Fig. 4.1 A Cat.

1, SLD 2
car park

Inflow
Aisle 1, Level 1 (36 stalls)
ADC ¼ 1500
ð640  36=640  1  1=1:5Þ ¼ 1476 vph
At the end of the inflow route, having passed through ten aisles, ADC
will be reduced by 240 to 1260 vph.
For outflow routes, the calculations need to be made from the top
deck down.

Outflow
Aisle 10, Level 5 (12 stalls)
ADC ¼ 1500  ð750  12=750  1  1=1:5Þ ¼ 1490 vph
At the end of the exit route, having passed through ten aisles the ADC
will have reduced to 1400 vph.
Although this is a small example, it can be appreciated that when
much larger facilities are involved, and aisles need to be driven through
more than once, the calculation can be used to determine where conges-
tion is likely to occur and where an alternative route can be used to
advantage.

4.1.10 Dynamic efficiency

Angled parking is more efficient, dynamically, than right-angled park-
ing when both incorporate stalls having similar dimensions. As the
angle reduces so the stalls become easier to enter and leave, and it
becomes increasingly difficult for cars to turn against the traffic flow.
This improvement results, generally, in a reduction in static efficiency,
a narrowing of the aisles wherein traffic and pedestrians mingle and a
reduction in the distance available for turning between the outside
faces of adjacent aisles.
There is a case for parking at angles down to 708 on the internal bins
in a multi-bin configuration (Table 5.3) where the static and dynamic
efficiency is slightly superior to that required for 908 parking. It must
be remembered, however, that as the parking angle reduces the stall
pitch increases and this could be detrimental to the static capacity of
a facility with a fixed overall length.

Dynamic considerations 29
5 Static considerations

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

5.1.1 Relative efficiencies

A long, two-bin layout has a greater static efficiency than a shorter
three- or four-bin layout of a similar floor area, due to the reduction
in the number of access-ways required for access between adjacent
stalls, each of which takes up the space of four stalls at the ends. It
can be a useful consideration when deciding upon the layout for a
new car park.
Floor area requirements for different angles of parking, as a ratio
compared with that for 908 parking, are provided in Tables 5.1, 5.2
and 5.3. They are based on stall widths of 2.400 m and one-way traffic
flows (see also Fig. 3.6).
Column A shows the pitch of the stalls in metres.
Column B shows bin width dimensions.
Column C shows the percentage area variation.
Two-way-flow layouts can only be used sensibly with 908 parking.

Table 5.1 Single bins

Angle A B C

908 2.400 15.600 100.0

808 2.437 15.530 101.0
708 2.554 15.362 105.0
608 2.771 14.914 111.0
508 3.132 14.240 119.0
458 3.394 13.782 125.0

Table 5.2 External bins

Angle A B C

908 2.400 15.600 100.0

808 2.437 15.328 100.0
708 2.554 14.952 102.0
608 2.771 14.314 106.0
508 3.132 13.469 112.0
458 3.394 12.939 117.0

30
 Table 5.3 Internal bins
Angle A B C

908 2.400 15.600 100.0

808 2.437 15.120 100.0
708 2.554 14.541 99.0
608 2.771 13.714 101.0
508 3.132 12.697 106.0
458 3.394 12.085 110.0

Compared with the area for one-way-flow 908 parking, the (column
C) figure for two-way flow is 106.4%.

5.1.2 Area per car space

As a guide, the floor areas per car space that can be termed ‘good’, for
five different deck capacities with 908 parking, including a reasonable
allowance for stairs, lifts etc. are shown in the following table.
300 stalls per deck 20 m2
200 stalls per deck 21 m2
100 stalls per deck 22 m2
60 stalls per deck 24 m2
30 stalls per deck 28 m2
For angled parking, these can be multiplied by the column C figures
shown in Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
Significant variations can occur, especially where awkward shaped
sites are involved and the figures should be used as no more than a
guide to the areas per vehicle space that can be achieved under suitable
conditions.

5.1.3 Recommended capacities

For good practice, the maximum static capacities of various car parks
having circulation efficiencies better than 60% should be of the follow-
ing numerical order.

Parking categories 1 and 2

Combined one-way flow
SLD 1 type 400 spaces
Two-way flow
SLD 3 type 600 spaces
Extended one-way inflow route with a separated rapid outflow route
VCM 1 type 800 spaces
Extended and rapid inflow route with a separated rapid outflow route
VCM 1 type 1100 spaces
Flat decks with half external rapid outflow routes
HER type 1200 spaces
Flat decks with fully external ramps
FER type 1400 spaces

Parking category 3
Long-stay, non-tidal ‘main terminal’-type car parks, where the traffic
flow is not anticipated to reach the dynamic capacity of the traffic
flow routes, need not be restricted in static capacity. However, rapid
flow routes that enable drivers to reach any part of the layout within
five-minutes should be incorporated.

Static considerations 31
 Parking category 4
Tidal flow layouts have at least two peak vehicle movements per day. If
it can be anticipated that the peak rates will not exceed 25% of the car
park’s capacity over a 15-minute period, the Cats 1 and 2 figures can be
used.
Where layouts with circulation efficiencies less than 60% are con-
sidered, they can be compared with the 60% recommendations and
their capacities reduced proportionally.

32 Car park designers’ handbook

6 Circulation design

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

6.2 How many There is no technical limit to the number of suspended levels a structured
levels? car park can have, but it is generally accepted that six is a reasonable
maximum for it to be freely accepted by the motoring public. Factors,
such as the intensity of demand, availability of a suitable site and,
of course, requirements of the relevant planning authority will also
influence this decision.
In the USA car parks have been constructed with more than 12
parking levels (see Fig. 6.1), although, on average, the number of
floors in most buildings is not dissimilar to UK practice; there are no
fixed rules in this matter and much depends on public demand, the
skill of the designer and the tolerance of the motorist.

6.3 Roof Most car parks in the UK are open to the elements. Roofing over the
considerations top parking deck occurs in only a relatively few cases. There are
arguments for and against protecting the top deck with a lightweight
roof.
. A waterproof membrane on an exposed top deck will require
substantial renewal – at least three times during a projected life of
60 years. It will also require expenditure on maintenance from time
to time.
. A lightweight roof over a top parking deck will cost about three times
more than that for a single application of a waterproof membrane
and, without attracting significant maintenance costs, should last
the life of the building.
. An open deck building can be constructed, initially, at a lower cost
than a roofed-over car park and if the difference was invested, over
a projected life of some 60 years, the overall costs will not be dissimilar.
. Where the overall height is limited and the static capacity needs to be
as high as possible, it makes sense to utilise all of the available building
height for parking and construct an open top parking deck. If
inclement winter weather eliminates roof parking for a time, it will
still have the static capacity of a roofed-over car park in that particular
location.

33
Fig. 6.1 A 12-storey car
park in New Orleans

. Where it is reasonable to construct a lightweight roof without

reducing static capacity, the advantages are that the building remains
dry at all times; the top deck parking is not weather sensitive, protec-
tion from the summer sun is provided and long-term maintenance
costs are reduced, if not eliminated altogether. The building is also
less prone to structural deterioration and will have an enhanced
market value.

6.4 Circulation 6.4.1 Discussion

efficiency In some car parks, the circulation design enables most or all of the stalls
to be searched with just one circuit of the aisles and access-ways. In
other car parks, however, aisles must be driven through more than
once to achieve a similar result. It is a factor worthy of consideration
and affects dynamic efficiency, as well as parking times, especially in
large-capacity, multi-bin layouts. It is a complex problem to solve
precisely since much depends upon whether the car park is ‘empty
and filling’, ‘full and searching’ or ‘full and emptying’. The use of
‘variable message signs’ also affects circulation efficiency, since they
enable drivers to by-pass aisles that are full and drive more effectively
to an available stall.
The object is not one of precise assessment but rather one of estab-
lishing the relative circulation efficiency for one layout and comparing
it with that for another. Provided that both are assessed in the same
way, comparisons can be made without undue complexity.

6.4.2 Shortest travel distance

The shortest travel distance possible, to pass stalls located on each side
of a traffic aisle, is 2.400/2 ¼ 1.200 m per stall and can be equated to a
circulation efficiency of 100%. It can only be achieved in a single-bin
facility where motorists enter at one end and exit at the other. Where
cross-ramps and access-ways are used to complete the circulation in
multi-bin layouts, the circulation efficiency will be reduced and will
vary dependent upon the chosen layout design.
 6.4.3 Examples of circulation efficiency
Example 1
Reference to the SLD 1 layout on page 44 shows that all 96 of the stalls
on each deck, plus getting to the next upper storey, can be achieved with
a single circuit consisting of four right-angled turns. Measuring along
the centre of the aisles and access-ways the travel distance is:
52
2.400 m ¼ 132.800 m
2
15.600 m ¼ 31.200 m
Total distance ¼ 164.000 m
Divided by the number of stalls the travel distance per stall is 1.700 m
producing a circulation efficiency of 1.200/1.700 ¼ 70%.

Example 2
Reference to the FIR 1 layout on page 104 shows that three circulation
options are available.

Option 1
A single circuit, with four right-angled turns and climbing to the upper
deck level, passes 58 stalls out of the 108 on each deck. It produces a
circulation efficiency of 53% for the stalls passed and is only really
suitable for getting quickly to the upper parking levels. Even so, that
route is not very rapid.

Option 2
To include the stalls on the central aisle will increase the number to 82,
but entails driving twice through one of the aisles and making eight
right-angled turns. The ‘efficiency’ of this route is 43%.

Option 3
To cover all of the stalls on each deck, before driving up to the next
level, involves passing twice through one aisle, three times through
another and making 12 right-angled turns. The ‘efficiency’ reduces to
33%.
It can be seen that motorists can spend up to twice the time searching
for an available stall in the FIR 1 type layout than in an SLD 1 layout.
Poor circulation efficiency is a major factor in creating traffic conges-
tion and one of the main reasons why some car parks are less popular
than others.

6.5 Parking 6.5.1 Discussion

times Five minutes is about the maximum time that an average driver is
willing to spend searching for a stall in which to park, beyond which
dissatisfaction and frustration with the building begin to develop.
They can be a factor in deciding a motorist’s future parking destination.
There are reports of car lights left on, boot lids left open, even drivers
who have left their car doors open with the engine still running in their
panic not to miss an appointment or catch a plane or a train. Poor
circulation efficiency and the frustration it causes can be a contributory
factor in creating such situations.
The decision whether to alter the layout or incorporate rapid inflow
routes can be influenced by an assessment of the time it takes to search
all of the stalls. In the absence of more accurate information it
is normal practice to assume that the peak flow rate in either direction
will be 25% of the static capacity in any 15-minute period. This rate can
be applied, within reason, to most single- and multi-level parking
layouts.

Circulation design 35
 The notional inflow capacity of an aisle with 2.400 m-wide stalls is
860 vph. This produces an average speed just under 6 mph (10 kph) or
3.000 m per second. However, the time spent on access-ways and
ramps connecting adjacent aisles slows the average stall searching
time to about 2.400 m per second. It is not a precise figure and so
does not justify recalculation for minor differences created by varying
stall widths. It should be used simply to establish the approximate
times it takes to reach various parts of a car park and to compare the
relative efficiencies of different circulation layouts.
Application of the five-minute recommendation limits simple ‘follow
my leader’ layouts, with circulation efficiencies better than 60%, to a
maximum of about 600 spaces and correspondingly smaller capacities
for less efficient layouts. If, however, a speed limit of 5 mph is adopted
for any particular building, the vph figure should be reduced to, about,
360 spaces.
In many large capacity layouts, mainly of the SLD and VCM series,
rapid exit routes form part of the basic design, but rapid inflow routes
can also be incorporated. Passing as few as 24 stalls for each storey
height, the introduction of such routes enables drivers to by-pass con-
gested lower decks and reach the emptier upper parking levels without
exceeding the preferred maximum search time.

36 Car park designers’ handbook

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 con-
stant pressures for financial economy render it reasonable to assume
that the examples shown, all of which have been featured or built
during the past 35 years, provide the basis for most of the self-parking
buildings that exist at the present time. The design of a satisfactory
circulation layout is one of the most important factors governing user
appreciation and yet many designers are unaware of the large variety
of options from which they may choose and their suitability for the
intended purpose.
The following examples are all practical layouts and form the basis
upon which most self-parking facilities have been designed. Some are
more popular than others and some are significantly defective in circu-
lation design, static and dynamic efficiency. If designers are to gain
confidence in developing solutions to solve particular problems, then
it is desirable that they should know the strengths and weaknesses of
individual layouts in order to make an informed choice.

7.2 Dimensions used There are few precise dimensions that must be adopted for the design of
parking structures. Dimensions for the individual elements can vary
and are also 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. The main concern is that motorists and clients
are content.
It is overly laborious and unnecessary to keep mentioning all of the
variations that can occur in practice and so dimensions for the featured
layouts will be based upon those recommended for 908 parking with
stall dimensions of 2.400 m  4.800 m, aisle widths of 6.000 m (one-
way flow), 7.000 m (two-way flow) and a storey height of 3.000 m.
In the layouts shown in the following pages, the overall aisle lengths
are sometimes shown less than those given for the width; nevertheless,
the length of the aisle will determine the ‘length’ of a layout and the
dimension over the bins will determine its ‘width’.

7.3 User-friendly 7.3.1 Discussion

features There are many existing car parks where, in retrospect, it can be seen
that the layout would have been much better if only the designer had
recognised that a problem existed. In such cases, if improvements had
been incorporated at the design stage, they need not have cost more
to implement or reduced static capacity. They could even have
enhanced the market value by being more ‘user friendly’ to the parking
public. It is, also, a relatively simple matter to spoil a potentially accep-
table 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
first, might look like a clever idea to a designer could well end up as a

37
 motorist’s nightmare. In a structured car park the layout should endea-
vour to replicate the openness of a surface car park. To this end, it is
desirable to eliminate, as far as possible, vertical structure that interferes,
both visually and physically, with the free movement of vehicles and
pedestrians. Turning directly from one lock to the other is not a popular
manoeuvre. If possible all turns should be in the same direction and not
more than 908 at a time. When located under other types of building, it is
not always possible to create the most desirable layout. Attempts should
be made to minimise the visual impact of large vertical elements and
locate them away from the circulation routes, if at all possible.

7.3.3 Crossovers
Crossover conditions should be avoided. When on a traffic aisle and
searching for the first available space, it is disconcerting and potentially
dangerous to find a car suddenly appearing at right angles from behind
a parked vehicle. The driver of this car may also be concentrating on
finding 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 effect upon circulation efficiency in
one-way-flow systems. Provided that the route is of an adequate width
it matters little in which direction the traffic is made to flow. It has been
said that left-turning circuits are not as popular in one-way-flow sys-
tems 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-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.
When entering a traffic aisle from a right-turning ramp, a front-seat
passenger could obscure traffic approaching from the left, but when
traffic approaches from the right the driver’s lateral vision is relatively
unimpaired.
Turning right onto an exit barrier enables a ticket to be inserted more
easily into the acceptor machine than when turning to the left.
When the entry/exit lanes are located side-by-side, right turning
circuits are preferable if a crossover situation is to be avoided.
None of these points are important enough to dictate the direction of
flow by themselves, but it is useful to appreciate that they occur when
considering the flow direction.

7.3.5 Dead ends (culs-de-sac)

When viewing down a ‘dead-end’ aisle, it is difficult 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 Members of the public and some clients, ask why angled parking is not
right-angled parking: used more frequently in the UK. They point out that it is popular in the
a comparison USA and, for those who have used it, it is a popular parking format
but, in the UK, layouts with 908 parking occur more often in town-
centre car parks than any of the other types.
Figure 7.1 shows a basic UK town-centre-type split-level layout with
908 parking. It is 28 stall widths in length with 96 stalls on each deck.

38 Car park designers’ handbook

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 difference 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 repre-
senting a reduction of 1.5%.
The traffic 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 m-
wide stalls and 6.000 m-wide aisles would be more popular than 708
parking with 2.400 m-wide stalls and 4.700 m wide aisles? It is a ques-
tion that can only be answered by designers and clients, individually.
Widening the traffic aisles in the 708 car park will increase construc-
tion costs by about 0.6% for every 100 mm increase in width.
As the parking angle reduces, so the building length increases and the
aisle widths narrow even further. At a parking angle of 458, a 96-space
 per deck building will need to be 95.000 m in length, (41% longer) and
even with aisle widths reduced to 3.600 m, the car space requirement
will be some 25% greater than for the 908 car park (see Section 5.1.1).
A two-bin, split-level car park with 908 parking could increase its stall
widths to 3.000 m, and retain its 6.000 m-wide aisles without exceeding
the area per car space for a two-bin 458 car park with 2.400 m-wide
stalls and 3.600 m wide aisles.
In the USA, many structured town-centre-type car parks incorporate
908 parking. Stalls with 608 angles, widened aisles and a two-way 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, SD
2, 3 and 4 being particularly popular in the southern and western USA.

40 Car park designers’ handbook

Fig. 7.2 An SLD-type 2 layout

42 Car park designers’ handbook

7.5 Split-level decks Split-level decks (SLDs) are the most popular circulation layouts in the
(SLDs) UK for multi-level urban car parks. They can be simple to drive
around, and generally have a good static and dynamic efficiency (see
Fig. 7.2). The combination of half storey-height internal ramps and
flat bins enables some types to be constructed down to ten stall
widths in length for two-bin layouts and eight stall widths for multi-
bin layouts while still retaining a complete vehicle circulation and re-
circulation capability. In large-capacity facilities, rapid inflow and
outflow routes can occur. They must, however, be introduced at the
design stage if expensive alteration costs are to be avoided. They can
be used with any angle of parking, although only right-angled parking
can, sensibly, be used in conjunction with a two-way-flow circulation
pattern. Normally the decks are constructed level and only incorporate
drainage falls, in which case storey heights are dictated by the slope and
length of the cross-ramps.
When part, or all, of a traffic aisle is made to slope along its length,
storey heights can be increased and/or the gradient of the ramps can be
reduced. In this manner, a split-level layout can be gradually modified
to become another circulation type.
The point at which the transition from one type to another occurs
can be assumed to be where the slope of the cross-ramps reduces to
5% (1 in 20) enabling them to conform to the requirements of the Build-
ing Regulations for pedestrian use (K1 Chapter 2 clause 2.1).
Historically, because of their construction simplicity, circulation
efficiency and ability to be constructed on small sites, an inherent
defect caused by poor access for pedestrians between split levels has
tended to be ignored. If they needed to cross over to an adjacent bin,
pedestrians were expected to mingle with traffic on the steep vehicle
ramps. Sometimes pathways were introduced down the ramp sides
but, mostly, pedestrian considerations were ignored in the search to
produce the most economical building in a highly competitive market.
Gradually, car park operators and designers began to rectify this
defect by introducing dedicated pedestrian ramps and/or stairs between
the split levels. This, however, reduced static efficiency and increased
costs. It was not a statutory requirement, however, and in a competitive
market many car parks continued to be constructed without the benefit
of this improvement.
Current regulations relating to the maximum allowable gradient for
pedestrian access between adjacent bins, the desire for enhanced secur-
ity, supervision across the decks and the development of other, superior,
layout types has rendered the split-level layout a less attractive proposi-
tion than it has been in the past.

Circulation layouts 43
SLD 1 One-way traffic flow with an included rapid outflow route

SLD 1 One-way flow with an included rapid outflow route

44 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. All of the stalls are located on the main inflow route.
. Rapid outflow route.
. All turns are in the same direction with no single turn greater than

908.
. Simple recirculation capability.

Disadvantages
. Both traffic flows combine on the outflow route, a condition that can
result in traffic congestion in busy car parks.
. Seven stalls per storey will be lost if a 5% pedestrian access ramp with

steps is constructed between the split levels (see Fig. 8.2).

Comments
. The inflow circulation is highly efficient. All of the stalls can be passed
with just four right-angled turns per storey. However, traffic waiting
to exit the car park must not be allowed to block the inflow route; in
that event the car park will be unable to continue operating.
. Large-capacity layouts for Cats 1 and 2 use have been noted where

stalls on the outer side of the outflow route, on the lower deck
levels, have been omitted in order to create an uncongested route
for the inflow traffic resulting in a reduction of at least 12 spaces
on each split level.
. Static efficiency is good with only 16 stall spaces being required to

complete the circulation routes.

. The proximity of the up-coming inflow ramp to the down-going

outflow ramp should not be closer than two stall widths if conflict
between drivers is to be avoided.
. The layout should operate satisfactorily for all parking categories up to

a maximum of, about, 400 stalls. Above that number designers should
become more cautious about using it for Cats 1 and 2 buildings.
. In large-capacity car parks, dynamic efficiency could be increased

substantially if a rapid inflow route was incorporated that enabled

motorists to bypass the outflow route, especially on the lower
parking levels.
. If the aisle lengths are not too long, locating the main stair/lift tower

at one end could eliminate the need for an internal pedestrian ramp.
This would render it more efficient, cheaper to construct and make a
significant improvement to its market value.
. If circumstances change, the future market value of a Cat. 3 or 4 car

park could depend upon its ability to operate in a different parking

category.

Static efficiency
. As drawn, the number of stalls is 96 and the static efficiency, at
21.840 m2 per car space, can be deemed, Good.

Other layouts
. For large-capacity layouts, an SLD 2 layout is dynamically superior.

It will also be statically superior if a by-pass outflow route has to be

installed.
. A VCM 1 is as dynamically efficient as the SLD 2 layout and in not

requiring a pedestrian ramp it is statically superior. The reduction

of the split-level condition, also, renders it more user friendly and
economical to construct.

Circulation layouts 45
SLD 2 One-way traffic flow with an excluded rapid outflow route

SLD 2 One-way-flow with an excluded rapid outflow route (2 four stalls wide; 2A three stalls wide)

46 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Rapid outflow route.
. All turns are in the same direction with no single turn greater than

908.
. Simple recirculation capability.
. The inflow and outflow routes are separated, reducing the possibility

of traffic congestion in busy car parks.

. The internal ramps can be of the combined type (SLD 2A) in smaller

capacity or non-intensive-use car parks, thereby improving static

efficiency.

Disadvantages
. Seven stalls per deck will be lost if a pedestrian ramp access with steps
is required between split levels.

Comments
. As drawn, the inflow circuit enables 80% of the stalls to be searched
efficiently, with just four right-angled turns. Many of the remaining
stalls can be seen and judgements made on whether to search on
the outflow circuit. In practice, there is little extra search distance
driven when compared with a similar capacity SLD 1 layout.
. The separation of the two flow routes more than justifies any slight

reduction in circulation efficiency, especially when used in Cats 1

and 2 layouts of a greater capacity than 400 stalls.
. As the static capacity increases, the separated outflow route reduces

the possibility of traffic congestion on the lower levels and so its

relative efficiency improves.
. The introduction of a rapid inflow route in large-capacity Cats 1 or 2

layouts enables motorists to bypass full or congested lower floors and

make their way, rapidly, to emptier upper parking levels.
. The layout is suitable for all parking categories where the capacity of

the lowest aisle on the outflow route is not exceeded.

. For Cats 1 and 2 uses, the recommended maximum stall capacity,

when incorporating a rapid inflow route, is in the order of 1100

spaces.
. Static efficiency is good with only 16 stall spaces per deck used to

complete the circulation route.

. For car parks of less than, say, 500 spaces and without intensive

utilisation, a combined ramp can be considered, as shown in SLD

2A. This will improve static efficiency by two stalls per storey.
. Given the choice of layout, two-bin width layouts will always be

more efficient than those with three or more bins.

Static efficiency
. As drawn, the number of stalls is 96 and the static efficiency, at
21.840 m2 per car space, can be deemed, Good.

Other layouts
. An SLD1 layout has a similar efficiency when used in smaller capa-

city car parks.

. A VCM 1 layout is dynamically similar and the need for a dedicated

pedestrian ramp between the split levels is eliminated. The flat across
deck areas also renders them more user friendly and economical to
construct.

Circulation layouts 47
SLD 3 One-way-flow with side-by-side ramps (scissors type)

SLD 3 One-way-flow with side-by-side ramps (scissors type)

48 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Can be used in layouts down to 24.000 m in length.
. All turns are in the same direction with no single turn greater than 908.
. Simple recirculation and recirculation capability.

Disadvantages
. The outflow route passes all of the stalls.
. The use of narrow (3.300 m) width ramps reduces dynamic efficiency

and they are not popular with motorists.

. Potential conflict between drivers when they arrive, side by side, from

different levels and turn in the same direction.

. Pedestrian access requirements between split levels will reduce static

capacity and, on the smaller layouts, may be difficult to incorporate

(see SLD 1).

Comments
. The circulation efficiency is high. All of the stalls on the inflow route
can be passed with just four right-angled turns. Unfortunately, it is
also the outflow route and at busy times traffic congestion can
occur as the inflow and outflow traffic combines.
. As shown, only 12 stall spaces per deck are needed to complete the

circulation route. This is highly efficient and can only be bettered

by an SD 5 layout.
. When constructed in pairs, between three stall widths, side-by-side

ramps are below 3.300 m in width between faces of structure. This

is less than the minimum entry width recommended for cross-
ramps (see Section 3.6.10).
. Mainly suitable for private parking (staff and hotel type), where the

available site area is small and the need to squeeze in as many spaces
as possible is great.
. Unless drivers use the full width of the traffic aisles to effect their turn

into the narrow ramps they risk scraping their vehicles on the side-
walls (see Fig. 3.15 and Section 3.6.12).
. Although many car parks in the 1960s and 1970s were constructed

with these narrow ramp widths, they are unpopular, especially with
drivers of larger-type vehicles, and cannot be recommended for use
by the general public.
. In small facilities they could be justified on the grounds of improving

static capacity, but in such cases it is important not to obstruct lateral

vision as drivers approach the ramp ends.

Static efficiency
. Increasing the deck length to 28 stalls, for comparison purposes, pro-
duces an area per car space of 21.060 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.
. As the length reduces so the area requirements increase. At its

shortest length (24.000 m), the area per car space becomes 26.750 m2 .

Other layouts
. An SLD 6 or a VCM 3 is to be preferred provided that the increased
aisle width can be tolerated but there is no alternative layout incor-
porating a one-way traffic flow that can be constructed under an
overall length of 36.000 m (15 stall widths).

Circulation layouts 49
SLD 4 Combined one-way-flows, three bins or more wide

SLD 4 Combined one-way-flows, three bins or more wide

50 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Simple circulation and recirculation capability.
. Good static efficiency using only 16 stall spaces to complete the

circulation route.

Disadvantages
. 66% of the stalls have to be passed on the outflow route (no rapid exit
route).
. Both flow routes combine on the central aisle, a condition that could

result in traffic congestion at busy times.

. At one end, when turning onto the central aisle, drivers confront each

other.
. A minimum of seven stalls will be lost at each of the two split levels if

a pedestrian ramp access is required between adjacent bins.

Comments
. Stall searching on the inflow circuit passes 66% of the stalls. To pass
all of the spaces on each storey and reach the next deck above
involves driving once through aisle 1, three times through aisle 2
and twice through aisle 3.
. The circulation efficiency of this search pattern is quite poor.
. The alternative of climbing all the way up on the inflow circuit and

returning back down on the outflow circuit is more efficient but

still involves driving through the central aisle twice per storey. It is
not a search pattern that normally appeals to motorists.
. The introduction of variable message signs, showing the availability

of stalls on the outflow aisle, will reduce the search pattern to a simple
rectangle with four turns to the right for each storey.
. At the entry to the central aisle, where the inflow and outflow routes

confront each other, the situation can be improved by introducing a

peninsula, shaped to prevent motorists from driving straight across
to the other ramp.

Static efficiency
. A deck length of 28 stall widths produces an area per car space of
20.700 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.

Other layouts
. An SD 5 or an FSD 3 or 4 layout that is flat across the decks for

pedestrians at each end has similar static efficiencies, provided that

there is no need for internally located cross-deck pedestrian access.
. A three-bin VCM 1 eliminates most of the split-level condition and

the need for pedestrian ramps, thereby offsetting the greater

number of stall spaces needed for circulation purposes. The flat
deck areas are easier to supervise and more user friendly.

Circulation layouts 51
SLD 5 Combined one- and two-way-flows, three bins or more wide

SLD 5 Combined one- and two-way-flows, three bins or more wide

52 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Outflow and inflow routes circulate in the same direction.
. Simple circulation and recirculation capability.

Disadvantages
. 66% of stalls are passed on the outflow route.
. The central aisle requires widening to accommodate two-way flow

traffic.
. Seven stalls will be lost at each split level if pedestrian ramp access

between split levels is required.

Comments
. Stall searching on the inflow circuit passes 66% of the stalls. To pass
all of the spaces on each storey and reach the next deck above
involves driving twice through aisle 1.
. This is a superior circulation pattern to the SLD 4 layout although

aisle 2, with two-way flow, is wider.

. The alternative of climbing all the way up on the inflow circuit and

returning back down on the outflow circuit is no more efficient since

it still involves driving through the central aisle twice per storey. It is
not a search pattern that normally appeals to motorists.
. In similar fashion to the SLD 4 layout, circulation efficiency will be

enhanced by the introduction of variable message signs.

. The two-way traffic flow eliminates confrontation between drivers

arriving on the central aisle and also reduces the possibility of traffic
congestion.
. Pedestrian access between the split levels is a problem and if required

will reduce static capacity by 14 stalls per storey height.

Static efficiency
. A deck length of 28 stall widths produces an area per car space of
20.700 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.

Other layouts
. An SD 5 or an FSD 2 or 3 layout embodying flat access at each end

for pedestrians has similar static efficiencies and could eliminate the
need for a pedestrian ramp.
. Although a three-bin VCM 1 would eliminate the need for pedestrian

ramps, fitting it onto a sloping site may cause problems of access and
egress.

Circulation layouts 53
SLD 6 Two-way-flow with ‘combined’ ramps

SLD 6 Two-way-flow with ‘combined’ ramps

54 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Can be used in layouts down to 24.000 m in length (10 stall widths).
. All stalls are located directly off the main inflow route.

Disadvantages
. All stalls are located directly off the outflow route.
. Two-way traffic-flow layouts are less efficient, statically and dynami-

cally, when compared with one-way-flow layouts.

. Recirculation is not a natural feature of two-way-flow layouts.
. If pedestrian access is required between split levels, it will reduce

static capacity.

Comments
. This is a two-way-flow variation on an SLD 3 layout but without the
potential driver conflict. The same number of stall spaces (12) is used
to complete the circulation route.
. It is more suitable for Cat. 3 or 4 uses, especially ‘tidal’, where the full

width of the two-way-flow ramp can be used for one-way-flow traffic

(a.m. and p.m.) and light two-way-flow traffic during the day.
. For Cat. 4-type layouts, or where very light usage is anticipated, the

recommended minimum width of 7.000 m can be reduced, provided

that the client agrees with the reduction in standards. Consideration,
however, should be given to possible future changes in the layout’s
parking category.
. It is desirable to eliminate obstructions to lateral vision at the top and

bottom of the ramps if maximum dynamic efficiency is to be

achieved.
. In Cat. 4 layouts, especially where the traffic flows are mainly tidal,

combined ramps are superior in dynamic efficiency when compared

with scissors-type (SLD 3) ramp layouts.
. Suitable for all parking categories up to, about, 300 spaces and some-

what larger car parks only with caution. The lack of a rapid outflow
route and the two-way-flow preclude this layout from serious con-
sideration for large-capacity Cats 1 and 2 car parks.

Static efficiency
. Increasing the deck length to 28 stalls for comparison purposes
produces an area per car space of 21.060 m2 . This can be deemed,
Good.
. As the length reduces so the area requirements increase. At its

shortest length (24.000 m), the area per vehicle space becomes
26.750 m2 .

Other layouts
. A VCM 3 layout is superior in dynamic efficiency and user-friendly
features.
. Above a length of 43.200 m, an SD 1 layout can also be considered.

Circulation layouts 55
SLD 7 One-way-flow with an included contra-flow rapid exit route

SLD 7 One-way-flow with an included contra-flow rapid exit route

56 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. All stalls are passed on the main inflow route.
. Rapid outflow route.
. Good recirculation capability.

Disadvantages
. Right and left turns are required with some small reduction in
dynamic efficiency when compared with one-way-flow layouts.
. Seven stalls per deck will be lost if pedestrian ramp access is required

between the split levels.

. Confrontation between drivers can occur at the entrance to the

internal outflow ramp.

Comments
. This is, in effect, a minimum length SLD 6 layout with a one-way-
flow split-level extension.
. The inflow circuit passes all of the stalls with four right-angled turns

per storey, but only the rapid contra-flow circuit has a combined
traffic flow. This provides it with an improved dynamic and static
efficiency when compared with a similar length SD 6 layout.
. A penalty, however, is that an extra two stalls per storey are required

to complete the circulation route and there will also be a driver

conflict point where left and right turns occur at the entry into the
rapid exit ramp.
. The one-way-flow section can be constructed 2.000 m narrower than

a two-way-flow deck, with a consequent reduction in construction

costs.
. It is not a layout that has been used often, but could help if the

designer was presented with a restricted site width and the main
entry/exit was located at the end of the access road.
. ‘Give way’ signs, where traffic joins the rapid outflow route, reduce

the problem of driver confrontation but cannot solve the problem

altogether.
. This layout is suited to all parking categories up to a maximum of,

say, 400 spaces. Larger car parks should be of the Cat. 3 or 4

types, where intensive flow rates occur only in one direction at any
particular time.

Static efficiency
. A deck length of 28 stall widths produces an area per car space of
22.000 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.
. At its shortest length it reverts to an SLD 6 layout.

Other layouts
. A VCM 4 layout has a similar circulation pattern but without the
split level, the central vehicle ramp and the need for a ‘dedicated’
pedestrian ramp.
. Provided that the location of the main entry/exit is acceptable, above

a length of 36.000 m an SLD 2 or a VCM 1 or 2 layout could be used

to better effect.

Circulation layouts 57
Fig. 7.3 An SD5 layout

58 Car park designers’ handbook

7.6 Sloping parking Sloping parking decks (SDs) (see Fig. 7.3) have parking aisles that slope
decks (SDs) along their length, the cross-ramps between adjacent bins can be laid
flat and become access-ways for both vehicles and pedestrians. The
parking gradient must not exceed 5% (1 in 20). Vehicles can be
parked on steeper sideways slopes but the requirements of BS
8300:8.2.2, for pedestrians must be observed in the UK.
It should also be appreciated that a limiting criterion, especially for
public car parks, is not the effect that sideways slopes have on parked
cars, but the effect of gravity on the opening and closing of the
doors. There are, however, drawbacks that render this type of layout
less attractive than a split-level car park in other respects. They are:
. Rapid inflow and outflow routes that enable motorists to bypass full
or congested levels are not a practical proposition.
. Pedestrian access between adjacent decks, other than at the access-
ways, is not a practical proposition.
. Flat parking areas for disabled drivers must be provided that could
extend the minimum length of the building.
Sloping parking decks are a popular format in the south and west of
the USA, where they are used extensively for staff parking, invariably
linked to an adjacent office block.
Some examples of the SD 1-type layout occur in the UK, but very few
compared with split-level layouts. It is, however, worthy of note that
both SD 3 and WPD1 circulation patterns are the same.
These layouts can be statically efficient and capable of floor areas per
car space of 21 m2 , or even less in large-capacity facilities.
An SD 7 layout has the best static efficiency of any car park type with
two or more bins.

Circulation layouts 59
SD 1 Single helix with two-way-flow

SD 1 Single helix with two-way-flow

60 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. All stalls are passed on the main inflow route.
. Only 12 stall spaces per deck are required to complete the circulation

route.
. Flat access for pedestrians, between adjacent bins, at each end.
. The sloping decks provide an unmistakable indication of the direc-

tion of traffic flow: inflow is upwards and outflow is downwards

(reversed in underground facilities).
. Storey heights can be varied almost infinitely by means of the deck

length and slope.

Disadvantages
. No rapid outflow route.
. Two-way traffic flows are less efficient, both statically and dynami-

cally, than one-way-flow layouts.

. The maximum sideways parking slope of 5% results in a minimum

length overall, of 43.200 m (18 stall widths) for a 2.900 m storey

height.
. There is no natural recirculation capability. Drivers must turn

through 1808 on the aisles, or use a ‘turning head’ that is usually

located at the end of the aisle furthest from the entrance.
. Pedestrian access between adjacent bins can only be made at each

end.

Comments
. At busy times, the two-way-flow circulation route, with vehicles
entering and leaving stalls from both sides of the aisle, can result in
a traffic congested situation developing quite rapidly, especially at
the lower levels of a large-capacity building.
. Although vehicles can safely park on much steeper sideways slopes

than 5%, it is the effect of opening car doors against gravity that
must be considered for weaker members of the parking public.
. BS 8300 stipulates that when the ‘going’ is in excess of 10.000 m, the

maximum slope for pedestrians must not exceed 5%.

. This is a sloping deck version of an SLD 6 layout, but has flat access

for pedestrians between adjacent bins each end.

. Suitable for all category facilities up to 300 spaces capacity approxi-

mately and somewhat larger Cats 3 and 4 car parks with caution. The
lack of a rapid outflow route and the two-way-flow precludes this
layout from serious consideration for large-capacity public facilities.

Static efficiency
. For comparison purposes, a deck length of 28 stall widths produces
an area per car space of 22.300 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.
. At its shortest length (18 stall widths) the area per car space increases

to 23.900 m2 .

Other layouts
. An SLD 6 has a similar static efficiency but lacks the pedestrian
access between adjacent bins at each end.
. A VCM 3 layout has a superior dynamic efficiency and user-friendly

features.
. A VCM 4 layout is similar in dynamic efficiency and static capacity,

but is superior in user-friendly features.

Circulation layouts 61
SD 2 Single helix with one-way-flow and a rapid outflow route

SD 2 Single helix with one-way-flow and a rapid outflow route

62 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Twelve stalls per storey height are used to complete the circulation

route.
. Flat access for pedestrians across the deck at each end.
. Rapid outflow route.
. Full recirculation capability.

Disadvantages
. Pedestrian access is limited to the ends of the parking decks.
. Including the ramp, a minimum site length of 50.000 m, approxi-

mately, will be required.

Comments
. The smaller dimensions required for one-way-flow parking ramps
enables savings of 161 m2 per storey to be made when compared
with the featured SD 1 layout. The rapid outflow ramp has an area
of 184 m2 per storey height and when the layout is extended to a
length of 52.8 m, the parking area savings will balance the increase
in ramp area. It also has the added benefit of a separated rapid
outflow route and an ability to re-circulate throughout all of the
parking decks.
. Although shown with a three-slope outflow circuit, any of the

featured HER series ramps can be used.

. ER series ramps can also be used although they will be more expen-

sive to construct and will take up a larger site area.

. Recommended for all parking categories up to about 600 spaces,

above which the lack of a rapid inflow route restricts its efficient
use to Cat. 3 and 4 layouts. The upper limit is dependent upon the
maximum traffic-flow rate anticipated on the lowest level of the
outflow ramp.

Static efficiency
. A deck length of 28.5 stall widths (68.400 m) produces an area per car
space of 22.070 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.

Other layouts
. Although dynamically superior to an SD 1 layout for all car park

capacities, it is statically inferior in its utilisation of the site area.

An SD 1 layout over the site length will contain more stalls.
. Constructing the ramp as the outflow route for a VCM layout, with

parking on each side, can offset the static inferiority. But then
why not ‘go all of the way’ and construct an SLD- or VCM-type
layout?

Circulation layouts 63
SD 3 Double helix, end connected with one-way-flow on the central access-way

SD 3 Double helix, end connected with one-way-flow on the central access-way

64 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Flat access-ways between adjacent bins for vehicles and pedestrians,

in the middle and at each end.

. Simple circulation and recirculation capability. The inflow route

slopes upwards and the outflow route slopes downwards.

. Storey heights can be varied almost infinitely by means of the deck

slope and length.

Disadvantages
. 50% of the stalls are located on the outflow route.
. If intended for large-capacity Cat. 1 or 2 use, the possibility of con-

frontation between inflow and outflow traffic entering the central

access-way will require careful consideration.
. Separating the traffic by widening the central access-way reduces the

possibility of confrontation on entry but can create vehicle conflict

points at the exit.
. No rapid inflow or outflow route capability.
. Requires a minimum building length of 72.000 m (30 stall widths).

Comments
. This is a popular layout in parts of the USA where it is often linked to
an adjacent office block and used for staff parking. In such buildings
the traffic flows are mainly ‘tidal’ and the use of the central access-
way for both inflow and outflow traffic is not an important factor.
. When proposed for Cat. 1 or 2 parking the circulation pattern is not

good. Searching all of the spaces on the way up involves driving twice
through the inflow route on each parking level in order to re-
commence the search on the floor above.
. At busy times in Cats 1 and 2 layouts, the doubling of the driving

distance on the inflow route will extend parking times and become
a cause of traffic congestion.
. The introduction of a variable message sign system on each deck level

will eliminate the need for motorists to drive unnecessarily through

the outflow route and also remove the need to double the driving
distance on the inflow route.
. Slopes for pedestrians and sideways parking vehicles should not

exceed 5%.
. Dependent upon parking capacity and category of use, 12 to 16 stall

spaces per deck are used to complete the circulation route.

. The layout has the inflow and outflow traffic combining on the central

access-way and is best suited where the main vehicle entry and exit
points are located on opposite sides of the central access-way.

Static efficiency
. The minimum deck length of 31 stall widths produces an area per car
space of 21.100 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.

Other layouts
. VCM 1 and 2, incorporating rapid outflow routes and good cross-

deck pedestrian access are more acceptable layouts for Cats 1 and 2
use.
. SLD 2 is also worth considering, provided that pedestrian access

between adjacent bins is not a necessary design feature.

Circulation layouts 65
SD 4 Double helix, end connected with two-way-flow on the central access-way

SD 4 Double helix, end connected with two-way-flow on the central access-way

66 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Flat access-ways between adjacent bins for vehicles and pedestrians,

in the middle and at each end.

. Simple circulation and recirculation capability.
. Storey heights can be varied almost infinitely by means of the sloping

deck.

Disadvantages
. Half of the stalls are located on the outflow route.
. No rapid inflow or outflow route capability.
. Requires a minimum building length of 76.800 m (32 stall widths).

Comments
. A variation on the SD 2 layout, the traffic circulation incorporates
908 turns to the left with a two-way traffic flow on the central aisle.
With this layout, the preferred main entry/exit location will be on
one side of the central aisle.
. The circulation route is somewhat simpler than SD 3. Figure-of-eight

turns and confrontation are avoided but in other respects it remains

the same, with only 50% of the stalls located on the inflow route.
. The introduction of a variable message sign system on each deck level

towards the end of the inflow ramp, just before the left turn onto
the central access-way, will eliminate the need for motorists to,
fruitlessly, drive around the outflow route and render the search
for parking space much more efficient.
. Sixteen stall spaces per deck are used to complete the circulation

route. In suitable conditions this can be reduced to 14 by making

the central access-way three stalls wide.

Static efficiency
. The minimum deck length of 32 stall widths produces an area per car
space of 21.400 m2 . This can be deemed, Good.

Other layouts
. VCM 1 and 2, with rapid inflow and outflow routes and good cross-

deck pedestrian access are more acceptable for Cats 1 and 2 use.
. SLD 2 is also worthy of consideration, provided that pedestrian

access between adjacent bins is not a necessary design feature.

. SD 3, 4 and 5 layouts have similar characteristics. They are all

capable of being used for Cat. 4 purposes with flow reversal where
both routes are used for inbound traffic in the mornings and out-
bound traffic in the afternoons.
. SD 3 and 4 layouts incorporate superior recirculation capabilities

and SD 5 has a superior static efficiency.

Circulation layouts 67
SD 5 Interlocking double helix, with one-way-flows

SD 5 Interlocking double helix, with one-way-flows

68 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Only eight stalls per storey height are used to complete the circulation

route.
. Flat access for pedestrians across the deck, at each end.

Disadvantages
. No rapid inflow or outflow route capability.
. No re-circulation capability within the car park.
. Pedestrian access is limited to the ends of the parking decks.
. Cannot be constructed less than 70.000 m in length.

Comments
. Each complete circuit of 3608 raises two storeys, with the outflow
route ‘sandwiched’ between the decks of the inflow route.
. If motorists are not to drive against the traffic flow, then regardless of

where they have parked on the inflow circuit, upon leaving they must
carry on up to the top deck in order to join the outflow circuit and
then drive back down.
. It is, essentially, an SD 3 layout but without the central access-way on

the intermediate deck levels and the ability to change from one flow
route to another.
. The main merit in adopting this layout is its good static efficiency that

saves six stalls per deck when compared with an SD 3 layout and
eight stalls per deck when compared with an SD 4 layout.
. A pedestrian walkway between the adjacent decks can be introduced

in the middle of the layout that uses two stalls.

. Variable message sign systems are not appropriate for use with this

layout.
. It cannot be recommended for Cat. 1, 2 or 3 use but, if used as a Cat. 4

car park with ‘tidal’ flow, the outflow route can be reversed in the
mornings and the inflow route in the afternoons to make twin
entry and exit locations. If used in this manner, it will be dynamically
and statically more efficient than an SD 1, 2, 3 or 4 layout.

Static efficiency
. The minimum deck length of 30 stall widths produces an area per car
space of 20.060 m2 . This can be deemed Very Good.

Other layouts
. It cannot be matched by any other two-bin layout for static efficiency.
However, for Cats 1, 2 and 3 use, SD 3 and 4 layouts are dynamically
superior, more flexible and user friendly.
. If used for Cat. 4 purposes with flow reversal, it will be statically

superior to all other types of car park.

Circulation layouts 69
SD 6 Combined helix, side connected with one- and two-way-flows

SD 6 Combined helix, side connected with one- and two-way-flows

70 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Simple circulation and recirculation capability.
. Flat access for pedestrians between adjacent bins at each end.
. The sloping decks provide an unmistakable indication of the direc-

tion of traffic flow; inflow is up and outflow is down.

. Storey heights can be varied almost infinitely by means of the deck

length and slope.

Disadvantages
. No rapid outflow route.
. Two-way traffic flows are less efficient, both statically and dynami-

cally, than one-way-flow layouts.

. Pedestrian access between adjacent bins is restricted to each end.
. Access between adjacent decks occurs only at the ends of the aisles.

Comments
. The inflow circulation route only passes 66% of the stalls, and the
outflow route also passes 66% of the stalls.
. This is a three-bin width version of an SD 1 layout. The central aisle

needs to be widened to accept a two-way traffic flow and all turns are
made in the same direction.
. The mixing of traffic on the central aisle and the extended outflow

circuit renders this layout unsuitable for large capacity Cats 1 and
2 uses.
. Two-way traffic flows are dynamically less efficient than one-way-

flow layouts.
. Searching for stalls on each level involves driving twice through the

external aisle on the inflow route: it is inefficient and can lead to

unnecessary traffic congestion.
. The introduction of a variable message sign system on each deck

level, positioned just before the left turn onto the central access-
way, will eliminate the need for motorists to, fruitlessly, drive
around the outflow route and render the search for parking space
more efficient.

Static efficiency
. A deck length of 16 stall widths contains 80 stalls and produces an
area per car space of 22.900 m2 . This can be deemed, Average.

Other layouts
. Good static efficiency is a strong feature of this layout, but, in most

other respects, an SLD 2, VCM 1 or 2 layout, three bins wide, with

superior dynamic efficiency and more user-friendly layout, could be
used to advantage for all categories of use.

Circulation layouts 71
SD 7 and 8 Double helix, side connected, with one-way-flows

SD 7 Double helix, side connected, with one-way-flows

SD 8 Double helix, side connected, with one-way-flows (version of SD 7)

72 Car park designers’ handbook

 Advantages
. Simple recirculation capability.
. Flat access for pedestrians across the deck at each end.

Disadvantages
. 50% of the stalls are located on the outflow route.
. No rapid inflow or outflow route capability.
. Pedestrian access is limited to the ends of the parking decks.

Comments
. These are two variations on the same theme. SD 7 is the more
popular layout with two of the four sloping decks side by side, all
of the turns in the same direction, a superior circulation flow and
no vehicle confrontation. SD 8 has been shown merely to emphasise
this superiority.
. The use of 24 stall spaces per deck to complete the circulation route is

quite high when compared with an SD 1 layout that uses only 12. The
orientation of the traffic aisles, however, can result in them being
shorter, thereby reducing the travel distance for pedestrians to the
flat access-ways at either end of the traffic aisles. The multiplicity
of shorter aisles could be of benefit to pedestrians in a Cat. 1 or 2
car park.
. Searching for stalls on each level involves driving twice through each

of the external aisles before climbing to an upper level. This is not an

efficient search pattern and can lead to early traffic congestion at busy
times.
. An alternative search pattern is to drive directly up to the top parking

level, then transfer to the outflow route and continue searching on

the way back down. This is more efficient dynamically, but not one
that the parking public is likely to accept readily.
. The introduction of a variable message sign system on each deck level

will eliminate the need for motorists to needlessly drive around the
outflow route, thereby improving the circulation efficiency.
. SD 7 occurs occasionally, but SD 8 is not known to occur in the UK.

Static efficiency
. A minimum deck length of 16 stall widths contains 88 stalls and
produces an area per car space of 23.040 m2 . This can be deemed,
Average.

Other layouts
. Four-bin width versions of SLD 2, VCM 1 and VCM 2 provide
superior layouts on suitably sized sites, especially if considered for
Cat. 1 or 2 purposes.
. If there is room on the site to accommodate HER- or ER-type ramps

then flat parking decks will also provide a superior option for large-
capacity car parks.

Circulation layouts 73