circulation efficiency A method of comparing the travel distance required to search the stalls.) Dynamic efficiency A measure of the ability of a car park to process vehicles under normal operating conditions. Aisle A traffic lane with adjoining stalls on one or more sides. (A half bin has stalls only on one side. Bin Used to denote the dimension across an aisle and its adjacent stalls. published in June 2002 by the Institution of Structural Engineers. laid to a slope greater than 5%. Cross-ramp An inclined traffic lane connecting the aisles in adjacent bins. Extended Applies to any traffic route that is not rapid. (Given as a percentage. Deck A single floor that extends over the plan area of a parking building. Dynamic capacity A measure of the rate that traffic can pass a given location within a car park. Included A flow route that is located within the circulation pattern of another. with the minimum travel distance. in any particular car park. .Glossary of terms Access-way or crossway A traffic lane without adjoining stalls laid flat or to a slope not exceeding 5%. Inflow Applies to the search path for traffic within a car park. Des Recs A shortened form of words describing the Design Recommendations for Multi-storey and Underground Car Parks.

SUV The initials for a sports utility vehicle. Static efficiency The area of the parking decks divided by the static capacity and given as an area per stall. normal to an aisle. Outflow Applies to traffic exiting from a car park. for a particular angle of parking. Swept path The width on plan established by a vehicle for any given radius of turn. MSCP The initials for a multi-storey car park. Two-way-flow Traffic flowing in both directions on an aisle. Static capacity The total number of stalls contained within a designated area or complete car park. . outside of which a vehicle is unable to manoeuvre without reversing. MPV The initials for a multi-purpose vehicle. that provides access to or from parking at different levels. exclusive of any other adjoining area. Stall pitch The spacing for stalls. ramp or crossway. One-way-flow Traffic flowing in a single direction on an aisle. Vph Vehicles per hour. Ramp Any traffic lane. without adjoining stalls. Stall The parking area allotted to a single vehicle.Manoeuvring envelope (ME) The boundaries established by the minimum turning circle when entering a crossway or ramp. Rapid Applies to a short route for inflow or outflow traffic.

8.3. 12. 9. 7.3(d) courtesy of Motoloc Ltd. Fig.1.Acknowledgements Figs 1. 18. 10.1 Hill-Cannon archives. 7.1(a). 8.8. 16.10 courtesy of Norwest Holst. 10. 3.4 and 7. 15.10.3. 3. 17.9. 3. 3.1. 3. 3. 3.1. Fig.20. 13.5.2.9.1. 19.2(c) courtesy of Falco.1. 14.7. 3.5(a) and (b).11.2.1.19.1. 7.17 courtesy of PSB (UK) Ltd. 11. 7.1.1 and 20. .17. Figs 7. 3. Fig. 3. 6.1.1. 3.1. 7. 7. 7. Fig. 10.7.1.6 courtesy of Dundec Ltd. 3.

aisle widths of 6. If designers are to gain confidence in developing solutions to solve particular problems. personal experience and the constant pressures for financial economy render it reasonable to assume that the examples shown.000 m (oneway flow). in retrospect. 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. also. In the layouts shown in the following pages.1 Discussion features There are many existing car parks where. What. it can be readily appreciated that no single person can have knowledge of every circulation layout variation that has been proposed and built. 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. it can be seen that the layout would have been much better if only the designer had recognised that a problem existed. It is.2 Dimensions used 7.1 Discussion Of the more than 5000 structured car parks believed constructed in the UK alone.2 Simplicity The basic tenet of all circulation design is to ‘keep it simple’. static and dynamic efficiency. 7. a relatively simple matter to spoil a potentially acceptable circulation layout by over complication. or by the introduction of unnecessary and unfriendly features. Some are more popular than others and some are significantly defective in circulation design. all of which have been featured or built during the past 35 years. They could even have enhanced the market value by being more ‘user friendly’ to the parking public.3. the length of the aisle will determine the ‘length’ of a layout and the dimension over the bins will determine its ‘width’.7 Circulation layouts 7.800 m. if improvements had been incorporated at the design stage. provide the basis for most of the self-parking buildings that exist at the present time. nevertheless. The main concern is that motorists and clients are content.400 m  4. might look like a clever idea to a designer could well end up as a 37 . 7.000 m (two-way flow) and a storey height of 3. 7.000 m. There are few precise dimensions that must be adopted for the design of parking structures. they need not have cost more to implement or reduced static capacity.3.3 User-friendly 7. Practical considerations. the overall aisle lengths are sometimes shown less than those given for the width. at first. The following examples are all practical layouts and form the basis upon which most self-parking facilities have been designed. In such cases. then it is desirable that they should know the strengths and weaknesses of individual layouts in order to make an informed choice. Dimensions for the individual elements can vary and are also affected by the parking angle (that varies the bin width) in one direction and the stall pitch (that varies the overall length) in the other direction.

When on a traffic aisle and searching for the first available space. it is not always possible to create the most desirable layout. or intent only on leaving the facility as quickly as possible. with the free movement of vehicles and pedestrians.3 Crossovers Crossover conditions should be avoided.1 shows a basic UK town-centre-type split-level layout with 908 parking. and if unnecessary manoeuvring is to be avoided. Attempts should be made to minimise the visual impact of large vertical elements and locate them away from the circulation routes. However. it should be the limiting factor. When located under other types of building. but it is useful to appreciate that they occur when considering the flow direction. Turning directly from one lock to the other is not a popular manoeuvre. 7. 7. as far as possible. They point out that it is popular in the USA and. layouts with 908 parking occur more often in towncentre car parks than any of the other types. 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.3.3. If possible all turns should be in the same direction and not more than 908 at a time. When entering a traffic aisle from a right-turning ramp. The driver of this car may also be concentrating on finding a space in which to park. it is disconcerting and potentially dangerous to find a car suddenly appearing at right angles from behind a parked vehicle. 38 Car park designers’ handbook .5 Dead ends (culs-de-sac) When viewing down a ‘dead-end’ aisle. vertical structure that interferes. it is difficult to see the parking situation more than three or four stalls away. for those who have used it. both visually and physically. It is 28 stall widths in length with 96 stalls on each deck. 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 the entry/exit lanes are located side-by-side. Turning right onto an exit barrier enables a ticket to be inserted more easily into the acceptor machine than when turning to the left. if at all possible. it is a popular parking format but.motorist’s nightmare. Figure 7. it is desirable to eliminate. Provided that the route is of an adequate width it matters little in which direction the traffic is made to flow. right turning circuits are preferable if a crossover situation is to be avoided. but when traffic approaches from the right the driver’s lateral vision is relatively unimpaired. 7. 7.4 Angled and right-angled parking: a comparison Members of the public and some clients. To this end.4 Circulation direction The direction of circulation has little effect upon circulation efficiency in one-way-flow systems. In a structured car park the layout should endeavour to replicate the openness of a surface car park. When a two-way-flow ramp occurs in a one-way-flow layout it is preferable to have a left-turning circuit whereby traffic drives on the correct side of the ramp. a front-seat passenger could obscure traffic approaching from the left. None of these points are important enough to dictate the direction of flow by themselves. in the UK. It has been said that left-turning circuits are not as popular in one-way-flow systems as turning to the right. For good practice.3. ask why angled parking is not used more frequently in the UK.

1 Angled and right-angled parking: a comparison The area of the deck is 2096.8 m2 producing an average of 23.550 m. individually.6 m2 producing an average of 21.780 m2 per stall represents an increase of 8% in area and a consequent increase in construction costs. at 71.700 m wide are 1. Widening the traffic aisles in the 708 car park will increase construction costs by about 0. The difference of 1. The width at 30. 7. it is reasonable to ask whether 908 parking with 2. is 4. Figure 7.700 m wide aisles? It is a question that can only be answered by designers and clients. reducing the separation distance between vehicles and pedestrians on the aisles.6% for every 100 mm increase in width.840 m2 per stall.724 m is 484 mm narrower than the 908 layout representing a reduction of 1.000 m-wide aisles would be more popular than 708 parking with 2.620 m2 per stall.312 m longer than the 908 layout.5%. so the building length increases and the aisle widths narrow even further.300 m less than those for the 908 layout. a 96-space Circulation layouts 39 .512 m. At a parking angle of 458.1 also shows the same basic layout with 708 parking.550 mwide stalls and 6. to 2. representing an increase of 6. The area of the deck is 2196. It is 28 stall widths in length with 92 stalls on each deck. In this eventuality. As the parking angle reduces. The 708 layout.Fig. If the stall widths in a 908 car park were increased by 8%. The traffic aisles for the 708 layout at 4. both layouts would be rendered similar in area and cost.5% in length while containing 4% fewer vehicles.400 m-wide stalls and 4.

000 m.1).1. SD 2. many structured town-centre-type car parks incorporate 908 parking. 3 and 4 being particularly popular in the southern and western USA. In the USA. and retain its 6. 40 Car park designers’ handbook . (41% longer) and even with aisle widths reduced to 3.600 m. Stalls with 608 angles.600 m wide aisles. the car space requirement will be some 25% greater than for the 908 car park (see Section 5. widened aisles and a two-way traffic flow are sometimes used for retail shopping at surface level and 708 to 808 angles for large Cats 3 and 4 buildings of the SD and FSD series.per deck building will need to be 95. A two-bin. split-level car park with 908 parking could increase its stall widths to 3.000 m-wide aisles without exceeding the area per car space for a two-bin 458 car park with 2.400 m-wide stalls and 3.000 m in length.

with internal ramps 103 frost prevention 198 gradients 25 level indicators 176.Index Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations and diagrams. 187 payment on foot 187 tag systems 188 crossovers 13. 165 stands for 165. 12 circulation efficiency 38–40. 15 see also ramps dynamic capacity 27–28 aesthetics of design 200. 202 circular sloping deck types 124. 195–6 stopping distances on 27 temperature differences 196 waterproofing 33 flat. 141 turning circles 139 two full. simplicity 37–8 circulation efficiency angled stalls 38–40. 15 avoiding 38 manoeuvring envelopes 18. two-way-flow 126. two-way-flow 140. 39 design implications 39–40. car parks 2–3 circular decks. 24 end one-way-flow 114. 14. one-way-flow 142. 83 contra-flow rapid exit. 13 vehicles crossing 26–7 viewing angles 8 widths 10–11 angled stalls 10 angles 11. 19 two-way-flows 12 turning between 12. 20 CSD 1 (circular deck/two-way-flow) 126. 19. side connected 82. 117 full. 39 crossovers 38 importance of 35–6 indicating 34 combined flat and sloping decks internal cross-ramps see also VCM and WPD series pedestrian access 91 combined helix one. 115 two-way-flow 116. car park 152 camper vans 6 capacities medium stay car parks 31 short stay car parks 31 tidal car parks 32 car parks see also multi-storey car parks as motorists’ destination influences 1–2 user friendly 2. 166 decks combined flat and sloping 91 directional markings 177 drainage falls 181 dynamic capacity 28–9 exposed effects of rain 26 roofing 33–34. 14. 81 one-way-flow. 178 205 . 125 air change rates. 201–2. 125 see also CSD series user-unfriendliness 125 circulation design. 127 static efficiency 127 cycle parking lockers 164. 57 control signs 178 control systems barriers 186 exit 38 numbers of 189 two-way-flow 188 disabled drivers 163 pay and display 187 payment by mobile phone 187–8 payment on exit 186. 143 circular sloping decks 124. ventilation 192 aisles angled stalls 11 dead ends 38 inflow capacity 36 minimum widths one-way-flows 13 two-way-flows 13 pedestrians in 11 with angled parking stalls 11 ramp entries 21 ramp projections into 17 reduced one-way-flows 11. 80. 39 dynamic efficiency 29 minimum dimensions 13 pedestrians in aisles 11 ramp widths 21 barriers 186 exit 38 numbers of 189 two-way-flow 188 Birmingham airport. one-way-flow types 56. 127 circular ramps 22. 169–70 optimum monitoring 169–70 presence of 169 changes of use. 37–9 CCTV 168. 71. access ways 13.and two-way-flows side connected 70.

27 disabled drivers see also disabled pedestrians flat and sloping decks 75 hillside car parks 161 separation of 163 sloping parking decks 59 tariffs for 163 disabled parking stalls 160 dimensions 162. 73 dry-risers 154. 154–5 fire fighting 182. 145 alternatives to 145 ER 4 (storey height straight ramps) 146. 202 ER 1 (full circular ramps/two-way-flow) 140. 39 briefs 4–5 existing 37 questionnaires 4 design and build projects 201 Design recommendations for multi-storey and underground car parks (Des. 109 alternatives to 109 static efficiency 109 FIR 4 (one-way-flow/one-way ramps) 110. 183–4 lifts 184 smoke containment 184 sprinklers 184 fire lobbies 154–5. 104. 156 refuges for 154 viewing panels 177 double helix interlocking. 107 alternatives to 107 static efficiency 107 FIR 3 (one-way-flow/two-way ramps/parallel) 108. 141 alternatives to 141 ER 2 (full circular ramps/one-way-flow) 142. 162 legal requirements 161 location parameters 161–2 random 162 numbers 161 supervision 162 disabled pedestrians see also disabled drivers fire escapes 156. 105 alternatives to 105 circulation efficiency 35 static efficiency 105 FIR 2 (one-way-flow/scissors ramps) 106. angled stalls 29 efficiency see circulation efficiency. 183 horizontal 155 routes to 183 stairs as 153. static efficiency emergency signs 179 lighting 175. 154 fire regulations. 16 dimensions disabled parking stalls 162. stairs as fire escapes 153 fire safety strategies 183 flat decks external ramps. 147 ER 5 (stadium-shaped interlocking ramps) 148. structural 198–9 design aesthetics 200. implications 39–40. capacity 31 internal ramps 103 206 Car park designers’ handbook . 202 angled stalls. headroom 15 two-wheeled vehicles 165 external ramps 138. 201–2. ticket insertion 38 exit routes dynamic capacity 26 rapid 36 exits emergency 183 ramps. 69 one-way-flow end connected 64. 87 two-way-flow. 73. 151 exit barriers. 179. 86. 183 entries dynamic capacity 26 two-wheeled vehicles 165 environment. 201–2. 139 see also ER series FIR 1 (one-way-flow/two-way ramps/right angles) 102. 111 alternatives to 111 static efficiency 111 fire alarms 183 fire escapes access to 153–4 disabled pedestrians 156. Rec.decks (continued ) metal plate 196 surface abrasion 198 washing-down facilities 181 waterproofing 197–8 deflections. 67 drainage deck falls 181 gully outlets 198–9 location 181 petrol interceptors 181 protection of 180 roofs 181 stair cores 181 ventilating 181 washing-down 181 driver frustration complex designs 37–8 potential conflict 49. one-way-flow 68. end connected 66. 65 side connected 72. 129 stall searching 35. 183 distances from 155–6. 149 ER 6 (circular interlocking ramps) 150. aesthetics 200. 184 dynamic capacity decks 28–9 entries 26 exits 26 ramps 27–8 dynamic efficiency. 183 lift buttons 177 ramps 15. dynamic efficiency. 143 as alternative 141 alternatives to 143 ER 3 (straight ramps/one-way-flow) 144. 162 stalls area per car space 31 length 9 width 9.) 1 ramps 16. 51.

57. 19. 59 disabled drivers 59 sloping 59 ramps pedestrian 24 vehicle 15. 87 FSD 8 (single helix/one-way-flow/internal ramp) 88. 157 recommendations for 55. definition 33 interlocking double helix. 149 internal environmental monitoring 192 kerbs. 10 half external ramp types 128. 63. headroom 25 and painting 175 security 169. 165 helmets/clothes 166 long stay car parks 9 capacities 31 flat and sloping decks 75 lifts 153. vehicle 126. single helix HER 1 (half spiral/one-way-flow) 130. decks 198 FSD 1 (single helix/two-way-flow) 76. 25 standard design vehicles 6. 157 space requirements 157 supermarket requirements 156–7 tidal car parks 157 lighting 174 controls 175 emergency 175. 85 alternatives to 85 static efficiency 85 FSD 6 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 86. 20 stall access 18.flat decks with internal ramps see also FIR series multi-bin systems 103 ramp gradients 103 flat and sloping deck layouts 75 see also FSD series disabled drivers 75 pedestrian movements 75 four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicles 6 Freyssinet. 157 short stay car parks 153. 97 main terminal car parks see long stay car parks manoeuvring envelopes (ME) historical 1–2. 16. 150. 148.and two-way-flows) 80. 84. 196 inhabited layouts. 18. 103 single storey rise 103 ground clearances. 161 fire fighting 184 long stay car parks 153. disabled pedestrians 177 capacity per hour 158 considerations for 153 door widths 157. 135 alternatives to 135 HER 5 (straight ramps end located/one-way-flow) 136. 129 see also HER series capacity 31 driver conflict in 129 half external ramps. 79 as alternative 53 alternatives to 79 static efficiency 79 FSD 3 (combined helix/side connected/one. 10 helix see combined helix. 114. 19. 2 ramps 18. standard design vehicles 7–8. 16–17. optimum numbers 33 lifts buttons. pedestrian separation by 24–5 lengths parking stalls 9 standard design vehicles 6. 131 alternatives to 133 HER 4 (straight ramps end located/one-way-flow) 134. 87 FSD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 86. 20 market values. 77 as alternative 79 alternatives to 77 static efficiency 77 FSD 2 (single helix/one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 78. 151 stadium type 24. double helix. 131 headroom 25 light fittings 25 height limitation gantries 25. one-way-flow type 68. 185 fittings. 81 as alternative 51. 131 HER 2 & 3 (straight ramps/one-way-flow) 130. 69 interlocking ramps circular type 24. 53 alternatives to 81 static efficiency 81 FSD 4 (combined helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 82. 89 alternatives to 89 static efficiency 89 gradients parking decks 25. multi-storey car parks 3 MD 1 (one-way-flow/circular end ramps) 112. 10 levels. 175 top decks 175 limosines in multi-storey car parks 7 stretched 7 lockers cycles 164. Eugene 1 frost prevention. 179. 157 medium stay car parks 153. 83 as alternative 51 alternatives to 83 static efficiency 83 FSD 5 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flow) 74. 137 alternatives to 137 hillside conditions disabled drivers 161 multi-storey car parks 15 impacts protection from 196–7 speeds 26. 115 as alternative 121 alternatives to 115 Index 207 . one-way-flow types 130. 183 signs 175. 127 half spirals.

19 circular ramps 22. 83 contra-flow rapid exit 56. 115. 79 straight ramps 132. 29. 145 end located 134. 143 half spiral 130. threeþ bins wide 50. 81 eight stalls wide 120. 99 ten stalls wide 118. 119 static efficiency 119 MD 4 (two-way-flow/10 stalls wide) 118.MD 1 (one-way-flow/circular end ramps) (continued ) static efficiency 115 variations 115 MD 2 (two-way-flow/one circular end ramps) 116. 78. 121 split-level 122. 57 message signs. 24 preference for 8 ramp widths 20–1 one-way-flow types see also one. 111 rapid outflow 44. 93 one-way ramps. 105 parallel 108. 144. 133. 87 end ramps 95. 154–5 flat and sloping decks 75 guard rails 197 lifts 153 ramps 16 gradients 24 layouts 156. variable 34. side connected 82. threeþ bins wide 52. 65 side connected 72. 113 motorcycle parking free-standing 164. 119 static efficiency 119 MD 5 (two-way-flow/sloping decks/10 stalls wide) 118. 101 outflow excluded rapid 46. 64. 123 alternatives to 123 static efficiency 123 medium stay car parks 9 capacities 31 large-capacity 45 lifts 153. 178–9 metal plate decks 196 minimum dimension layouts 113 see also MD series underground 112. 71. 137 two-way ramps at right angles 104. 187 on foot 187 pedestrians see also disabled pedestrians access flat and sloping decks 91 angled stalls 11 encumbered 26 fire escapes access to 153–4. 177 painting. 183 stairs as 153. 121 as alternative 123 alternatives to 121 static efficiency 121 MD 9–11 (one. 157 recommendations for combined flat and sloping decks 93. 109 warped decks 100. and security 169 natural ventilation 191 obstructions. 117 alternatives to 117 static efficiency 117 variations 117 MD 3 (one-way-flow/10 stalls wide) 118. between parking stalls 9–10 occupancy maximum 154 notional 153–4 one. 67. 47 rapid 44.and two-way-flows/8 stalls wide/split levels) 122. 119 static efficiency 119 MD 6–8 (one. 53 combined helix side connected 70. 57 double helix end connected 64. separated 110.and two-way-flows 8 stalls wide) 120. 45 capacity 31 circulation efficiency 35 scissors ramps 48. 51 combined helix. 156 split-level decks 43 208 Car park designers’ handbook . 166 hard surface 166 helmet/clothes lockers 166 security surveillance 166 motorists’ destinations. 80. light colours 175 parking stalls see stalls partially sighted. 81. 115 excluded outflow 28–9. 42. 62. 165–6. 89. 86. guidelines 177 pay and display 187 pay stations. 45. 49 at right angles 106. 97 sloping decks 61. 183 distances from 155–6. 63 overhead signage 176.and two-way-flow types combined. 46. 96 circular 114. signs 178 payment by mobile phone 187–8 on exit 186. 47 full circular ramps 142. 123 single ramp 98. 107 single helix internal ramps 88. car park influences 1–2 multi-purpose vehicles (MPV) 6 multi-storey car parks (MSCP) aisle viewing angles 8 categories 9 changes of use 2–3 first 1 hillside conditions 15 market values 3 running costs 187 sale of 2–3 music. 131 interlocking double helix 68. 73 split level decks 47. 135. 69 internal ramps 92. 119 one-way-flow aisle widths minimum 13 reduced 11. 136.and two-way-flow types combined. 73. 89 rapid outflow 63.

20 open-aspect 14 outer clearances 14. multi-storey car parks 187 Safer Car Parks scheme 169 sales. headroom 15 gradients 15 recommended 16–17. 68.91 manoeuvring envelopes 18. multi-storey car parks 2–3 scissor-type ramps 22. 81 security CCTV 168. 137. drainage 181 plans. 97 alternatives to 61 congestion 61 static efficiency 61 SD 2 (single helix/one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 62. 81. 73 split-level decks 47. 117 exits. 20–1 turning circles 22.signage 177–8 sloping decks 59 and vehicle ramps 15 kerb separation 24–5 petrol interceptors. 141 cross. availability 178 powered two wheelers (PTW) facilities for 164. projections into 17 circular 22. 143 two-way-flow 140. 89 alternatives to 67 static efficiency 67 SD 5 (interlocking double helix/one-way-flow) 58. 107 separated. one-way-flow types 48.and two-way-flows) 70. 63. 108. 134. 23 scissors. 78. 15 dynamic capacities 27–8 end 95. 89 static efficiency 69 SD 6 (combined helix/side connected/one. 144. 149 internal 88. 23 one-way-flow (SLD 3) 48. 105 straight one-way-flow 132. 105. lift requirements 156–7 roofs exposed decks 33–4. 195–6 drainage 181 running costs. 73 alternatives to 73 static efficiency 73 searching stalls inefficient 51. 111 side-by-side 22 storey height 17. 69 as alternative 51. 150. 133. 19. 145 storey height 146. 73 alternatives to 73 static efficiency 73 SD 8 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flows) 72. 49 at right angles 106. 57 retail outlets 26 side-by-side ramps 22 Index 209 . 71 alternatives to 71 static efficiency 71 SD 7 (double helix/side connected/one-way-flows) 72. 24 one-way-flow 142. 89. 136. 148. 61 as alternative 55. 115. 18. 49 scissors ramps one-way-flow types 48. 135.13. 89 internal cross. 16. one-way-flow types 104. 67 as alternative 67. one-way-flow types 110. 63 alternatives to 63 static efficiency 63 SD 3 (double helix/end connected/one-way-flow) 64. 53. 127 interlocking circular type 24. 101 alternatives to 65 static efficiency 65 SD 4 (double helix/end connected/two-way-flow) 66. 103. 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. 151 stadium type 24. 18 ground clearance on 7–8 half external 126. disabled pedestrians 154 reinforced concrete structures 195 finishes 197 life expectation 195 shrinkage joints 196 retail outlets short stay car parks 26 supermarkets. 79 refuges. 175 women-only car parks 170 short stay car parks 9 capacities 31 large-capacity 45 lift requirements 156–7 lifts 153. 67. 106. 157 recommendations for combined flat and sloping decks 93. 165 separate entries and exits 165 rain effects on decks 26 effects on stopping distances 27 ramps (pedestrian) 16 gradients 24 regulations 43 split-level decks 43 ramps (vehicle) see also access ways aisles. 69. 97 sloping decks 61. 14. 53. 65 as alternative 67. 147 two-way. 116. 23 two-way-flow 22 rapid exit routes 36. 77. 170. 83 traffic congestion 73. 69. 107 SD 1 (single helix/two-way-flow) 60. 97 circular 114. 109 widths and aisle entry efficiency 21 angled stalls 21 one-way-flow 19. 49. 15 pedestrians and vehicle 15 scissor-type 22.

10 turning diameters 8. 9 searching inefficient 51. 89 rapid outflow 62. 49 capacities 32 with flow reversal 69 lifts 157 210 Car park designers’ handbook . 154 fire regulations 153 widths 155 stalls see also angled stalls. 49 as alternative 81. 3þ bins wide) 52. manoeuvring envelopes 18. 78. 63. 79 two-way-flow flat and sloping decks 76. 177 pay stations 178 pedestrians 177–8 schedule 179 variable message 34. 67. 73 to SLD series 45 to VCM series 95 alternatives to 47 static efficiency 47 SLD 3 (one-way-flow/scissors ramps) 48. 10 static efficiency definition 30 external bins 30 internal bins 31 single bins 30 two-bin layout 30 steelwork 195 coatings 197 storey height ramps 17. 71. lighting. 85. 23 tag systems of payment 188 tariffs see control systems temperature differences. lift requirements 156–7 surveillance see CCTV. 81. 57 alternatives to 45 capacity 31. 55 as alternative 49. 83 traffic congestion 73. 103. 27 driver searches 35 dynamic capacity 27 obstructions between 9–10 rectangle 6. parking decks access. disabled parking stalls. 77 alternatives to 55 static efficiency 55 SLD 7 (one-way-flow/contra-flow exit) 56. 115. directional 177 emergency 179 lighting 175 headroom 25 overhead 176. 45 as alternative 47. exposed decks 196 tidal car parks 9. 67. turning circles 22. 99 alternatives to 57 static efficiency 57 sloping parking decks (SD) see also SD series definition 59 disabled drivers 59 parking gradients 59 pedestrian considerations 59 smoke control 184. threeþ stalls wide) 50. 89.and two-way-flows. 93 alternatives to 49 capacity 31 static efficiency 49 SLD 4 (combined one-way-flows. indications 176. 105 structure alternative materials 195 deflections 198–9 reinforced concrete 195 finishes 197 life expectation 195 shrinkage joints 196 steelwork 195 coatings 197 supermarkets. 10 height 6. 61. 53. 18.signage control 178 deck levels. 19. 81 static efficiency 30–1 standard design vehicles (SDV) see also vehicles 95factor 6. 10 length 6. 20 dimensions area per car space 31 length 9 width 9. 10 wheelbase 7. 10 departures from 6. 45 circulation efficiency 35. 192 detectors 192 speed limits. 10 width 6. 51 alternatives to 51 circulation efficiency 51 SLD 5 (combined one. 57 as alternative 97. imposition of 27 split-level decks (SLD) see also SLD type series advantages 43 pedestrian ramps in 43 popularity 43 sports utility vehicles (SUV) 6 sprinklers 184 staff parking see tidal car parks stairs cores. 61 SLD 1 (one-way-flow/rapid outflow) 44. 53 as alternative 83 alternatives to 53 static efficiency 53 SLD 6 (two-way-flow/combined ramps) 54. 77 sloping decks 60. 178–9 single helix one-way-flow internal ramps 88. 178 deck markings. drainage 181 as fire escapes fire lobbies 154–5. 7 ground clearance 7–8. 45 static efficiency 45 SLD 2 (one-way-flow/excluded outflow) as alternative to FSD series 89 to SD series 65. 81. security swept paths.

77 alternatives to 97 static efficiency 97 VCM 4 (one. 99 as alternative 57. 93 as alternative to FIR series 105. high level parking 33. 10 swept paths 22. exposed turning circles circular ramp systems 139 minimum dimension layouts 113 standard design vehicles 8. 101 alternatives to 101 static efficiency 101 Index 211 . 89 to SD series 65. 55. 178–9 VCM 1 (one-way-flow/internal ramps) 90. decks 181 waterproofing decks 197–8 wheelbase. 89 to SD series 65. 69 split level decks 49. 89. 99 alternatives to 95 static efficiency 95 VCM 3 (two-way-flow/single ramp) 96. 127 circular ramps 24 end 116. 191–2 viewing panels. 107. 67. 57 to WPD series 101 within VCM series 95. 51. 143 traffic congestion 61 vehicles crossing 26–7 two-way-flow types see also one-and two-way-flow types with combined ramps 54. 141.and two-way-flow/single ramp) 98. 99 alternatives to 93 capacity 31 static efficiency 93 VCM 2 (one-way-flow/end ramps) 94. 83. 95 as alternative to FSD series 85. 71. 63. 61 underground parking 172 constraints 173 efficiency 173 minimum dimension layouts 112. definition 33 USA. 55. 111 to FSD series 81. 142. 73 to SLD series 45. 67. ramps 21–2 top decks see decks. 115. standard design vehicles 7. 191–2 natural 191 underground parking 190. 81. 10 widths aisles 10–11 minimum 13 parking stalls 9 stairs 155 standard design vehicles 6. 65. sloping decks 60. 61 alternatives to 99 static efficiency 99 vehicles see also standard design vehicles camper vans 6 four-wheel drive 6 limosines in multi-storey car parks 7 stretched 7 new registrations by type 203 sports utility 6 ventilation air change rates 192 fans 190. 47. 191–2 uninhabited layouts. 92. 23 two-bin layout. 57 two-way-flow. end connected 66. 67 single end ramp 96. 85. 97 as alternative 49. 67. 61. for disabled pedestrians 177 warped parking decks 91 see also WPD series washing-down facilities.recommendations for flat and sloping decks 97 sloping decks 61. 109. 97 single helix. 34 user-friendly car parks 2. 117 full 140. 55 double helix. static efficiency 30 two-way-flow aisle widths minimum 13 reduced 12 circular decks 126. 37–9 user-unfriendly car parks 125 variable message signs 34. 73 to SLD series 57 within VCM series 93. 113 ventilation 190. 53. 71. 10 women-only car parks 170 WPD 1 (warped deck/one-way-flow) 100.