Advertisement

Functional Design

  • Mary S. Smith

Abstract

Parking structures have many things in common with buildings, but also have some unique differences. A very elemental one is that there must be some circulation system that provides access from one floor to the next; cars cannot use the elevators and stairs that provide circulation for pedestrians. The circulation system can be quite complex and difficult for a lay person to understand when looking at drawings. just because it is complex does not mean that it will be confusing to the parker; on the other hand, some systems are confusing to the unfamiliar user. It is important, therefore, that the owner have a basic understanding of the issues in order to intelligently review and approve designs. An owner is going to have to live with the functional system on a day-to-day basis, and will quickly find out if the functional design is not successful.

Keywords

Traffic Flow Static Capacity Parking Space Functional Design Flow Capacity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rich, R. C, M. Moukalian, 1983. “Design of Structures,” in The Dimensions of Park­ing, second edition, edited by the Parking Consultants Council, 61–76. Washington: The Urban Land Institute and the National Parking Association.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fruin, J. J., 1987. Pedestrian Planning and Design, revised edition. Mobile, Alabama: Elevator World Inc.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith, M. S., and T. A. Butcher, 1994. “How Far Should Parkers Have to Walk?”, Parking, 33, no. 8 (September 1994).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parking Standards Associates, 1971. A Parking Standards Report, Volume I, Parking Standards Design Associates, March 1971.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith, M. S., 1985. “Parking Standards,” Parking, 24, no. 4 (July-August 1985).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parking Consultants Council, 1985. Parking Space Standards Report, Washington: National Parking Association.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parking Consultants Council, 1989. Guidelines for Parking Geometries, Washington: National Parking Association.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mateja, J., 1989. “A view from driver’s seat at GM,” Chicago Tribune, 19 February.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith, M. S., 1987. “The Level of Service Approach to Parking,” Parking, 26, no. 2 (March-April 1987).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ellson, P. B., 1969. Parking: Dynamic Capacities of Car Parks. RRL Report LR221, Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK.: Road Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellson, P. B., 1984. Parking: Turnover Capacities of Car Parks. TRRL Report 1126, Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK.: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weant, R. A., 1978. Parking Garage Planning and Operation, p. 71, Westport, CT: Eno Foundation for Transportation, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1984. Parking Generation, second edition, ITE No. 1R-034A, Washington: Institute of Transportation Engineers.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991. Trip Generation, fifth edition, ITE No. 1R-016B, Washington: Institute of Transportation Engineers.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Highway Research Board, 1965. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 87. Wash­ington: Highway Research Board, National Research Council.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary S. Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations