Dissertation final

Review of Off-Street Parking Design

Dilawar Ali

2015

D.Ali Review of Off-Street Parking Design

ii

Abstract

The design of off-street parking facilities is a very important topic; it may not seem

obvious at first, but due to the fact that off-street parking is generally a parking provision

for non-residential land use such as institutional, recreational, commercial and industrial

areas it can have a significant effect on the development of towns, cities and even whole

countries for that matter. With potential to having such big effects it is important to not

only provide off-street parking provision but to provide it in the best possible way i.e.

optimally designed for customer satisfaction. The main purpose of this research is to study

and review a branch of off-street parking design (surface car parks) using car parks located

on Salford University campus as case studies to identify if following design standards to

design such facilities output positive results. This will be done by comparing key

geometric sizes of two car parks (Allerton and Irwell) from Salford University campus

with literature i.e. parking standards to identify which is better in theory i.e. followed the

literature better. This then will be followed by acquiring data which reflects the car parks

designs (parking time, number of manoeuvres to park and critical clearance gap) from each

car park by means of conducting appropriate surveys which then will be statistically

analyzed and compared with one another to identify which car park is better in actual

practice. The final conclusion was following design standards as best as possible does

indeed have more of a positive effect to the practical aspects of a car park.


iii

Declaration

I, Dilawar Ali, declare that that this project is my own work. Any section, part or phrasing

of more than twenty consecutive words that is copied from any other work or publication

has been clearly referenced at the point of use and also fully described in the reference

section of this dissertation.

I have read, understood and agree to the University Policy on the Conduct of Assessed

Work (Academic Misconduct Procedure).

Signed

D. Ali

……………………………………………………

Dated

27/03/2015

……………….


iv

Acknowledgement

I would like to exress special appreciation and thanks to Dr Saad Yousif for his support

and advice throught this project. Special thanks are also due to both my mother and father

Mrs Shapna Begum and Mr Rakib Ali for their support and encouragement throught this

project.


v

Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. ii Declaration............................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... viii 1 CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Aims and Objectives ................................................................................... 2

2 CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 3 2.1 Key Design Elements for Off-Street Parking ......................................................... 3

2.1.1 Trends of vehicle sizes .................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Parking Categories ........................................................................................... 5 2.1.3 Geometric requirements .................................................................................. 7

2.2 Main Factors Affecting Parking Time .................................................................. 10 2.2.1 Entry and Exit Control Measures .................................................................. 11 2.2.2 Signage .......................................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Circulation ..................................................................................................... 13 2.2.4 Parking Efficiency ......................................................................................... 15

2.3 Parking Times ....................................................................................................... 16 2.4 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................. 19

3 CHAPTER THREE – INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY .................................. 21 3.1 Sites selection procedure ...................................................................................... 21 3.2 Site Locations ....................................................................................................... 21 3.3 Survey 1: Parking Times ....................................................................................... 22 3.4 Survey 2: Measuring key car park geometry ........................................................ 23 3.5 Survey 3: Counting incorrectly parked cars ......................................................... 24

4 CHAPTER FOUR – Results, Analysis and Discussion .............................................. 25 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Stage 1: theoretical car park design comparison................................................... 25

4.2.1 Stall width and length check .......................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Aisle width check .......................................................................................... 26 4.2.3 Turning diameter distance check ................................................................... 26 4.2.4 Entrance location check ................................................................................. 26 4.2.5 Signage use check .......................................................................................... 28 4.2.6 Parking bay alignment check ......................................................................... 29 4.2.7 Theoretical comparison summary ................................................................. 30

4.3 Stage 2: Data comparison of practical reflections of both car parks .................... 30 4.3.1 Car park design reflection 1: Parking times observed data ........................... 31 4.3.2 Car park design reflection 1: Parking times descriptive statistics comparison

39 4.3.3 Car park design reflection 2: Critical clearance gaps measured data ............ 41 4.3.4 Car park design reflection 2: Critical clearance gaps descriptive statistics

comparison .................................................................................................................. 46 4.3.5 Car park design reflection 3: Number of cars incorrectly parked measured

data 46 4.4 Hypothesis testing of data ..................................................................................... 47


vi

4.4.1 Checking for normality of parking times data ............................................... 47 4.4.2 Non-parametric hypothesis test on parking times data .................................. 49 4.4.3 Checking for normality of number of manoeuvres data ................................ 50 4.4.4 Non-parametric hypothesis test on number of manoeuvres data ................... 52 4.4.5 Checking for normality of critical clearance gap data ................................... 52 4.4.6 Non-parametric hypothesis test on critical clearance gaps data .................... 55 4.4.7 Practical aspects comparison summary ......................................................... 55

5 CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER WORK ............................... 56 5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 56 5.2 Recommendations for further work ...................................................................... 57

References ........................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix A – Self Assesment ............................................................................................. 60 Appendix B – School Ethical Approval and Inital Risk Assesment ................................... 61 Appendix C – Excel and SPSS data files (Please refer to the CD) ..................................... 68 Appendix D – Parking Time videos (Please refer to the CD) ............................................. 69


vii

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Share of UK new market by segment (SMMT 2014) ........................................ 5 Figure 2-2: Bin width and turning distance example (Hill et al. 2014) ............................... 10

Figure 2-3: Example of queues caused at busy intersections by car park entrance (Ellson

1969) .................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-4: Vehicle circulation patterns (O'Flaherty 1997) ................................................ 14 Figure 2-5: Parking time vs fullness of car park at each point (Ellson 1969) ..................... 17 Figure 2-6: Parking times vs different stall widths (Ellson 1969) ....................................... 18

Figure 2-7: Parking time vs fullness of car park at each point for one-way and two-way

aisles (Ellson 1969) ............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3-1: Campus Map (Google, 2014) ........................................................................... 21

Figure 3-2: Irwell Place ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3-3: Allerton Building .............................................................................................. 22 Figure 3-4: Stall measurement technique ............................................................................ 23 Figure 3-5: Critical distance of clearance gap ..................................................................... 24 Figure 3-6: Incorrectly parked car example ........................................................................ 24

Figure 4-1: Irwell Place car park entrance location (Google, 2015) ................................... 27

Figure 4-2: Allerton building car park entrance locations (Google, 2015) ......................... 28 Figure 4-3: Signage and parking bay alignment for Irwell Place car park (Google, 2015) 28

Figure 4-4: Signage and parking bay alignment for Allerton building car park (Google,

2015) .................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 4-5: Allerton car park recording position (Google, 2015) ....................................... 40 Figure 4-6: Allerton car park parking time histogram using SPSS .................................... 47

Figure 4-7: Irwell car park parking time histogram using SPSS ......................................... 48 Figure 4-8: Allerton car park number of manoeuvres histogram using SPSS ................... 50 Figure 4-9: Irwell car park number of manoeuvres histogram using SPSS ....................... 51

Figure 4-10: Allerton car park critical clearance gap histogram using SPSS ..................... 53 Figure 4-11: Irwell car park critical clearance gap histogram using SPSS ........................ 53


viii

List of Tables

Table 2-1: Types of new cars registered in the UK (2013). (Hill et al. 2014)....................... 4 Table 2-2: Recommended stall dimensions for differing parking categories in the UK. (Hill

et al. 2014) ............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2-3 Recommended minimum aisle widths (assume stall width as 2.4m except last

row). (Hill et al. 2014) ........................................................................................................... 9 Table 2-4: Recommended minimum bin widths (assume all stall lengths as 4.8m).

(IStructE 2011) .................................................................................................................... 10 Table 4-1: Observed and recorded parking times for Allerton building car park ............... 31 Table 4-2: Observed and recorded parking times for Irwell Place car park ........................ 34

Table 4-3: Descriptive statistics parking times................................................................... 39 Table 4-4: Descriptive statistics number of manoeuvres..................................................... 39 Table 4-5: Measured critical clearance gaps for Allerton building car park ....................... 41

Table 4-6: Measured critical clearance gaps for Irwell Place car park ............................... 43 Table 4-7: Descriptive statistics critical clearance gaps ...................................................... 46 Table 4-8: Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality on parking time

data using SPSS ................................................................................................................... 49

Table 4-9: Mann-Whitney-U test on parking times data using SPSS ................................. 49 Table 4-10: Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality on number of

manoeuvres data using SPSS ............................................................................................... 51 Table 4-11: Mann-Whitney-U test on number of manoeuvres data using SPSS ................ 52

Table 4-12: Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality on clearance gap

data using SPSS ................................................................................................................... 54

Table 4-13: Mann-Whitney-U test on clearance gap data using SPSS ............................... 55


1

1 CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Every motor vehicle journey completed starts and ends with a pedestrian separate from

their vehicle, with the exception of drive through facilities. This results in the requirement

to leave the automobile used to conduct the journey at an appropriate parking space

(Roess, Prassas and McShane 2004). The type of available parking space will be dependent

on the origin/destinations of the motor vehicle, which can vary significantly for e.g. place

of work, shopping centres, restaurants etc. Depending on the origin/destination there can

be one of two types of parking.

The first type can be identified as on-street parking; this is where provisions for parking

space are provided on the sides of roads where vehicles are allowed to park i.e. kerb side

parking (Chakroborty and Das 2003). This type of parking provision can particularly be

found in residential areas. The second of the two is known as off-street parking, which is

the opposite to the prior, as off-street parking facilities are parking provisions located away

from the main thoroughfare (Chakroborty and Das 2003). Off-street parking facilities can

vary with its design details such as being an open paved space (surface lots) or a parking

garage either single or multi-storeyed etc though serving the same purpose of allowing

vehicles to park and un-park easily and circulate around the parking provision with relative

ease (Chakroborty and Das 2003).

By definition off-street parking can be seen as vehicle parking provision mostly for non-

residential land use such as institutional, recreational, commercial and industrial areas.

From this it can be accepted that parking can be directly linked to the growth and

development of towns, cities and even whole countries, as all the above mentioned bring in

both revenue and jobs. Hence level of importance for having off-street parking provision

where necessary can be considered very high.

The provision alone is not the only matter of importance as a car park should be seen as an

operational non-event. Due to this the design of one should consider the full range of

operational elements in order to accomplish a comprehensive design solution that provides

a safe, high quality, space and time efficient design solution (IStructE 2002). For a parking

facility to be both convenient and profitable at the same time, the layout must satisfy two


2

key criteria: time and space (Baker and Funaro 1958). The main focus of this dissertation

will be on such aspects regarding off-street parking design more so on the time and space

efficiency aspects.

1.2 Project Aims and Objectives

The main aim of this research is to identify large surface car park(s) located on Salford

university campus and then study and review them by comparing both designs to literature

and then comparing each design to one another in order to identify which is the better

practising car park i.e. has the better design in terms of theory and in practice.

This aim will be achieved by the following objectives:

Researching and understanding what off-street parking design is in terms of space

and time efficiency considering only flat surface car parks.

Visiting identified parking site(s) on campus during a less busy time and taking

measurements of stall and aisle sizes particularly the widths and critical clearance

gap in-between cars using a tape measure.

Visiting identified parking site(s) on campus during peak periods in order to

observe and count the number of vehicles not parked correctly.

Record vehicle parking times on the identified site(s) during peak periods using a

video camera.


3

2 CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Key Design Elements for Off-Street Parking

The internal aspects of a car park are of most importance when considering efficiency and

design of a car park whether it be a surface lot or a parking garage. In this section key

design elements that effect and/or are affected will be considered and discussed here.

2.1.1 Trends of vehicle sizes

An off-street parking facility is normally a provision for vehicle parking i.e. its purpose

being to accommodate vehicles therefore the size and dimensions of vehicles are of utmost

importance. The variety of different car sizes is very vast as there are currently more than

50 different car manufacturers offering in the range of 340 basic models for sale to the

public in the UK, further variations increase the choice to approximately 400. Not to forget

all the different car makes and models that have been discontinued in the past 15 years or

so, but still have a reasonably strong showings, this further increases the number to well

over 500 (Hill, Rhodes and Vollar 2014).

To design a car park that caters for all sizes of vehicles will not be very economical and

just be unrealistic (Hill et al. 2014). Take for example a limousine which is a very

abnormally shaped car in terms of length, designing a public car park with this vehicles

shape and size at the centre piece of all consideration will not be very wise as it will

represent only a very small portion of the entire population of vehicles. Due to this it has

become a well-known practice to design car parks to accommodate for 95% of privately

licensed vehicles registered to drive on the highway (Hill et al. 2014). This is done by

evaluating and analyzing data that represents 95% of private vehicles registered to drive on

UK highways during a particular time period, from that deriving one set of car dimensions

known as the standard design vehicle (SDV) to be used as a reference point for car park

design (Hill et al. 2014).

From a statistics table that can be found inside the Car Park Designers’ Handbook 2nd

edition (Appendix A) it can be seen that near 90% of selected new cars registered in the

UK for the year 2013 ranged from Mini’s to Specialist Sports with Super Mini, Lower

Medium, Upper Medium and Executive Classes all falling in-between. However the same

table shows larger vehicles in the form of multi-purpose vehicles (MPV) and dual purpose


4

cars such as 4x4 vehicles have gained in popularity where approximately 10% of the

selected new cars registered in the UK for the year 2013 were a mixture of the two (Hill et

al. 2014). The lengths, widths and heights of the above mentioned car types can be seen in

Table 2.1 below.

Table 2-1: Types of new cars registered in the UK (2013). (Hill et al. 2014)

Length (mm) Width (mm) Height (mm)

Mini 3565 1595 1540

Specialist

Sports

4134 2006 1301

Dual Purpose

(4x4) Range

Rover

4365 2125 1635

MPV 4467 2026 1635

Figure 2.1 below shows some interesting figures related to the type of cars people have

been purchasing over the past 15 years in the UK. Two trends in particular seem to have

been gradually gaining in popularity as can be seen. This can somewhat affect aspects of

car park design particularly stall sizes, especially considering the rise in popularity of the

Dual Purpose, Multi Purpose type cars as they are slightly larger in size than the normal

car.


5

Figure 2-1: Share of UK new market by segment (SMMT 2014)

The standard design vehicle (SDV) can vary over time and country being considered in this

case the UK (IStructE 2011). The current dimensions for the UK based SDV is 4.80m x

2.0m (including wing mirrors) x 1.950m, without wing mirrors the width is 1.80m (Hill et

al. 2014). These sizes will usually remain stable unless auto industry forecasters make

predictions of significant change coming in the foreseeable future related to car purchase

(Chrest 2001). A major factor that can affect such changes is price fluctuation of fuel. For

instance if the fuel price per gallon is high and stays in such a state for a long period of

time drivers may opt to downsize on their vehicles by investing in a car with a smaller

engine thus affecting the 95th

percentile which affects the SDV. This can also work in the

opposite direction where fuel value is low (Chrest 2001).

2.1.2 Parking Categories

A parking facility should be designed to suit the needs, requirements and purpose of the

building users it will be catering for (Hill et al. 2014). This would mean the geometrics of a

car park is mainly dependent up the purpose of the building it will be catering for, thus

making it so that no one set of design standards is suitable for all situations (Chrest 2001).

This then creates parking categories which there is four of, each with slightly different

criteria.


6

Category 1: Short stay car parks, this is for intensive usage in places like busy

supermarkets etc.

Category 2: Medium stay car parks, this type of parking can be found in urban

centres for mixed business and town centres etc usage.

Category 3: Long stay car parks, located at major transport terminals where the

flow is intermittent and mainly light, but continuous. Short intensive vehicle

movement can also occur when large people transporter disgorges its passengers.

Category 4: Tidal, this type of car park is used for places like 9-5 work places and

other institutions with similar shifts such as colleges and universities etc where the

traffic flow is at its peak once in the morning (inwards) and once in the evening

(outwards) (Hill et al. 2014).

A car park category usually determines the width of parking stalls which has become

normal practice in the UK for designers to use values between 2.3 m and 2.5 m, though for

specific instances this can vary (Hill et al. 2014). A parking stall should be wide enough

for ease of vehicle manoeuvrability in order to park and un-park as well as granting easy

access to getting in and out of the vehicle. A clearance space between cars of 600 mm is

considered to be the minimum space required for drivers to access their vehicles (Hill et al.

2014). The clearance gap for the shorter stay car parks is generally slightly larger than the

minimum 600 mm in order to increase efficiency. The ease of manoeuvrability of vehicles

and adequate clearance space is of particular importance in the case of category 1 parking

as there will be a lot of vehicular movement and activity through long stretches of the day

and even at night. However this is less so of a case for the other three categories, in

particular categories 3 and 4, in these instances stall widths can be reduced slightly due to

economic reason (IStructE 2011). Table 2.2 shows acceptable stall widths and lengths in

terms of balancing both necessary size and cost.


7

Table 2-2: Recommended stall dimensions for differing parking categories in the UK. (Hill et al. 2014)

Categories Length (m) Width (m)

1: (Stay per car < 3hrs) 4.8 2.5

2: (3hrs<stay per car <

12hrs)

4.8 2.4

3: (Stay per car >

12hrs)

4.8 2.3

4: (Staff type, mainly

tidal)

4.8 2.3

Disabled drivers 4.8 3.6

Assistant to disabled

drivers

4.8 3.2

2.1.3 Geometric requirements

The most crucial factor(s) which affects the ease and manoeuvrability of vehicles in a car

park are the aisle and stall widths (IStructE 2011). There are standard dimensions that must

be followed and used for these elements. However these dimensions can vary slightly

depending on the location of the car park. For instance parking standards in the UK will be

different than that of the US or any other country for that matter as the standard design

vehicle (SDV) will vary slightly in size. It is vitally important to use the correct and

recommended sizes using appropriate parking standards for these elements in order to get

an optimal design.

The current recommended stall dimensions in the UK can be found in Table 2.2 which has

been recommended by the Civil Engineering industry in the form of ICE (Hill et al. 2014),

these stall dimensions are from the recent year 2014 and are further backed and

recommended by other sources such as (IStructE 2011). The same opinion is shared by the

Metric Handbook which states that the standard European parking bay size which in the

case of Table 2.2 above falls under category 2, is 4.8m x 2.4m (Littlefield 2008). This

however is not the case with all UK based parking standards as Essex Planning Officers


8

Association (EPOA) which are backed by their local council Essex County Council state

that minimum bay dimensions should be 5.0m x 2.5m and refute that anything smaller will

result in difficulty of the driver and passengers getting in and out of the parked vehicle. It

is further stated that anything smaller than their recommended minimum dimensions for a

parking bay will not be considered a usable parking space (EPOA 2009).

Where there are walls or vehicle barriers adjacent to parking stalls increasing the stall

widths by a further 300mm should be considered (IStructE 2011).

Aisle widths can also vary in size depending on multiple variables the main factors being

the angle of the adjacent stalls on each side of the aisle in contention and if the aisle is

going to be for either one way or two way flowing traffic. The standard aisle widths for

most common angles in the UK can be found in Table 2.3 below. These widths are

designed to accommodate any overhang of vehicles beyond the standard 4.8m (IStructE

2011), and pedestrian walk ways for instance with 90° parking on a one way flowing

system an aisle width of 6m will enable pedestrians to walk on a 2m wide lane on each side

of a centrally located vehicle (Hill et al. 2014). Reducing this angle to say 45° on a similar

system will enable similar outcomes though with different sizes such as the aisle width can

be reduced significantly to a value near 3.6m which consequently will also decrease the

pedestrian walk way width to 800mm on each side of a centrally located vehicle (Hill et al.

2014).

It is not uncommon to find 6.0m wide aisles being used (normally used for one way flow)

in two way flowing car parks where the anticipated traffic flow is to be a form of long stay

such as Tidal flow (see section 2.1.2 for more details) (Hill et al. 2014).

The aisle width and the stall width have an inversely proportional connection with one

another such that when the aisle width decreases the stall width increases slightly and vice

versa to make up for that loss, see Table 2.3 for a better idea. Although such reductions

should be only considered when site conditions dictate the situation (Hill et al. 2014).


9

Table 2-3 Recommended minimum aisle widths (assume stall width as 2.4m except last row). (Hill et al.

2014)

Parking Angle (θ°) Recommended aisle width (m)

90° (Two way flowing traffic) 7.00

90° (One way flowing traffic) 6.00

60° (Only one way flowing traffic) 4.20

45° (Only one way flowing traffic) 3.60

90° (Only one way flowing traffic)

2.5m wide stall

2.6m wide stall

5.70

5.40

The distance of the turning bay also known as turning distance between adjacent aisles can

somewhat be affected in the negative direction i.e. get smaller when introducing smaller

angles than that of 90° for parking stalls (Hill et al. 2014). A good practicing car park will

have a minimum of 18m for the turning diameter for turns up to 180° between obstructions

for granting better manoeuvrability (Hill et al. 2014).

This introduces the concept of parking bins, this is an important measure of distance which

is needed for the construction (Chrest 2001). This distance can usually be calculated from

the sum of the aisle width and the adjacent stalls perpendicular to the aisle in contention

(Hill et al. 2014). In the instance of using smaller than 90° stall angle this distance can vary

depending on the width of the stall, this can make things a little confusing thus standards

have been introduced to simplify matters (IStructE 2011). (See Table 2.4 and Figure 2.2

below for more details).


10

Table 2-4: Recommended minimum bin widths (assume all stall lengths as 4.8m). (IStructE 2011)

Parking angle Recommended

aisle width (m)

Stall width

(m)

Recommended

bin width (m)

90° Two way aisle:

7.00

All 16.55

90° One way aisle:

6.00

All 15.60

60° One way aisle

only: 4.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

14.85

14.95

15.05

45° One way aisle

only: 3.60

2.30

2.40

2.50

13.65

13.80

13.95

Figure 2-2: Bin width and turning distance example (Hill et al. 2014)

2.2 Main Factors Affecting Parking Time

There are many factors that affect the time it takes for drivers to park their vehicle within

an off-street parking facility other than just the geometrics. These factors begin right


11

outside the entry gate and end once the vehicle has been parked in an appropriate parking

stall and the driver walks out of the parking facility (Ellson 1969).

2.2.1 Entry and Exit Control Measures

The location of the entrance to an off-street parking facility can be a critical factor in its

success. Locating the entrance at a busy road intersection should be avoided as this will

lead to external queuing that will interfere with the intersection traffic operation

(O'Flaherty 1997). Another instance that should be avoided when designing the entrance

to an off-street car park is to have drivers to cross footpaths that are heavily used by

pedestrians (O'Flaherty 1997), as this can cause unnecessary hardship for drivers and

potential avoidable accidents. It may be ideal to provide an extending access road just off a

busy thoroughfare leading to the entrance of a busy off-street parking facility to avoid

queuing vehicles interfering with the thoroughfare traffic flow.

Figure 2-3: Example of queues caused at busy intersections by car park entrance (Ellson 1969)

The aspect of the entry/exit of a car park that uses up the time of a driver is more of

concern thus this will be discussed furthermore in the following. Parking facilities that

operate under a driver fee i.e. not free will usually have a form of parking access and

revenue control (PARC) system set up at the entry/exit of the parking facility (Chrest

2001), in order to let authorized users enter/exit the facility while also operating payment


12

methods (Pickard 2008). Self contained car parks that provide free parking will usually not

use such systems as there is no need to do so.

There are many PARC systems that can be used all of which fall under one of two

categories which are gated systems and non-gated systems (Chrest 2001). Gated systems

usually consist of the choice between lifting-arm and rising-step barriers (IStructE 2011)

and in the cases of larger more busier car parks tend to be accompanied by the indication

of parking spaces available (Pickard 2008). The typical PARC gated system will have a

cashier system to cater for both the daily fee parker and the regular parker who holds a

parking permit (Chrest 2001). Non-gated systems range from the use of pay and display

which is a gradual time charge system intended for short term usage of approximately two

hour periods (Chrest 2001), or off-site purchase of parking tickets (Pickard 2008), also

known as parking permits as mentioned above, both of which will be required to be left on

display in the vehicle once the vehicle has been parked.

Out of the two options, the gated system will most probably cause the larger time delay to

the drivers as barriers can serve to slow down vehicles and thus cause queuing. This

however is not the case with non-gated systems such as pay and display, which has further

advantage in that there are usually multiple payment points thus minimizing driver wait

time and equipment failure does not reduce revenue intake (IStructE 2011).

2.2.2 Signage

The first priority of a driver entering a parking facility with their vehicle will be to find a

parking spot. In order to do so they will require knowledge of how to operate around the

car park in a safe, time efficient and regulatory manner. This can be done by using

appropriate signage around the facility.

Communication is key to the success of a car park therefore the designer must ensure all

necessary signage is used in order to successfully guide the users through the facility

(Chrest 2001). The types of information that is most important and must be communicated

across to the users are as follows.

Directional signage for assisting both pedestrians and vehicles which must be continuous

and predictable i.e. repeated at each point which requires a choice until destination is

reached (Institute and Association 1993), these can be in the form of both signboards or

floor arrows. Regulatory information that notifies the user(s) on what they can and cannot


13

do for instance identifies reserved parking areas, compact or accessible parking spaces and

restricted zones etc (Institute and Association 1993). Lastly general type of information

which should not be forgotten such as operational hours which should be located near the

entrance, parking rates along with how and where to pay, and operator terms and

conditions etc (Mark n.d.).

Signage is a powerful tool that must be used but at the same time not abused; this is such

instances where signage can be used to compensate for companies that are necessary to

balance competing objectives in the design process, but by no means to correct design

flaws (Monahan 1990).

2.2.3 Circulation

There are many aspects of vehicle circulation within an off-street parking facility some of

which relate to the previous section 2.2.2 signage. This aspect is known as ‘wayfinding’,

which is a system that gives the ability to know your current location followed by where

you want to be heading within a building/facility and then figuring out how to get there,

also known as finding the ‘path of travel’ (Chrest 2001). Wayfinding is a very important

function of the design stage of a facility which is then further complemented by signage,

but not corrected by it (Monahan 1990). A wayfinding system should primarily cater for

the first time user, or in keeping in theme with the previous parts of this report short stay

car park users, as the users in the longer stay facilities such as office uses, universities etc

will be more familiar with the layout (Berger 2005).

In terms of car park design wayfinding relates to how a vehicle will circulate around a

parking facility. There are many vehicle circulation patterns/layouts a car park can be

designed to. All of which be it a surface or multi-storeyed car park is primarily based on

aspects such as access facilities to the parking garage, size and shape of the facility,

parking angle of stalls, pedestrian considerations and fee collection systems (Chakroborty

and Das 2003). An implemented vehicle circulation pattern should favour incoming

vehicles rather than exiting vehicles (O'Flaherty 1997). A vehicle circulation system can be

designed to have either one way or two way flowing traffic, aspects such as size and shape

of the facility along with the parking angle will determine whether or not a circulation

system should be one or two way flowing (O'Flaherty 1997). Figure 2.4 below shows

various circulation systems and combination of systems.


14

Figure 2-4: Vehicle circulation patterns (O'Flaherty 1997)

The next question to arise should be which system out of one or two way flowing traffic is

better and when and where is it appropriate to implement them. Two way flowing traffic

has many benefits most of which stem from having wider aisles (Chrest 2001). Before

discussing some of the benefits of this system it should be known that two way flowing

traffic generally suits stalls that are 90° to the adjacent aisle (Hill et al. 2014). The benefits

are as follows; better angle of visibility when searching for a stall, the ability to drive pass

another driver who is waiting for a stall to be vacated from an un-parking vehicle and also

safer for pedestrians (Chrest 2001). A two way system also mitigates driver mistakes such

that they don’t turn the wrong way down a one way aisle (Chrest 2001).

On the other hand one way traffic has its own merits but before discussing them it should

be known that one way flowing traffic generally suits parking stalls configured at an angle

less than 90° to the adjacent aisle (Hill et al. 2014). The benefits that a one way system

brings to the table are as follows; easier for drivers to enter/exit parking stalls, mitigate

potential accidents as there are fewer conflict points due to everyone driving in one

direction (Chrest 2001), this generally results in less congestion and a more efficient traffic

flow (O'Flaherty 1997) and conflicts between two vehicles approaching an open stall does

not occur (Chrest 2001).

The decision between choosing a one or two way flowing system should ultimately be

decided by the choice of parking stall angle. As mentioned earlier if the choice of stall


15

angle is 90° to the adjacent aisles then a two way system should be adopted (Hill et al.

2014). Conversely if the choice of parking angle is less than 90° to the adjacent aisle, then

a one way system should be used. Using a two way system with less than 90° stalls will

cause problems when a driver coming from one direction sees a space intended for the

appropriate approach and attempts difficult manoeuvring to enter the stall, thus delaying

traffic flow (Chrest 2001). The choice of angle however is affected by the shape and size

of the total floor area of the facility as certain orientations may be better in terms of static

capacity than others (Chrest 2001).

2.2.4 Parking Efficiency

There are many factors that are required to be considered in order to come up with the best

possible layout for a car parking facility. Parking efficiency is a function of its static

capacity i.e. number of required car spaces and floor area of the parking deck(s) (Hill et al.

2014), which has units of m²/car space. This can be an important factor in selecting the

appropriate parking angle which then would determine what traffic flow system between

one or two way flowing traffic will be best suited for the design. If a certain layout will

accommodate the same number of required parking spaces or more but using less floor

area then this will obviously be the better option in terms of cost (Chrest 2001), but not

always design. This can typically be achieved by reducing the parking angle from 90° as

when the parking angle reduces so does the length of the bin dimension. This is down to

simple geometry along with the general requirement to use narrower one way flowing

aisles (see Table 2.4 & Figure 2.2) thus reducing the overall width of the site. Therefore

with all this reduction taking place it may be possible to fit more parking bays on site

(Chrest 2001).

Obtaining the efficiency figure can vary slightly depending on how the floor area is

calculated. The best approach is to use the gross parking area (GPA) which is the span

from the outside-to-outside of exterior walls, that includes columns and walls located in the

area but excluding stairs and elevator towers within the GPA (Chrest 2001). Having units

such as the previously mentioned m²/car space it should be understood that the smaller the

parking efficiency value the better it is. A better parking efficiency can be obtained by

laying the parking bays parallel to the longer dimension of the site as this will reduce the

number of parking bays thus reducing the number of required turning bays i.e. areas that

are typically not used for parking stalls (Allen and Iano 2006).


16

Although it may be possible to fit more parking spaces on a site by reducing the parking

angle, this should not be done just for the sake of having more parking spaces. Instead a

calculated decision which considers all factors should be made. This can be deciding

between what is more important; either having more parking spaces along with a one way

flowing system or the minimum required parking spaces with a two way flowing system. If

the designer cannot provide the most efficient possible design in a land-locked application

using a given floor area and minimum required parking spaces then a multi-storey parking

garage should be considered (Tompkins et al. 2010).

2.3 Parking Times

A study conducted by Ellson (1969) on parking times states the main factors affecting

parking time were fullness of the car park, stall width and the use of one-way or cul-de-sac

two way aisles.

The average parking time of the first three drivers from his experiment was 56.4 seconds.

Important to note is that this was when the car park was mostly empty, approximately 5%

full. Whereas the average parking time of the last three drivers was 80 seconds. Also

improtant to note is that this was when car park was mostly full, approximately 93% full.

This is implying the relationship having a positive correlation. Figure 2.5 below confirms

this assumption.


17

Figure 2-5: Parking time vs fullness of car park at each point (Ellson 1969)

The most important piece of information to note from this figure is that the relationship

here is a positive correlation i.e. the more full the car park gets the longer it takes for

drivers to park their vehicles regardless of it being linear or non-linear.

The same study also found that the relationship between the parking times and the stall

width was negatively correlated (Ellson 1969); see Figure 2.6 for more detail. This is

understandable as it is reasonable to assume that the smaller a parking space the longer it

should take for a driver to park their vehicle and vice versa.


18

Figure 2-6: Parking times vs different stall widths (Ellson 1969)


here is a negative correlation i.e. the smaller the stall width the longer it takes for drivers to

park their vehicles regardless of it being linear or non-linear.

This same study also states that car parks with two way flowing aisles had 7% fewer

drivers reversing into stalls compared to car parks with only one way flowing aisles which

consequently produced smaller average parking time in two way flowing car parks (Ellson

1969); see Figure 2.7 for more detail.


19

Figure 2-7: Parking time vs fullness of car park at each point for one-way and two-way aisles (Ellson

1969)


here is a positive correlation for both one-way and two-way flowing aisles i.e. the busier

the car park gets the longer it takes for drivers to park their vehicles regardless of it being

linear or non-linear. Also parking times for car park with two way flowing aisles is smaller

i.e. more efficient.

2.4 Chapter Summary

This chapter has looked at some key areas of literature relating to what should be

considered in designing a good practicing car park. The studied literature states important

information such as key parking geometrics such as stall widths are not the same for all car


20

parks but instead different based on what category the car park of interest falls under, in

summary shorter stay car parks tend to have slightly wider stalls than longer stay car parks.

The minimum clearance gap between two parked vehicles in the UK is considered to be

600mm. Table 2.2 has the derived set of recommended stall sizes which shows acceptable

stall widths and lengths in terms of balancing both necessary size and cost. In the UK there

is only one correct standard design vehicle (SDV) at any one time thus making it so that

whatever stall size is chosen for a particular car park design this size will remain constant

throughout the car park excluding disabled parking. Simply put one size fits all, or the

majority i.e. the SDV used was derived from the dimensions of the 95% of all registered

vehicles in the UK during that particular time period. It should be noted however that

Figure 2.1 shows a trend of gradual increase in the purchases of dual purpose and multi-

purpose vehicles from 1999-2014 hence if this trend continues it may cause the current

SDV to be revised and maybe even updated in the near future.

Major factors contributing to the ease/difficulty of manoeuvrability within a car park was

found to be aisle and stall widths. Two way aisles are usually minimum 7.0m wide and are

typically used for 90° parking however it’s common to find 6.0m wide aisles (used for one

way) in two way flowing long stay car parks. A good practicing car park usually has a

minimum 18m wide turning diameter for turns requiring 180° between obstructions (refer

to Table 2.4 and Figure 2.2) for a better idea.

The entrance of any car park should not be located at or near to a busy road intersection as

this will lead to congestion at the intersection, which should be avoided at all costs by car

park designers as it’s not considered good practice. The use of informative signage within

a car parking facility is a sign of good design and good practice. The floor area of a

parking facility can be used more efficiently if the parking bays are parallel to the longer

dimension of the site as this will reduce the number of required turning bays i.e. areas

which are not used for parking purposes.


21

3 CHAPTER THREE – INVESTIGATION

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sites selection procedure

The main goal of this test design is to compare two off-street parking facilities located on

Salford University campus as case studies in order to determine which car park out of the

two has a better design in practice. The chosen sites must have two key criteria in order to

undertake the driver parking times survey. The criteria are (1.) having an accessible

building which is (2.) reasonably tall in order to provide good visual view of the car park,

these are important criteria that need to be met as they provide a better view of the car park

which then enables recording of driver parking times more easily and (3.) have a minimum

static capacity of 100 parking stalls, this is important because the bigger the car park the

more data can be collected. Other intended surveys include measuring key car park

geometry and counting incorrectly park cars within each car park.

3.2 Site Locations

The two off-street car parks that were chosen are Irwell Place car park and Allerton

Building car park, (see below for more details). These sites were chosen because they both

meet all of the criteria mentioned above.

Figure 3-1: Campus Map (Google, 2014)

Allerton

Building car

park

Irwell

Place car

park


22

3.3 Survey 1: Parking Times

During the morning peak period of between 8-10AM when a lot of vehicular movements

can be observed on a normal working university day, driver parking times were obtained.

This was done by standing in a room/staircase on one of the upper floors of both Irwell

Place and Allerton Building on different working days and recording parking activity

within the car park in view using a video camera as seen in Figure’s 3.2 and 3.3. Once the

recordings for each site were complete the next task was to extract the driver parking times

from the videos by watching, timing and pausing between each entering car. The timing for

each car started at a chosen reference point in the case of Irwell Place this was the

barricade at the entrance and for Allerton this was the left edge of Figure 3.3 b and ended

once car was fully parked and static in movement.

a b

Figure 3-2: Irwell Place

a

b

Figure 3-3: Allerton Building


23

3.4 Survey 2: Measuring key car park geometry

This survey involved visiting both of the sites during a less busy time period in order to

measure the stall size obtaining both its length and width which was measured from inside

paint strip edge to inside paint strip edge, this was followed by measuring the width of the

paint strip. Obtaining this information is very important in identifying if the car parks have

used recommended appropriate stall widths based on the car park category in which both

cases are long stay car parks, the recommended minimum stall width being 2.3m (Hill et

al. 2014). The aisle width for each car park was also measured; this was to check if

appropriate minimum widths have been implemented. From Table 2.3 the minimum

suggested aisle width for car parks accommodating two way flowing traffic is 7.0m

(IStructE 2011) which is the case for both chosen car parks, however Hill et al (2014)

states 6.0m wide aisles in a two way flowing car park is also commonly found. These two

values can then be used in combination to check if the minimum turning diameter has been

implemented, refer to Table 2.4 (IStructE 2011) and Figure 2.2 (Hill et al. 2014). The

literature states the minimum clearance gap between cars should be no less than 600mm

(Hill et al. 2014), thus the critical clearance gap between cars i.e. the distance between

inside door to inside door was also taken. A sample of 50 clearance gap measurements

were taken from each site, refer to Figures 3.4 and 3.5 below for a better idea. Measuring

the aisle and stall widths is very important as they are both crucial factors that affect ease

of manoeuvrability which ultimately affects the driver parking times (IStructE 2011). All

of these measurements were taken using a tape measure and a lending hand from a fellow

colleague.

Figure 3-4: Stall measurement technique


24

Figure 3-5: Critical distance of clearance gap

3.5 Survey 3: Counting incorrectly parked cars

The third survey was very simple as it just involved walking around the two car parks after

the morning peak period to ensure car park is near full then observing and counting the

number of vehicles not parked correctly i.e. not fully inside parking stall. This is an

important survey to undertake as it is a good indicator to if the car park is either a good or

bad practicing car park. This was followed by counting the number of available parking

spots and subtracting this value from the total parking spots of that particular car park in

order to obtain the number of cars in the car park at that time. The reason for this was so

that the percentage of incorrectly parked cars can be calculated. see Figure 3.6 below for

more detail.

Figure 3-6: Incorrectly parked car example

Obtaining this data as accurately as possible is important in properly identifying which out

of the two chosen car parks have a better design in terms of parking both in theory and in

actual practice, this will be determined and discussed in the following chapter.


25

4 CHAPTER FOUR – Results, Analysis and Discussion

4.1 Introduction

This chapter will deal with deciding between which out of the two chosen car parks has a

better design in terms of allowing drivers to park their cars, first in theory and then in

practice. The theoretical comparison will first be done which will be accomplished by

identifying which car park design has better followed design standards i.e. implemented

minimum/recommended sizes and arrangements etc from the literature in chapter two. This

then will be followed by a statistical analysis of the obtained data from the three surveys

done in chapter three for each car park that then will be compared with one another in

order to identify which car park has the better design in actual practice. Logically speaking

if for the sake of argument car park A is better in theory than car park B then it should also

follow that car park A is superior is practice too.

4.2 Stage 1: theoretical car park design comparison

For an off-street parking facility to be considered overall a good practicing car park it first

must meet all appropriate parking design requirements mentioned in chapter 2.

4.2.1 Stall width and length check

Starting off with criteria 1 and 2 which are the stall width and length Hill et al (2014) states

the minimum required stall width and length for a category 4: Tidal type car parks which

mainly cater for 9am-5pm jobs in this case universities in the UK, is 2.3m and 4.8m

respectively. Stall widths being the more critical size in terms of parking ease of

manoeuvrability (IStructE 2011).

Measured stall width for Irwell Place = 2.4m (criteria 1 met)

Measured stall width for Allerton Building car park = 2.3m (criteria 1 met)

Measured stall length for Irwell Place = 4.45m (criteria 2 not met)

Measured stall length for Allerton Building car park = 4.26m (criteria 2 not met)


26

4.2.2 Aisle width check

Moving on to criteria 3 the aisle width which the appropriate minimum recommended

number to be met here is 6.0m and no less as both chosen cases provide 90° parking and

fall in category 4: Tidal which is just another form of long stay car parks (Hill et al. 2014).

Measured aisle width for Irwell Place = 7.6m (criteria 3 met)

Measured aisle width for Allerton Building car park = 5.605m (criteria 3 not met)

4.2.3 Turning diameter distance check

Criteria 4 is going to be the turning diameter distance for turns up to 180° between

obstructions (refer to Figure 2.2) which for a off-street parking facility to be even

considered a good practicing car park it must have a minimum turning diameter distance of

18m (Hill et al. 2014).

Calculated turning diameter distance for Irwell Place car park = 7.6 + 4.45 + 4.45 + 7.6 =

24.1m (criteria 4 met).

Calculated turning diameter distance for Allerton building car park = 5.605 + 4.26 + 4.26 +

5.605 = 19.73m (criteria 4 met).

4.2.4 Entrance location check

The fifth criteria is to not have the entrance of a car park at a road intersection as having

the entrance to a car park at such a location will cause congestion and potential accidents

hence is considered bad practice (O'Flaherty 1997) refer to Figure 2.3 for a better idea.


27

Figure 4-1: Irwell Place car park entrance location (Google, 2015)

Car park entrance 2

Road intersection 2

Road intersection 1

Car park entrance 1

Road Intersection

Car park entrance


28

Figure 4-2: Allerton building car park entrance locations (Google, 2015)

As can be seen from Figures 4.1 and 4.2 above neither car park has the location of its

entrance(s) at a road intersection thus criteria 5 has been met for both car parks.

4.2.5 Signage use check

The literature identifies the application of informative signage within an off-street parking

facility as a critical factor in terms operational success (Chrest 2001) thus making signage

a key contributor towards identifying a good practicing car. Therefore to meet criteria 6 car

parks must have signage implemented with surface paving.

Figure 4-3: Signage and parking bay alignment for Irwell Place car park (Google, 2015)

Signage Parking bays parallel to

longer distance of the site

Parking bays perpendicular to



29

Figure 4-4: Signage and parking bay alignment for Allerton building car park (Google, 2015)

From inspection of Figure 4.3 it is evident that the usage of signage for Irwell Place car

park indicating one way and exit messages have been used as can be seen circled in red.

This however is not the case for Allerton building car park seen in Figure 4.4 as no surface

signage seems to be apparent leading to Allerton car park not meeting criteria 6 whereas

Irwell Place does meet criteria 6.

4.2.6 Parking bay alignment check

Another factor that can be seen highlighted in both Figures 4.3 and 4.4 is the identification

of if the major parking bays for each car park are either parallel or perpendicular to the

longer dimension of its site. This has been done simply because according to Allen and

Iano (2006) better static efficiency can be achieved this way i.e. fit more parking spaces on

site, therefore this is the seventh and final criteria that should be met. Looking at Figure 4.3

it is clearly evident that this criteria (7) has been met for Irwell Place, although a question

may be raised regarding the cluster of stalls circled in the yellow as to why it’s not the case

in that particular spot. The reason for it is that the dimensions for that particular rectangular

section of the car park measures 84.5m in length and 17.5m in width, now if the parking

stalls were indeed aligned parallel in this section then approximately 70 stalls would fit

Parking bays parallel to



30

compared to the current 99 stalls in place, making it less efficient, see below calculations

for more detail.

4.45 (stall length Irwell) + 7.6 (aisle width Irwell) + 4.45 (stall length Irwell) = 16.5m <

17.5m therefore two bays will fit.

84.5/2.4 (stall width Irwell) = 35m i.e. 35 stalls per bay

Therefore total bays if aligned this way for this rectangular area would be approximately

have 35 x 35 = 70 stalls which is less than the current 99 stalls in place.

Judging from Figure 4.4 it is difficult to tell if Allerton car park has been arranged such

that the parking bays are aligned parallel to the longer site. Measuring the dimensions of

the site however confirms it is aligned where the parking bays are parallel to the longer

dimension of the site thus meeting criteria 7.

4.2.7 Theoretical comparison summary

To summarize this little theoretical comparison between these two car parks Irwell Place

car park is theoretically the better car park as it satisfied six out of the seven important

criteria identified by the literature compared to that of Allerton building car park which

managed to satisfy only four out of the required seven criteria. This can be further justified

by the fact that Irwell car park has a much larger static capacity than Allerton, with a value

of 416 stalls compared to just 196 stalls respectively. This will provide drivers in Irwell car

park with more parking options than Allerton. Criteria 4 which shows the turning distance

for Irwell is also much bigger hence making general manoeuvrability better than Allerton

car park.

4.3 Stage 2: Data comparison of practical reflections of both car parks

The data obtained from conducting the three surveys in chapter 3 are practical reflections

of the two car parks designs, thus this section will determine which of the two is better in

practice. Logically speaking Irwell Place car park should also be better in this regard

considering it is theoretically superior to Allerton building car park.


31

4.3.1 Car park design reflection 1: Parking times observed data

The first step here will be to present each set of parking times data obtained from

observation and then followed by a simple comparison of descriptive statistics obtained

using Excel for each car park will be made.

Table 4-1: Observed and recorded parking times for Allerton building car park

Time (AM) Sample number Parking times

(sec)

manoeuvre

type

Number of

manoeuvres

08:10:00 1 25.6 forward 1

2 21.7 forward 1

3 11 forward 1

4 12.2 forward 1

5 17.4 forward 1

6 22.2 forward 1

7 14.2 forward 1

8 22.8 forward 1

9 9.7 forward 1

10 18.1 forward 1

11 19.5 forward 1

12 16 forward 1

13 12.9 forward 1

14 33.8 reverse 3

15 14.6 forward 1

16 18.1 forward 1

17 18.3 forward 1

18 14.2 forward 1

19 30.7 forward 2


32

20 13.5 forward 3

21 17.6 forward 1

22 52.4 forward 4

23 20.4 forward 1

24 48.2 forward 1

25 18.9 forward 2

26 96.4 reverse 1

27 46.6 forward 5

28 9.9 forward 2

29 43.3 forward 1

08:32:55 30 15.4 forward 2

31 27.7 forward 2

32 55.3 forward 2

33 19.3 forward 1

34 31 forward 1

35 26.6 forward 2

36 75.8 forward 2

37 55.9 reverse 2

38 10.3 forward 1

39 27.5 forward 1

40 16.1 forward 1

41 15.5 forward 1

42 19 forward 1

43 54.7 reverse 3

44 86.2 forward 2


33

45 31.5 forward 1

46 47.8 forward 3

47 74.1 forward 5

48 41.8 reverse 3

49 148.9 reverse 5

50 11.1 forward 1

51 25.2 forward 1

52 27.6 forward 1

53 21.5 forward 1

54 44 reverse 4

55 21.7 forward 1

56 92.1 reverse 4

57 54.5 forward 3

58 40.5 forward 3

59 62.1 reverse 4

60 60.2 reverse 4

61 56.9 forward 3

62 35.6 forward 3

63 14.6 forward 1

64 84.4 forward 1

65 14.6 forward 1

09:20:00 66 96.9 reverse 6


34

Table 4-2: Observed and recorded parking times for Irwell Place car park

Time

(AM)

Sample number Parking times

(sec)

manoeuvre

type

Number of

manoeuvres

08:00 1 29.4 forward 1

2 30.7 forward 1

3 41.1 forward 1

4 30.2 forward 1

5 29.7 forward 1

6 30 forward 1

7 40.3 forward 2

8 42.4 reverse 2

9 31.1 forward 1

10 31.3 forward 1

11 22.5 forward 1

12 29.4 forward 1

13 43.4 forward 1

14 35.2 forward 1

15 57.2 reverse 2

16 29.5 forward 1

17 54.7 reverse 2

18 33.8 forward 1

19 26.7 forward 1

20 26.1 forward 1

21 30.7 forward 1

22 41.6 forward 1

23 53.6


35

24 57.1

25 24.1

26 28.1

27 31.1

28 21.7

29 17.9

30 48.7

08:18:27 31 22

32 36

33 23.8

34 65.1

35 24.1

36 32.1

37 40.4

38 24.2

39 40.1

40 24

41 47.3

42 71.8

43 32.6

44 95.8

45 98.4

46 33.3

47 94.5

48 38.3 forward 1


36

49 42.1 forward 1

50 81.9 forward 1

51 62.5 forward 1

52 61.6 reverse 2

53 83.1 reverse 2

54 40 forward 1

55 99.5 reverse 2

56 39.1 forward 1

57 37.3 forward 1

58 42.6 forward 1

59 30.1 forward 1

60 71.9 reverse 2

08:42:19 61 46.2 reverse 2

62 66 forward 1

63 35.1 forward 1

64 34.1 forward 1

65 39 forward 1

66 20.7 forward 1

67 33.4 forward 1

68 26.9 forward 1

69 21.7 forward 1

70 31.9

71 27.4

72 37.7

73 43


37

74 48.6

75 27.6

76 34.1

77 32.4

78 50.1

79 26.4

80 17.5

81 25.2

82 79.7

83 35.7

84 27.4

85 26.5

86 25.5

87 25.5

88 36.7

08:53:15 89 46.8

90 25

91 46.8

92 32.3

93 56.8

94 29.1

95 37.5

96 28.2

97 41.2

98 49.4 reverse 2


38

99 61.9 reverse 2

100 29.7 forward 1

101 31.1 forward 1

102 41.1 forward 1

103 24.5 forward 1

104 34.4 forward 1

105 32.6 forward 1

106 31.1 forward 2

107 25.1 forward 1

108 41.1 forward 1

109 46.8 forward 1

110 53.8 reverse 2

111 32.2 forward 1

112 29.3 forward 1

113 80.6 reverse 2

114 36.2 forward 1

115 70.3 forward 2

116 30.9 forward 1

117 30.8 forward 1

118 28.6 forward 1

119 61.7 forward 2

09:12:00 120 33.1 forward 1

Note: the yellow coloured parking times are there to indicate the reduction of the sample

size from 120 samples to 66 samples i.e. equal to Allerton building car parks sample size.

Therefore when analyzing this set of data only the parts coloured in yellow were

considered.


39

4.3.2 Car park design reflection 1: Parking times descriptive statistics

comparison

Table 4-3: Descriptive statistics parking times

a b

Table 4-4: Descriptive statistics number of manoeuvres

a b

The sample averages from Table 4.3 state that the average parking time for Allerton is less

than Irwell i.e. a better reflection thus not agreeing with the theory in this regard. Table 4.3

also suggests that the parking times in Allerton are more varied i.e. dispersed compared to


40

that of Irwell as the standard deviation for Allerton is greater than Irwell. These same

comparisons for number of manoeuvres shows slightly different information, the first

being the average number of manoeuvres taken to park is greater in Allerton than Irwell

even though its average parking time is less. This is a weird predicament which could have

many reasons as to why this may be. Such as errors in conducting the actual survey for

instance when recording parking times in Irwell Place there was a fixed starting point for

timing being just outside the car park entrance this however was not the case for Allerton

as before recording started the assumption was the cars will enter from entrance 2 (Figure

4.2) but the majority of cars entered through entrance 1 (Figure 4.2). This was a problem as

the recording position for Allerton was with entrance 2 in the camera view not entrance 1,

thus a significant adjustment had to be made see Figure 4.5 below.

b

a

Figure 4-5: Allerton car park recording position (Google, 2015)

The reference position was adjusted such that it went from being entrance 2 (Figure 4.2) to

being the left edge of the camera view in Figure 4.5 (b). This may have been a factor as to

why the observed parking times were less for Allerton. Another factor that may have

affected parking time was drivers preferred to park in the bottom left hand corner of Irwell

Place car park (Figure 4.3) thus wasting time by driving passed available parking spots in

order to reach locations of the car park influenced by preference leading to larger parking

times. Observing Tables 4.1 and 4.2 it can be seen that the number of reverse parking were

equal for both car parks, however the largest number of manoeuvres taken to park was

Recording position


41

Allerton with a value of 6 compared to Irwell with only 2. The standard deviations for

manoeuvres taken to park however suggest a more dispersed data as was the case with the

parking times. This is understandable considering the stall width for Irwell is larger in size

making it easier for most drivers to get into a stall regardless of driver ability, whereas in

Allerton driving ability becomes more of a factor giving a more varied data.

4.3.3 Car park design reflection 2: Critical clearance gaps measured

data

Similarly like the parking times the first step here will be to present each set of data for

clearance gaps obtained by measuring using a tape measure and then followed by a simple

comparison of descriptive statistics obtained using Excel for each car park will be made.

Table 4-5: Measured critical clearance gaps for Allerton building car park

Sample

number

Critical clearance

gap (cm)

Critical clearance gap

(mm)

1 63 630

2 75 750

3 67 670

4 105 1050

5 94 940

6 88 880

7 73 730

8 73 730

9 70 700

10 89 890

11 74 740

12 86 860

13 71 710

14 74 740


42

15 68 680

16 89 890

17 91 910

18 69 690

19 68 680

20 82 820

21 85 850

22 99 990

23 69 690

24 72 720

25 91 910

26 84 840

27 78 780

28 67 670

29 76 760

30 87 870

31 83 830

32 91 910

33 87 870

34 98 980

35 77 770

36 76 760

37 69 690

38 76 760

39 84 840


43

40 88 880

41 72 720

42 65 650

43 73 730

44 81 810

45 69 690

46 78 780

47 70 700

48 83 830

49 72 720

50 61 610

Table 4-6: Measured critical clearance gaps for Irwell Place car park

Sample

number

Critical clearance

gap (cm)

Critical clearance gap

(mm)

1 97 970

2 95 950

3 79 790

4 95 950

5 78 780

6 80 800

7 88 880

8 91 910

9 82 820

10 96 960

11 93 930


44

12 73 730

13 89 890

14 75 750

15 98 980

16 80 800

17 72 720

18 91 910

19 86 860

20 79 790

21 88 880

22 96 960

23 79 790

24 78 780

25 93 930

26 103 1030

27 78 780

28 77 770

29 97 970

30 96 960

31 81 810

32 84 840

33 78 780

34 86 860

35 94 940

36 97 970


45

37 76 760

38 78 780

39 93 930

40 81 810

41 87 870

42 74 740

43 89 890

44 98 980

45 78 780

46 82 820

47 84 840

48 94 940

49 96 960

50 88 880


46

4.3.4 Car park design reflection 2: Critical clearance gaps descriptive

statistics comparison

Table 4-7: Descriptive statistics critical clearance gaps

a b

The sample averages here are both greater than the suggested clearance gap of 600mm by

the literature (Hill et al. 2014). Although they both exceed this minimum value Irwell car

park can be considered better in this reflection comparison because the wider the clearance

gap the easier it is for drivers to depart their vehicles once finished parking. The trend of

having more of a varied data set from Allerton continues here although the standard

deviation for Irwell is not that much smaller.

4.3.5 Car park design reflection 3: Number of cars incorrectly parked

measured data

The number of cars incorrectly parked (see Figure 3.5) on one normal working university

day at Allerton car park was 19 out of a possible 174 parked cars this works out to be

10.9% which is greater than the cut off value of 5% i.e. less than 95% of drivers are

parking incorrectly in Allerton car park which is slightly worrying (Rees 2000).

Contrastingly Irwell car park had a total of 17 cars incorrectly parked out of a possible 400

parked cars which works out to be 4.3% which is less than the cut of value of 5% i.e. more

than 95% of drivers are parking correctly in Irwell place.


47

4.4 Hypothesis testing of data

This section will do appropriate hypothesis tests on parking times, number of manoeuvres

and critical clearance gaps to determine if the averages of each of these car park design

reflections for each car park are reliably different from one another (Rees 2000) e.g. is the

average critical clearance gap for Allerton car park different to Irwell car park by chance or

can similar results be expected frequently. The first step of any hypothesis test is to

determine if the sample data is normally distributed as then the result of this will determine

whether to use a parametric or non-parametric hypothesis test (Corder and Foreman 2011).

This check will be carried out using the SPSS software.

4.4.1 Checking for normality of parking times data

A good first indicator of a normally distributed set of data is observing its histogram.

Figure 4-6: Allerton car park parking time histogram using SPSS


48

Figure 4-7: Irwell car park parking time histogram using SPSS

Judging from simple inspection of Figures 4.6 and 4.7 there seems to be a strong positive

skew for both sets of data. Table 4.3 a and b both show skewness values greater than 1 for

each set of data, it is unreasonable to assume that a set of data is normally distributed if the

skewness value is greater than 1 or less than -1 (Rees 2000). Further normality tests can be

done to confirm if a set of data is normally distributed or not, these tests are the

Kolmogorov Smirnov test and Shapiro Wilk test both of which can be done using SPSS.

Both of these tests state if the significance value also known as the p-value is less than the

significance level usually 5% the sample is not from a normal distribution (Ruppert 2004).


49

Table 4-8: Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality on parking time data using

SPSS

Tests of Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statist

ic

df Sig. Statist

ic

df Sig.

Parking Time

Allerton

.193 66 .000 .812 66 .000

Parking Time

Irwell

.195 66 .000 .841 66 .000

The significance value in both tests are less than 0.05 as can be seen circled in red, hence

the sample data is not normally distributed.

4.4.2 Non-parametric hypothesis test on parking times data

When two sets of sample data are not normally distributed common parametric tests such

the student t test cannot be carried but instead a non-parametric can be done. The non-

parametric equivalent of the independent t test known as the Mann-Whitney-U test (Corder

and Foreman 2011) was carried out using the SPSS software, the output was as follows.

Table 4-9: Mann-Whitney-U test on parking times data using SPSS

Test Statistics

Parking

Times

Mann-Whitney

U

1463.000

Wilcoxon W 3674.000

Z -3.254

Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed)

.001


50

Due to the significance value being less than the significance level of 5% the null

hypothesis is rejected. This suggests that there is a significant difference between the

averages thus similar results can be expected 95% of the time if the survey is carried out

the exact same way i.e. didn’t happen by chance.

Note: the null hypothesis being, no reliable/significant difference between the averages of

the two parking times sample data.

4.4.3 Checking for normality of number of manoeuvres data

Similar to the parking times data the histograms for each set of data will be observed to

check for skewness.

Figure 4-8: Allerton car park number of manoeuvres histogram using SPSS


51

Figure 4-9: Irwell car park number of manoeuvres histogram using SPSS

Visual inspection of Figure 4.8 shows strong positive skew, this however is not the case for

Figure 4.9 as it is not clear if skewness is present. The skewness value for Allerton in table

4.4 (a) is greater than 1 which confirms strong skewness, this is the same case for Irwell

looking at the skewness value from table 4.4 (b). Similarly to the parking time data the

normality tests of Kolmogorov Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk tests will be carried out using

SPSS to fully clarify if this set of data is normally distributed not.

Table 4-10: Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality on number of manoeuvres

data using SPSS

Tests of Normality


Statist

ic

df Sig. Statist

ic

df Sig.

Number of

Manoeuvres Allerton

.334 66 .000 .733 66 .000

Number of

Manoeuvres Irwell

.470 66 .000 .532 66 .000


52

The significance value in both tests are less than 0.05 as can be seen circled in red, hence

the sample data is not normally distributed.

4.4.4 Non-parametric hypothesis test on number of manoeuvres data

Table 4-11: Mann-Whitney-U test on number of manoeuvres data using SPSS

Test Statistics

Manoeuv

res

Mann-Whitney

U

1638.000

Wilcoxon W 3849.000

Z -2.946

Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed)

.003


hypothesis is rejected. This suggests that there is a significant difference between the two

averages thus similar results can be expected 95% of the time if the survey is carried out

the exact same way i.e. didn’t happen by chance.


the two number of manoeuvres sample data.

4.4.5 Checking for normality of critical clearance gap data

Same as the first two sets of sample data the histograms for each set of data will be

observed to check for skewness.


53

Figure 4-10: Allerton car park critical clearance gap histogram using SPSS

Figure 4-11: Irwell car park critical clearance gap histogram using SPSS

Both Figures 4.10 and 4.11 from initial visual inspection look a lot less skewed compared

to the previous data sets. The skewness values in Table 4.5 a and b further confirm that

these two data sets are not heavily skewed as both skew values lie between 1 and -1.


54

However this alone does not guarantee that the data sets are normally distributed, as it fully

make sure the normality tests of Kolmogorov Smirnov and Shapiro Wilk tests like the first

two data sets will be carried out using SPSS to fully clarify if this set of data is indeed

normally distributed or not.

Table 4-12: Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality on clearance gap data using

SPSS

Tests of Normality


Statist

ic

df Sig. Statist

ic

df Sig.

Clearance Gap

Allerton

.121 50 .064 .960 50 .093

Clearance Gap

Irwell

.127 50 .041 .941 50 .014

Unlike in the previous two normality tests here one of the two sample data (Allerton) has a

greater significance value than 0.05 making it normally distributed, however because two

data sets are being compared with one another, they both have to be normally distributed to

be able to carry out a parametric test (Corder and Foreman 2011) hence why the non-

parametric Mann-Whitney-U test like in the previous two cases above was applied.


55

4.4.6 Non-parametric hypothesis test on critical clearance gaps data

Table 4-13: Mann-Whitney-U test on clearance gap data using SPSS

Test Statistics

Clearance

Gaps

Mann-Whitney

U

668.500

Wilcoxon W 1943.500

Z -4.012

Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed)

.000


hypothesis is rejected. This suggests that there is a significant difference between the two

averages thus similar results can be expected 95% of the time if the data is collected in the

exact same manner i.e. didn’t happen by chance.


the two clearance gaps sample data.

4.4.7 Practical aspects comparison summary

To summarize this little practical comparison between these two car parks Irwell Place car

park overall had superior practical results as it was better in two both the number of

manoeuvres comparison and critical clearance gap comparison although even though

Allerton had a better average parking time.


56

5 CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER

WORK

5.1 Conclusion

The main aim of this research was to identify large surface car park(s) located on Salford

university campus and then study and review them by comparing both designs to literature

and then comparing each design to one another in order to identify which is the better

practising car park i.e. has the better design in terms of both theory and in practice.

The theoretical comparison of both car parks proved Irwell Place car park has the better

design compared to Allerton building car park as it followed and met most of the important

criteria identified by the literature in chapter 2 (see section 4.2.7). This was indeed true in

the practical comparison also as Irwell car park had an overall better average number of

manoeuvres to park i.e. the average value was less than Allerton car park, this is

understandable considering Irwell car park has larger geometric values such as stall and

aisle widths making manoeuvrability much easier. The fewer manoeuvres a driver is

required to do when parking the better (IStructE 2011). Irwell car park was again superior

in the critical clearance gap comparison as it had a better average critical clearance gap i.e.

the average value was more than Allerton car park, this again is understandable

considering Irwell car park has larger geometric values such as stall and aisle widths. The

greater the clearance gap the easier it is for drivers to exit their vehicles after parking (Hill

et al. 2014). Allerton however did have a better average parking time than Irwell but this

was most likely due to obtaining the data using unequal survey methods as mentioned

earlier in the chapter. Other factors that could have been the cause of Irwell car park

having a worse average parking time i.e. a larger average parking time could also have

been due to driver preference for e.g. choosing a certain area of the car park to park in the

process driving past empty parking stalls thus taking longer to park.

Observing Tables 4.1 and 4.2 it is evident that more drivers chose to perform reverse

parking methods in the second portion of the observation i.e. between approximately

8:30AM and 9:15AM thus taking longer to park in this portion of the observation. This

pattern agrees to Ellson (1969) claims of the fuller a car park gets the longer it takes for

drivers to park their cars, (see Figure 2.5). The rule of thumb for driving is the more


57

difficult it is to get into a parking spot reverse parking methods are preferred instead of

forward parking.

The standard deviation values for all three practical comparisons were greater for Allerton

car park. This is understandable considering the geometrics such as stall and aisle widths

being smaller than Irwell car park thus making quality of driving ability a factor when

parking, which is not the case with Irwell car park as having wider stalls and aisles makes

manoeuvrability much easier regardless of how much of a good driver someone is.

The averages of all three sets of car park design reflections i.e. parking times, number of

manoeuvres and critical clearance gaps for each car park were significantly different from

its corresponding counterpart suggesting similar results can be expected 95% of the time if

the data is collected in the exact same manner. This is understandable because these three

measured sets of data are reflections of the car parks designs which are constant, meaning

the variable reflections values even though are variable will be similar almost every time

i.e. 95% of the time. Thus it can be accepted that Irwell place car park has the overall

better design in practice when considering inward flow at peak time, proving that

following the design standards properly is indeed important in getting a more optimal

design.

5.2 Recommendations for further work

Further recommended work would be to study peak outward flow of traffic i.e. factors and

time taken to un-park from Tidal type car parks as this study did the opposite by

investigating peak inward flow i.e. factors and time taken to park in Tidal type car parks.

Performing similar work of this nature using car parks that fall under different parking

categories other than Tidal (see section 2.1.2) will also be ideal.


58

References

Allen, E. & J. Iano. 2006. The Architect's Studio Companion: Rules of Thumb for

Preliminary Design. John Wiley & Sons.

Baker, G. H. & B. Funaro. 1958. Parking. Reinhold.

Berger, C. 2005. Wayfinding: Designing and Implementing Graphic Navigational Systems.

RotoVision.

Chakroborty, P. & A. Das. 2003. Principles of transportation engineering. PHI Learning

Pvt. Ltd.

Chrest, A. P. 2001. Parking structures: planning, design, construction, maintenance, and

repair. Springer.

Corder, G. W. & D. I. Foreman. 2011. Nonparametric Statistics for Non-Statisticians: A

Step-by-Step Approach. Wiley.

Ellson, P. 1969. Parking: Dynamic capacities of car parks. Road Research Laboratory,

Traffic Planning Section.

EPOA. 2009. Parking Standards Design and Good Practice Essex: Essex Planning

Officers Association.

Hill, J., G. Rhodes & S. Vollar. 2014. Car Park Designers' Handbook. London: ICE

Publishing.

Institute, U. L. & N. P. Association. 1993. The Dimensions of parking. Washington: Urban

Land Inst.

IStructE. 2002. Design recommendations for multi-storey and underground car parks.

London: The Institution of Structural Engineers

---. 2011. Design recommendations for multi-storey and underground car parks. London:

The Institution of Structural Engineers.

Littlefield, D. 2008. Metric handbook. Routledge.

Mark, P. n.d. New Build Car Park Guidelines West Sussex: British Parking Association

Monahan, D. R. (1990) PARKING STRUCTURE SIGNING & GRAPHICS. Parking

Professional, 13-19.

O'Flaherty, C. 1997. Transport planning and traffic engineering. Elsevier.

Pickard, Q. 2008. The architects' handbook. John Wiley & Sons.

Rees, D. G. 2000. Essential Statistics, Fourth Edition. Taylor & Francis.

Roess, R. P., E. S. Prassas & W. R. McShane. 2004. Traffic engineering. Prentice Hall.

Ruppert, D. 2004. Statistics and Finance: An Introduction. Springer.

Tompkins, J. A., J. A. White, Y. A. Bozer & J. M. A. Tanchoco. 2010. Facilities Planning.

Wiley.

Google. (2014). Google Earth. [Online]. Available from:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Salford+Crescent/@53.4858714,-

2.2743366,913m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xbfe1352e2d2da704 [accessed 15

December 2014].




March 2015].




March 2015].

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Salford+Crescent/@53.4858714,-2.2743366,913m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xbfe1352e2d2da704







59




March 2015].


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4886878,-2.2778098,114m/data=!3m1!1e3 [accessed

21 March 2015].



https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4886878,-2.2778098,114m/data=!3m1!1e3


60

Appendix A – Self Assesment

Section Comments/Evidence (e.g.,

indicate page numbers or tick a

box)

Marks by

student

1. Title, abstract, list of contents, aims and objectives 5

Title, abstract and list of contents should be in agreement.

4

The abstract should agree with the major points in the text.

The abstract should be concise, adequate and informative.

The list of contents should show the structure of the dissertation.

The aims and objectives should be clearly stated.

2. Presentation, literacy and numeracy 25

The plan of headings and sub-headings should agree with the list of

contents.

23

The English used should be clear, correct and free of ambiguities.

The typing should be clear and neat.

Pages should be clearly numbered throughout.

Mathematical expressions, symbols and equations should be clearly

set out and explained.

All units should be given in accordance with the accepted SI

conventions.

The student should show pride in the presented work.

All figures, tables and illustrations should be correct, relevant,

clearly drawn and labelled to correspond with the text.

Photographs should be well-printed and helpful in understanding the

text.

All references should be correctly quoted and relevant to the work.

An electronic copy of the project is submitted.

Appendices have be used for any pertinent material (including the

mandatory Self Assessment, Risk Assessment and optional

Structural Test Plan).

3. General contents 55

There should be clear evidence of extensive reading.

40

The work should be profound and include a wide-ranging discussion

and analysis, particularly with reference to the findings of others.

Critical analysis and discussion, with clear and sensible arguments

are essential to reflect originality and maturity of thought.

Evidence of interest and initiative of own independent work should

be clear.

There should be clear evidence that the aims and objectives have

been met.

For computer-based projects, there should be clear evidence of

successful application of the software packages, understanding of the

theories embedded within the packages and satisfactory

interpretation of the outputs.

4. Conclusions and recommendations 15

Conclusions should be logical and based on accurate and sufficient

data, which are critically discussed and analysed.

9 Recommendations for further investigations arising from the work

should be suggested based upon critical discussion and analysis.

Overall mark 76


61

Appendix B – School Ethical Approval and Inital Risk

Assesment

Application Form for use by undergraduate and postgraduate students on

Taught Programmes (Projects & Dissertations)

Office use only

Ref No:

Date Rec:

Who should complete this form?

This form should be completed by all students who have a high level of responsibility for

how their project is carried out, including deciding the aims and who is to be involved.

Students who are carrying out “live projects” which have been arranged by the Module

Leader and where prescribed guidance regarding the project aims and implementation is

being followed, do not need to complete this form.

This form must be completed electronically; the sections can be expanded to the size

required. To assist you with the completion of this form there are ‘Guidance Notes for

Completing the College Ethical Approval Form’ available which indicate what is required

for each section. If a question does not apply to your project write “not applicable”.

SECTION A – to be completed by ALL applicants

Last name of student: Ali

First name of student: Dilawar

Student Roll No: @00298888

Programme of study: Civil Engineering

School:

Supervisor: Dr Saad Yousif

Second Supervisor (if applicable): N/A

Is this application a resubmission? No

If Yes, please indicate reference number (if known):

1. Title of proposed research project (refer to guidelines Q1)

Review of Off-Street Parking Design


62

2. Project focus (refer to guidelines Q2)

The main aim of this research is to identify large surface car park(s) located on Salford

university campus and then study and review them by comparing both designs to

literature and then comparing each design to one another in order to identify which is the

better practising car park i.e. has the better design in terms of theory and in practice.

3. Project objectives – maximum of six (refer to guidelines Q3)

1. Researching and understanding what off-street parking design is in terms of space

and time efficiency considering only flat surface car parks.

2. Visiting identified parking site(s) on campus during a less busy time and taking

measurements of stall and aisle sizes particularly the widths and critical clearance

gap in-between cars using a tape measure.

3. Visiting identified parking site(s) on campus during peak periods in order to

observe and count the number of vehicles not parked correctly.

4. Record vehicle parking times on the identified site(s) during peak periods using a

video camera.

4. Research Strategy. Please provide an indication of the project duration or

project schedule in your research strategy or as an appendix (refer to guidelines

Q4)

5. Does the project involve human subjects (including, for example, as volunteers

or to take part in interviews/questionnaires) and/or animals and/or human

tissue and/or animal tissue?

Literature Review


63

No

If No please complete Section C.

If Yes please complete all questions in Sections B and C.

The student must discuss the content of their application form with their project/dissertation supervisor who

will advise them about revisions. A final copy of the application form will then be agreed by the student and

supervisor.

Supervisor: see page 7 for details of where application forms and supporting documentation should be

submitted.

Ethical approval must be obtained by all students prior to starting research with

human subjects (i.e. volunteers/interviews/ questionnaires), animals, human tissue or

animal tissue.

SECTION C – to be completed by ALL applicants

In electronically submitting this form I certify that the above information is, to the best

of my knowledge, accurate and correct. I understand the need to ensure I undertake my

research in a manner that reflects good principles of ethical research practice. I will

notify my Supervisor of any changes in my methodology and re-apply for ethical

approval if necessary as result of the changes.

Student Name: Dilawar Ali

Date submitted electronically: 20/03/15

Prior to submitting the application form please refer to the ‘Application Checklist’

and ensure appropriate supporting documentation, if applicable, is submitted with

this application form.

This form and any supporting documents should now be

submitted electronically to your supervisor either via

email or Blackboard depending on the advice given.


64

Initial assessment by project/dissertation supervisor:

This project/dissertation is deemed to be:

Please tick

Type 1 Routine project work.

Type 2

Routine project work involving human/animal

subjects/tissue where ethical issues have been considered

and appropriately addressed.

Type 3 Project where there is a significant ethical dimension.

In electronically submitting this form I confirm that I have read and agreed the contents

and I am satisfied that the project can proceed subject to approval by the Module Leader

(Type 2 applications) or the College of Science & Technology Ethical Approval Panel

for Taught Programmes (Type 3 applications).

Supervisor name: Dr Saad Yousif

Date submitted electronically: 27/03/2015

NB: The ethical and efficient conduct of research by students is the direct responsibility of

the supervisor.

Next Steps:

Type 1 applications: No further ethical approval required following Supervisor sign-

off. Supervisor sends record of application to Module Leader for

audit purposes.


65

Type 2 applications: Ethical approval will be required from both the Project

Supervisor and a member of the College Ethical Approval Panel

for Taught Programmes (normally the Module Leader*).

Supervisor submits application, any supporting documentation

and feedback form (feedback form optional for Type 2

applications) to Module Leader for approval. Module Leader

confirms application as Type 2, considers application and returns

decision, normally within 2 weeks, to Supervisor. Module Leader

keeps record of application for audit purposes.

Type 3 applications: Supervisor sends application, any supporting documentation and

feedback form directly to the College L&T Team via

[email protected]

For consideration by two members of the College Ethical

Approval Panel for Taught Programmes (CEAPTP). This

process is managed by the College L&T Team.

*If a Supervisor is also the Module Leader then application(s) should be forwarded to a cognate

subject Module Leader who is a member of the College Ethical Approval Panel for Taught

Programmes (CEAPTP).

Initial Risk Assessment

Location: Task/Activity/Environment: Date of Assessment:

Identify Hazards which could

cause harm:

Identify risks = what could go wrong if hazards cause harm:

No. Hazard No. Risk

N/A Physical / mechanical /

electrical / animal 1

N/A Biological 2

N/A Chemical 3

N/A Radiation / Lasers 4

N/A Lone working 5

Yes Travel / Fieldwork

6 Field work in car parks can lead to potential conflict/contact with

vehicles.

N/A Disposal of waste material 7

List groups of people who could be

affected:

Myself and/or other

drivers

What numbers of people are

involved?

1

mailto:[email protected]


66

What existing precautions are in place to reduce risks?

Risk level with existing

precautions

1 Wearing a high visibilty jacket on site L

2 Obtaining permission from security to carry out surveys L

What additional actions are required to ensure precautions are

implemented/effective or to reduce the risk further?

Risk level with additional

precautions

1 Conduct surveys in broad day light L

2 Avoid suspicious activity/behaviour L

3 Be calm and polite with drivers if questioned by them L

Is health surveillance required? NO If YES, please detail:

Who will be responsible for implementing the

precautions: Myself and Dr Saad Yousif

By When:

Completed by: Dilawar Ali Signed:

Record of annual

review:

Risk Rating:

Incr

easi

ng C

onse

quen

ce

5 10 15 20 25

4 8 12 16 20

3 6 9 12 15

2 4 6 8 10

1 2 3 4 5

Increasing Likelihood

17-25 Unacceptable – Stop activity and

make immediate improvements/seek

further advice

10-16 Tolerable – look to improve within

specified timescale

5-9 Adequate – Look to improve at next

review

1-4 Acceptable - No further action, but

ensure controls are maintained

Guide to using the risk rating table:


67

Consequences Likelihood

1 Insignificant – no injury 1 Very unlikely – 1 in a million chance of it

happening

2 Minor – minor injuries 2 Unlikely – 1 in 100,000 chance of it happening

3 Moderate – up to three days absence 3 Fairly likely – 1 in 10,000 chance of it happening

4 Major – more than three days absence 4 Likely – 1 in 1,000 chance of it happening

5 Catastrophic – death or disabling 5 Very likely – 1 in 100 chance of it happening


68

Appendix C – Excel and SPSS data files (Please refer to the CD)


69

Appendix D – Parking Time videos (Please refer to the CD)

Dissertation final

Documents

Transcript of Dissertation final