Car Park Designers' Handbook (Part 04 of 05)
Car Park Designers' Handbook (Part 04 of 05)
Disadvantages
. Their static efficiency is not high and reduces as the layouts increase
in length. This is due to the internal bins containing fewer stalls than
the outer bins.
. The ramps are narrow.
. MD 4 and 5 incorporate two-way traffic flows for the vertical vehicle
circulation.
Comments
. The high proportion of access-ways to stalls for the internal bins
makes for a reduced static efficiency when compared with long
MD 1 and 2 layouts. However, when the major dimension is six
bins or less, the static capacities can be similar and when only three
bins in width, they can be superior.
. MD 3 is based upon a minimum width (24.000 m) SLD 3 layout,
stalls for any given length and hence, have an improved static
efficiency.
. Each internal bin contains only 12 stalls at an area per stall of
Static efficiency
. As drawn, with 52 stalls per deck, the area per car space for MD 3, 4
and 5 layouts is 28.800 m2 .
. When each deck contains 100 stalls, the area per car space increases
to 30.000 m2 .
Other layouts
. Apart from an MD 2 layout, there are no other types with similar
minimum dimensions that can have both traffic flows located at the
same end.
Disadvantages
. Lifts and stairs located on the long, flat side project beyond the
notional building width.
Comments
. Static efficiency reduces with an increase in the number of bins. On
long layouts an MD 1 layout will be more economical to construct,
but this advantage becomes less as the building reduces in size.
. All three types are based upon minimum dimension VCM modules
Static efficiency
. An MD 6 as drawn, with 32 stalls per deck, has an area per car space
of 28.080 m2 and when each deck contains 100 stalls the area per car
space increases to 34.320 m2 .
. An MD 7 as drawn, with 32 stalls per deck, has an area per car space
of 28.680 m2 and when each deck contains 100 stalls the area per car
space increases to 34.520 m2 .
. An MD 8 as drawn, with 40 stalls per deck, has an area per car space
of 30.000 m2 and when each deck contains 100 stalls the area per car
space increases to 34.320 m2 .
. None of these layouts can be deemed, Good, and can only be justified
Other layouts
. Apart from an MD 1, there are no other layout types with similar
minimum dimensions that can incorporate vertical traffic circulation
routes at each end.
Disadvantages
. Lifts and stairs located on the long flat sides will project beyond the
notional building width.
Comments
. These are an alternative to the MD 6, 7 and 8 layouts. They have the
same dynamic and static qualities and layout flexibility. The basic
difference being that the split levels for these three types create
escape problems for pedestrians.
. If pedestrian ramps are required for cross-bin access, then the
internal stalls located at the split-levels will be lost. This will render
the layout even more uneconomic and statically inefficient.
Static efficiency
. An MD 9 or 10 as drawn, with 32 stalls per deck, has an area per car
space of 28.080 m2 and when each deck contains104 stalls the area
per car space increases to 31.680 m2 .
. An MD 11 as drawn, with 40 stalls per deck, has an area per car space
of 30.000 m2 and when each deck contains 104 stalls the area per car
space increases to 31.680 m2 .
. None of these layouts can be deemed, Good, and can only be justified
Other layouts
. MD 6, 7 and 8, solve the pedestrian escape problems.
tion of traffic flow, the inflow route is upwards and the outflow
route is downwards (reversed in underground facilities).
Disadvantages
. All of the stalls are passed on the main outflow route.
. No natural recirculation capability.
. The need to turn constantly and the inability to see well ahead is an
Comments
. On anything other than a circular site, it is difficult to justify this
layout above ground for reasons other than architectural. As the
diameter increases so does the wasted site area created by the hole
in the middle.
. It can be justified when it also doubles up as a spiral ramp providing
cannot see as far as when the aisles are straight and CCTV cameras
will be required more frequently.
Static efficiency
. The number of stalls varies, dependent upon the diameter. At the
smallest practical diameter of 40.000 m the area per vehicle space
requirement is 26.400 m2 but at a diameter of 60.000 m the area per
vehicle space requirement reduces to 22 m2 approximately: this can
be deemed, Good, but then the hole in the middle gets larger and
becomes wasted site space
Other layouts
. There is no alternative layout that embodies a circular shape, but on
any site larger than, say, 32 m2 , a rectangular car park would produce
a more economical and efficient layout.
Disadvantages
. Both inflow and outflow routes combine with the aisle traffic at each
parking level. This is not normally a serious matter.
. Semi-circular ramps are more expensive to construct than straight
ramps but in a large-capacity car park the extra cost per car space
can be nominal.
Comments
. The spiral format, be it semi-circular or elliptical, renders this a more
æsthetically pleasing shape than straight ramps.
. Measured on the centre-line, the going is 32.200 m, producing a
Other layouts
. Either of the other featured HER-type ramps work just as well. It is
more a matter of choice rather than any other factor.
Disadvantages
. The inflow and outflow routes combine with the aisle traffic at each
parking level.
Comments
. On plan, both sets of ramps appear similar. The difference being that
those for HER 3 raise half a storey height, and are similar to those
used in an SLD 2 layout, while those for HER 4 split the storey
height into three, thereby reducing the sloping elements to 10%,
approximately.
. A variable message sign system, located at the head of an inflow ramp
Other layouts
. Either of the other featured ‘half external’ type ramps work as well. It
is more a matter of choice rather than any other factor.
layouts.
Disadvantages
. Down-flowing traffic on the ramps, turning left, can be in confronta-
tion with out-flowing and circulating traffic on the parking decks,
turning right.
Comments
. Although a straight, three-slope ramp system has been shown, any of
the other HER ramp series can be adapted equally as well.
. A variable message sign system, located at the head of an inflow ramp
Other layouts
. Either of the other featured HER-type ramps works as well on the
building ends, it is more a matter of choice rather than any other
factor.
layouts.
Disadvantages
. Down-flowing traffic on the ramps, turning left, can be in confronta-
tion with out-flowing and circulating traffic on the parking decks,
turning right.
Comments
. Although a straight, three-slope ramp system has been shown, any of
the other HER ramp series can be adapted equally as well.
. A variable message sign system, located at the head of an inflow ramp
Other layouts
. Either of the other featured HER-type ramps works as well on the
building ends, it is more a matter of choice rather than any other
factor.
. A comparison with an HER 4 layout shows that, within the same
route.
. The vertical circulation routes are unobstructed by other traffic,
Disadvantages
. Traffic exiting the deck must cross the path of ramp traffic climbing to
an upper level.
. The ability to observe approaching traffic on the opposite lane is
Comments
. Unless appearance or site utilisation considerations are pre-eminent,
there is no advantage in choosing this format over other external
ramp types.
. Providing that traffic drives on the ‘correct’ side of the aisle and the
careful consideration if traffic is not to ‘back up’ within the car park.
Other layouts
. An ER 2 ramp system is a logical option and projects less distance
from the parking deck.
route.
. The vertical circulation routes are unobstructed by other traffic,
Disadvantages
. They are not a popular format with the parking public at the best of
times and rapidly become more unpopular if the diameter reduces
below the preferred minimum.
Comments
. Unless appearance or site utilisation considerations are pre-eminent,
there is no advantage in choosing this format over rectangular exter-
nal ramp types.
. A variable message sign system, located at the head of the inflow
Other layouts
. An ER 1 ramp system is a logical option but the crossover condition
at the exit from each floor level renders it less efficient, dynamically.
route.
. The vertical circulation routes are unobstructed by other traffic,
Disadvantages
. The projection from the side of the car park is some 10.000 m greater
than for a similar HER-type ramping system.
Comments
. Shown with split levels for demonstration purposes, it is equally
adaptable to the other systems featured in the HER series.
. A variable message sign system, located at the head of the inflow
Other layouts
. Layouts utilising three-ramp or VCM-type systems could be used to
similar effect.
route.
. The vertical circulation routes are unobstructed by other traffic,
Disadvantages
. For each level climbed or descended, the ‘going’, at 8.5%, is 14 stall
widths per 2.900 m storey height. The length of the site, therefore, will
dictate the number of parking levels.
Comments
. A variable message sign system, located at the head of the inflow
ramp at the approach to each parking deck, will considerably
improve dynamic efficiency by eliminating the need to search, need-
lessly, any particular floor.
. The projection from the side of the building can vary but the turning
Other layouts
. There are no other external ramp systems that project as little from
the sides of a building.
Disadvantages
. The entry and exit locations are not very flexible and could cause
problems. To locate them side by side could involve increasing the
site width, locally, at ground level.
. Locating the entry and exit control barriers at the first parking level
Comments
. The main purpose of this ramp system is to gain access to a car park
located above a commercial or retail operation where an increased
storey height is required.
. Ramp width dimensions as little as 16.000 m between kerbs have been
above the first parking deck level. The overall dimensions for the
ER 5 and the two HER ramps would need to be compatible for
the best structural efficiency.
Other layouts
. There are no other layouts that can operate to as high a standard
within the plan area of this system.
Disadvantages
. The entry and exit locations are not very flexible and could cause
problems. To locate them side by side could involve increasing the
site width, locally, at ground level.
. For large-capacity car parks, where a number of entry and exit
Comments
. It operates in a similar fashion to an ER 5 ramp system and performs
the same function.
. If the site widths are restricted then a stadium-shaped ramp could
Alternative layouts
. There are no other circular ramp layouts that can operate to as high a
standard within the plan area of this system.
152
8 Stairs and lifts
8.1 Discussion The location of vertical services for pedestrians can have a significant
bearing upon the choice of vehicle circulation layout. If located at the
end of a building, flat-end vehicle access-ways, also capable of being
used by pedestrians, are preferable to ramps or steps between split
levels. When the vertical access is located along the building flanks,
flat external deck layouts are preferable to those incorporating sloping
decks.
Unless otherwise agreed with the local Fire Officer, when used as fire
escapes the number and location of stairs should comply with the
requirements of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations.
Although not specifically referred to in Table 3 of that document,
they are normally classed as Purpose Group 7 (storage and other
non-residential) for intermediate decks, or Purpose Group 2–7 (plant
room or rooftop plant for top, exposed decks). Where the top deck is
roofed over this last requirement is not applicable. Extracts from the
relevant clauses are shown in Section 8.2.
The choice of whether to introduce lifts is one that has to be consid-
ered frequently. For Cats 1 and 3 use lifts and/or a pedestrian ramp will
be desirable even for a single suspended parking deck. For Cat. 2 or 4
use, with two suspended parking floors, lifts are not essential provided
that they are not required for transporting trolleys, luggage, disabled
drivers or carers with prams. For three or more suspended parking
decks, lifts are recommended for all car park categories. The number
and capacity of the lifts will vary dependent upon the parking category
and capacity.
8.3 Escape distances Approved Document B specifies maximum pedestrian escape distances
of:
. Intermediate decks – 25 m to an available escape in one direction only
or 45 m to available escapes in two or more directions.
8.4 Lift sizing Lift manufacturers usually provide a service for determining the
number and sizing of lifts required for any particular building. For
preliminary estimating purposes, however, a ‘rule of thumb’ method
can be used for assessing the required lift capacity.
For Cat. 1 parking located on a single level directly over a super-
market, 33-person lifts that can contain four shopping trolleys,
double stacked, will produce an effective solution. Each supermarket
chain has its own special requirements, but for preliminary design
purposes, where the end user has not yet been chosen and where the
whole of the parking is above ground, the lift capacity can be estimated
at the rate of one 33-person lift for every 800 m2 of retail shopping area.
160
9 Disabled drivers and carers
9.1 Discussion Although the necessary number of stalls and their dimensions are well
documented, little comment has been made about the disposition of
stalls for disabled drivers within a car park. The required provision
for general public parking is up to 6% of capacity. This figure varies
dependent upon the use for which the car park is intended, but many
local authorities now insist on 6% regardless of the car park’s function.
Some car parks have stalls spread around in ‘ones and twos’ on a
number of deck levels, wherever there has been an extra width stall
available. This is a cynical solution to the ‘requirements’. It ignores
the special mobility problems of disabled people and is at odds with
current Disability Discrimination Act recommendations. There is
also a need to consider parking provision for ‘disabled’ vehicles up to
2.6 m high. It is acceptable to provide external parking bays but if
that is not possible the ground parking level will have to be used. The
interior should be so designed that the increased headroom occurs
only locally and the vehicles can exit the facility without having to
drive through the whole of the ground parking level. It is unreasonable
to have to increase all of the ground-floor headroom just for a few
parking bays.
The requirements for pedestrian ramps are based upon places of
work and residence wherein disabled persons can spend many hours
per day. In such cases it is important that all consideration should be
given to minimise the problems of getting around. However, in car
parks, the only people remaining more than five minutes after parking
their vehicle are employees, the very few waiting for the driver to return
and those with criminal intent. The others will have left to go about
their legitimate business.
The design criteria for dealing with persons with disabilities within
car parks are provided in BS 8300: 2001. The recommendations, how-
ever, do not adequately distinguish between different parking functions,
e.g. a hospital car park may well need to increase its provision for
disabled drivers as would areas with a high percentage of elderly
residents. Their location can also reduce the use, i.e. when constructed
on a steep hillside (see Fig. 3.11, Hillside Car Parks) or if ample on-
street parking is available for blue badge holders in the car park’s
immediate vicinity. It is to be hoped that, eventually, car parks will
be recognised as a separate building type in this respect and treated
accordingly.
9.2 Stall locations When endeavouring to provide stalls for the disabled, designers should
be aware of the following problems:
. When located on floors other than the one that leads directly to the
main exit point, wheelchair users must use the lifts. In the event of
an electrical failure or mechanical breakdown they will either be
constrained to the floor on which they have parked, and have to
drive back out, or be unable to return to their vehicle.
. Lift doors must be wide enough to accept wheelchairs and carers with
double-width prams (800 mm is adequate for wheelchair users but
1000 mm could be required to contend with some of the prams).
9.3 Stall dimensions Stalls are, typically, 3.600 m in width with a crosshatched lane 1.200 m
wide at the ends, continued along the face of the parking block. They
can also be 2.400 m in width provided that a 1.200 m crosshatched
area is located between every pair of stalls; it assumes that drivers
will not use adjacent bays at the same time. This results in savings of
an extra standard width stall for every four 3.600 m-wide ‘disabled’
stalls. It should be appreciated that the stall-end crosshatching remains
part of the traffic aisle and is not additional to it. Stalls for carers, or
mother and child, can be shown in a similar manner to the 2.400 m-
wide disabled driver parking stalls but showing a different legend. In
this case, however, the crosshatched end lane can be omitted (see
Fig. 9.2).