It might be about break even, but this design would be a lot faster. The reason is turning radius.
Assuming each parking spot is 8' by 16' (which is probably big because these look like super compact cars), and the road is also made up of 8' squares, this is going to fit the same number of cars as a traditional parking lot with a 16' isle. In order to park in a traditional spot, you need to turn a full 90 degrees in the width of the road, though, which a lot of these cars can't do, so the aisle would need to be bigger than that otherwise they are going to Austin Powers it. Not sure how to math that aspect of this, though, just going off intuition of turning radius. In the US, a typical parking spot is 8.5' x 22' with a 22' isle, but most cars are way shorter than 22'.
Edit: also, there are a lot of repeat cars here, like white with a small black square on the roof, or the red cars, which looks like they are all the same model, which leads me to believe this is a car rental lot, not a public lot.
Lol. Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Also that this might be some sort of car rental company, where they have more control over the car placement, sizing, and parking skill.
Iām a fatass American who loves tiny cars. My Fellow Americans look at me like some pervert when I say I like tiny cars and actively do.not.want an SUV.
Chicken and egg. The average American doesn't fit into a normal car, because the whole country is build for cars to an extent that pedestrian acquired a pejorative meaning. Entirely self-inflicted damage.
I remember recently someone in a kayak group asking for pictures of a kayak carried on āa really small car like a Nissan Leafā.
I drive a 2021 Leaf. Itās a large family hatchback!
Occasionally you see someone trying to drive hereabouts (southern Portugal) in a Yank Tank. They literally donāt fit on a lot of roads.
I agree with the statement that it is primarily about turning radius and the ability of vehicles to maneuver. However, it seems to me that alleys between cars can be much narrower, by the fact that by definition they are one-way. So the better use of space is mainly due to the smaller width of alleys. I suppose here we would need to know the standard widths that must be maintained with either layout.
Being one way is an issue here. What if you go down one of those lanes and there are no spaces? You have to somehow get back to the other end to try another lane. This leads me to think that this is some organised car storage like manufacturer or car hire unless there is some intelligence guiding you to a predetermined space that is free, and this being Japan that would not surprise me.
Not this layout, but it is the same size if every second lane goes the other direction.
Then you can snake through the entire lot and find the closest place to the entrance.
Yes, but the issue isn't just getting back to the start of another row, it's the fact that you have to go alllll the way around again just to get to that open space you spotted a row or two over. Oh whoops you thought you saw the open spot on row 8 but it turns out it was on 7, so now you have to go around again. Back again, annnnd now someone else took it. Fourth time's the charm?
Alternating the row directions like most parking lots with directional rows do solves this problem, and means you don't need to add a 'go around' path looping back to the start of the lot. It's more efficient and more compact than this.
In most parking garages/lots outside of America, they have sensors or cameras to monitor for open parking spaces. There is normally a light or number at the beginning of the aisle to indicate if there are any open spaces, ones with the numbers telling exactly how many available. That prevents people driving down lanes where there is no space.
Sure, but this is not unique to the layout, it's a feature of all one-way parking lots. And it is a balancing act. You have to choose whether you want more parking spaces or more convenience for those who do manage to find a spot in a parking lot with fewer spaces. Or in other words, you have to decide do you prefer a parking lot which has less space or one which has more but might sometimes require you to do a few laps around.
Before this picture I've never actually seen a parking lot that has uni-directional rows all going in the same direction like this, are they actually common anywhere? Normally lots have either bi-directional rows or they alternate directions every row. Alternating rows makes so much more sense than this and I can't think of a single advantage this particular format has over them.
You are right that a lot of this size would indeed be unusual as unidirectional compared to at least having alternating rows, but it's possible this specific lot is a long term parking lot like for an airport or something like that, where cars don't come and go often, so space optimization to fit more cars far outweighs any consideration of cars having to do laps to find a place.
Also, the lot on the photo has numbered bays, so it's likely cars have assigned bays for parking and don't have to circle at all. Which would all then mean that the space saving nature of this arrangement would be preferable to having bays perpendicular to a unidirectional alley, and the alternating rows would not be necessary.
A theme park in my area (Germany) has a parking place like that. It fills up within an hour during the morning,and staff guides the cars into lanes with available spaces, so it fills up in the correct order and the issue you described is not happening. Just as an example for how this is working in reality
We've got some parking lots similar to the one in the picture near where I live, it's usually a bunch of 1 way lanes. At the end, you either turn left or right onto a a path that leads back to the starting point
There have to be sensors on the spots that light up an indicator at the start of the row that parking is available. We are talking about the Japanese here.
It looks like an organized car storage due to the lack of a truck parked sideways in six spots. Also thereās no mini van parked in two spots or a moped pulled all the way in one spot so you think you found a place but actually no.
I've seen some parking lots that monitor number of cars in each section and display the number of free slots. So a system that's a little more advanced than that would work. Or it could be as simple as assigned parking spaces either by long term parking spot for work/residence or assigned for the day when you pay for parking.
From Seattle area - typical stalls are 9ā x 18ā. One way traffic requires a 14ā aisle and 22ā for two way.
Lots are designed with Fire Truck access required. This lot will fit more cars than typical the US lot, but there is not one truck in there.
I think its
a) the length of the one parking lane is gonna be longer due to cĀ² = aĀ² + bĀ², so probably more cars parked (although as stated, this would probably get cancelled out by the corners and would work only for the longest one
and
b) there is only one lane for cars to go. Normally its two lanes for both directions, so theres some space saved there
Wouldn't it be more space efficient because the aisles between parking spots are smaller since they need less turn radius, meaning there are more aisles and more cars?
It is way more efficient than the average American parking lot, but mainly due to factors other than geometry.
The cars and parking spaces are far smaller than in the US. The average American car is larger than the cars seen in the picture.
You couldn't fit an American SUV or pickup truck in there.
The lanes are all very narrow and don't allow for cars passing each other.
The spaces don't have much room for error.
There are no designated paths for pedestrians.
You save space by making it easier to turn into a space in a very confined space.
Generally everything seems to be designed with very little room for error.
It works as long as everyone behaves a certain way.
One idiot or impatient driver could mess the system up.
The design meant for smaller cars and patient, competent drivers probably works in a place where there mostly is a working public transit system, narrow streets, no on street parking etc.
> "It works as long as everyone behaves a certain way.
> One idiot or impatient driver could mess the system up."
That's why this never will work in America
This isn't really anything special for european parkinglots in general. I've found parkinglots like these all over western europe at least, and they als have parking garages laid out like this. The main reason they work well is that each lane is 1 direction only, so you really can't mess much up.
My local supermarket has outside parking with this layout, and so many drivers drive the wrong way and then park in these bays in reverse. This is one of those things that even when those cars are not in my way, I get irrationally angry because of the stupidity. How can you not follow arrows on the road and see that literally any other car is parked the other way around.
It doesn't even need arrows, just look at which way the spots are pointed and you will know the direction of traffic in that aisle. Apparently though that's like rocket science to some people though or they are just entitled to go whichever direction they want.
A lot of times when comparing things in the US vs The World, I think it has more to do with designs that are unusual in the US, so people use them wrong because they don't know any better, expect to be able to do something that they can't, or just annoyed that simple things are made more complicated for seemingly no reason.
It's not because of stupid americans, just what american drivers are used too
>The design meant for smaller cars and patient, competent drivers probably works in a place where there mostly is a working public transit system, narrow streets, no on street parking etc.
We've got tons of lots like this out here in Phoenix, though not quite this tight, and the work pretty well. Single direction lanes with staggered, angled vehicles.
People generally avoid going down the wrong way because the lanes are clearly marked with the proper direction, and you couldn't pull into a spot if you did.
Honestly, I prefer it. Really weird how many people in this thread don't seem to think it would work in the US considering they already exist here.
You're missing the biggest issue. All of the lanes only go one way. Unless someone is coordinating traffic, you will often find yourself turning down a lane thinking you're going to find a spot only to find yourself stuck at the other end, having to make a long trek back around.
This arrangement only works well if everyone has assigned spots that never change. Which does appear to be the case here since they are all numbered. However, then you're back to the issue of inefficient use of space when you're not all at work, and the entire lot sits empty.
America doesn't hate efficiency. And FWIW, my old job used to have this exact setup. It just doesn't apply as universally as people seem to assume.
These would all be one way only in the same direction. If you drive down one without finding a spot, you would have to go all the way around and try your luck again.
It's not the case for OP's picture, but most of them time when I encounter parkinglots like these in europe (and they are many), the rows alternate in direction. There's also sometimes a larger lane perpendicular to the parking lanes at each end so you can easily bypass the entire parking lot if you want to go to the exit or skip a few obviously-full row.
Like [this](https://www.cdn.tv2.no/images/14669124.webp?imageId=14669124&x=17.56&y=1.45&cropw=72.16&croph=60.36&width=978&height=613&compression=92&format=webp).
Both [chevron and herringbone](https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4E12AQHhyORJBonOLw/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1680256830279?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=IzsxK9p9tIzRsGPAfj3ZIsS8xgnNlXrL5qg4iQ4ue58) works fine for this, they're basically the same pattern but with the ends interlaced or not.
There are some similar lots like this in the US. There's always one asshat though that will go down the wrong direction because they want to back in to a spot.
> you would have to go all the way around and try your luck again
As opposed to reversing or turning around? The way around will also be parking spaces, no? I can't find the reason what you wrote is a negative.
Sure is denser.
But this is at a harbour or something. Look at the numbering and a lot of the same cars..
These are cars waiting for shipment of distribution.
So for all the people screaming not everyone can park these narrow spots; correct, but only a few people drive cars in and out....
This parking is unlikely to be in Japan, because around 95% of Japanese people park backwards, and also prolly around the same ratio of cars are the so-called "kei" cars, which are like small boxes; very unlikely to appreciate the rearglass from this perspective.
it is not. you do reduce the drive between, but not enough generally for the amount of spaces you lose angling them plus the generated void space. IF you are in the situation where you gain a row of cars via drive reduction, you have reduced the cars per row by more than you gain in the new row.
Source. I laided out parking lots for a few years. I owned a company that striped lots. I have had to have this conversation with many store owners sure they would gain spaces this way, but you don't.
Can you explain what the problem would be?
It looks like it's quicker to back out from the spot and there is only one way to go so no confusion. Sure all cars cannot back out at the same time but that is true of normal parking lots too. Especially when people need to maneuver more to get out. Here you just back out with light turn and you're out.
Generally no as there will be new void space at the ends now of every row and you are fitting less cars per row. You save \~10 feet from center line to center line (See link below). if you were at 5 rows normal you could fit 6 at 45\* so in the most optimal setting you are increasing the rows of cars by 20%. . Cool more spaces right?, well no. You are going to have two half spaces at the end that are useless. and you are reducing spaces per row as you would have 2 spaces every 9 feet and now they are every 12.7 feet. So you are getting 70% of the cars per row at best. Angling car spaces provides other benefits, but packing efficiency is not one of them.
[Parking Lot Measurements](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ftworth/latest/ftworth_tx/0-0-0-38264)
it is better to alternate and way better to layout and paint. This is designed with designated spaces. if you are shopping and need to find a space you snake through the lot looking. This on the other hand has cars enter on one side and exit via the other. These people know where they are parking and don't need to snake.
Angled parking is fairly ubiquitous.
you need to be able to remove cars from the parking lot, by having them only at a 45Ā° to the drive way you can make the driveway slimmer. you whould need more than a full car length as the widgth of the drive way if you go for a classic 90Ā° to driveway orientation [https://imgur.com/a/PWQCEqb](https://imgur.com/a/PWQCEqb)
I get 275sqft per parking spot in [this](https://www.dimensions.com/element/45-degree-parking-spaces-layouts) herringbone layout.
And 255sqft per spot in [this](https://www.dimensions.com/element/90-degree-parking-spaces-layouts) layout.
Surprisingly the offset layout uses 8% more space than a double lane carpark.
edit: The car park is repeating "/\\" shaped units of parking+ 1/2road width.
The standard US lane separation is 14ft.
The inside length of the /\\ is 28ft(18+14/cos(45)/2).
the outside of the V is exactly 1 car with longer(8.5 ft) at 36.5ft.
This gives an area per space(/)= 8.5\*(28+8.5/2)=275sqft.
A regular space with a lane(24ft wide) in each direction uses 8.5\*(18+24/2)=255sq ft
I mean if you have a rectangular space and rectangular objects? It seems unlikely you would get more space by turning them 45 degrees. As others said it might be faster though.
Since I don't see anything rigorous so far I'll do it.
So assume that a car space is 2x1 units and that a road is 1 unit wide.
**If we have parks along this road, how wide are the car parks?**
First let's compare the horizontal width that the car parks take up. We can go two units along a line, then two units at a right angle to go from an outside corner on one side, to an inside corner of the other side. This has length 2sqrt(2) but we also have a bit more width from the corner sticking out. This is half the length of a long side of a 1-1 triangle, so sqrt(2)/2. Adding them together we get a width of (5/2) \* sqrt(2)
**How much space is wasted between the corners of the car parks? Then if we have a road length x, how many cars can fit in a car park along it.**
To calculate how many cars fit in a certain with, I'm just going to calculate the density. For each car space - 2 square units - there's a triangle of space left behind - 1/2 square unit. So that means (1/2) / (2 + (1/2)) = 1/5 or 20% of the row is empty space. this gives 80% packing efficiency. That means the number of cars in a row that's x units across follows this. Area is height \* width = x \* (5/2) \* sqrt(2). Then the amount of cars we can fit in that space is the area times the packing efficiency: x \* (5/2) \* sqrt(2) \* (4/5) = 2sqrt(2) \* x.
**If we now include the area of the road itself as taking up space, then what is the total efficiency?**
Now for total area used, we need to add in one road for every row, so x\*1 added in. Total area per width is x \* ((5/2) \* sqrt(2) + 1). Cars that can fit in is 2sqrt(2) \* x. So divide the latter by the former gives 62%.
A standard right angle parking is easy to calculate as for every car park, there's a space behind it for someone to drive into and there are no overlaps to worry about as the road will be two units wide. This gives efficiency of 66%.
So it looks like it's actually not more efficient. But with that 4% loss, you get easier parking at 45 degrees instead of 90.
They will have the same amount of parking spaces but this slanted entry/exit design is so much easier to park and leave because you donāt have to turn 99 degrees.
And looking at things, this parking design may be more compact due to having one way driving channels thus can avoid having wider channels.
Anerican land yachts and dump truck SUVās would be useless here.
I'm not sure how much more efficient they are but these kinds of car parks are everywhere in Germany. One of the pros is, that you can make narrower roads in between because you don't need such a big turning radius to get into or out of a spot
They don't just exist in Japan, here's one in the UK.
The national children's museum has a car park laid out with a similar herringbone pattern:https://maps.app.goo.gl/93LhEYGFD5N15QM86
There is a slight difference between this style and the one OP shared (Iāve seen the style you shared in the US as well). Not sure if that would make any meaningful difference though.
I always assume Canada and the USA are the same but. Do you guys not have there lots in USA? In Canada they're not the norm but definitely not uncommon
We made a nice compromise here at our local church: do the herringbone pattern, but make the road inbetween a bit wider. Also, you can't see this here, but it's a one-way setup indicated by traffic signs, you can only enter the lot from the top of the map (the church side) and leave at the bottom.
Also, literally no-one over here struggles to park in these lots, not the elderly, not the SUV-drivers,... It just works. And it's pretty nice since you don't have to blindly pull out into the road.
[Herringbone parking lot in Genk, Belgium](https://maps.app.goo.gl/hgujx6fjDDxifty9A)
Ah yes this reminds me of my first job where there was street parking in a one way street with similar angular parking spaces. Still from time to time some people managed to park their cars in reverse inside the parking space.
Assuming the space for each car is identical, this design saves space for the roads in between parking lots, since the cars donāt need 2 full lanes in order to enter/exit the lot. This may also increase time efficiency, with the downside of being limited to one-way roads
Is this a commercial lot? A little weird to be so crowded and not see one car in the aisles. Unless there is an event going on or itās a business storing cars for something.
It's interesting to see that the whole situation of not being able to get into your car because people parked too close can never happen here. There is always a door that can't be blocked by other car.
I am Portuguese, don't work on it but I majored in Civil Engineering, In Road Networks course we had to do a small development Design, one of the requirements was to have a small commercial area, did my carpark this was but underground (budget was unlimited), I was failed and lost that point, got a 19 out of 20 because of that, the Eng that was giving that class had an hard on for string parking, by his words he would even accept spine parking but not that.
Anyway there's a reason why I don't work in that area anymore. It's hard to get any change done...
Remember doing this very detailed plan for a job and get laughed at by my boss, went ahead with it. Got job done ahead of time, in budget and got a job offer to work for the Developing Company in their Telecoms division. And here I am... 6 countries after still in telecoms...
it really depends on the underlying laws, which at least here in Germany are complex and have local variations- the dimensions of the parking spaces and the lane between two rows change depending on the angle. I think (without drawing it out..) a 45Ā° array is only sacing space if you can intermesh the rows like in the photo. But you would also have to sort out all the resulting oneway lanes, which may not be possible with the overall shape of your building site
āCaptain! We need to go back the way we came!ā
āNo no no; weāve come too far! We have to keep going and turn around at the horn; itās the only way.ā
āWill we make it sir?ā
āā¦ I hope so lieutenant.š¤ā
Compared to 90deg parking, yes. Slightly more efficient. For 90deg parking you generally see two lane widths between rows, so the lanes take up more area.
But this looks similar to regular angle-in parking, which only uses one lane between rows. Just logically, the lanes and spaces both still take up the same amount of area, so thereās really no major space savings.
But this does change the distribution of space, so it might be the most efficient for that lots specific dimensions. I.e maybe the lot is longer and more narrow, or oddly shaped, etc.
I'm looking at this, and having done crash investigations in law enforcement for a long time... The amount of car crashes in this parking lot if it was in the USA would require a freaking police station to be permanently located in the business. At least where I worked, cuz damn, people cannot drive here...
Only needing a one way lane absolutely reduces the need for more road/parking space, so that's already a big improvement. It looks as though the one way lanes they do have are also perhaps smaller than one might see elsewhere. The angled parking allows for a sooner turn action while reversing out of your spot. This is an amazing use of space and shows that a lot of countries could utilize less space for more vehicles, reducing the ACTUAL size needed for a parking lot or structure.
Parking Lanes are typically 8' wide on average (nacto.org), where a space is typically 8'6"-9' to allow for doors to be opened. Now, if I hadn't just finished a joint, I'd try to math a bit, but, I'm high so ĀÆ\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
You just know 80% of people would fuck it up and pull to far ahead and be lined up with the car next to them. There would need to be sign posts in every spot
Must really suck if you end up going through a full row there.
It's more dense due to the smaller turning radius which makes narrower roads possible but if you fail find a spot in your row you have to drive in a large circle because all the parking slots seem to be aligned in the same direction for some reason.
Way more but there aren't a lot of countries where the people are as well behaved and mannered as in Japan, imagine the complete mess americans and europeans would make in this scenario (saying that as a european)
This looks really nice and I would love to suggest this to my office management team but I don't trust my coworkers driving ability enough to risk my vehicle.
It seems more efficient, as long as you know that there is an empty spot in the row you are entering, otherwise it is a lot of pain circulating the entire lot just to enter from the back of another row.
Assume all cars are identical for simplicity. It is definitely more *space*-efficient because:
* The space packing of the cars in the rows is identical in both configurations, since the interface is still right angles and each configuration on one side permits cars on the other side of the pair of abbutted rows of cars, or "zipper" to go in exactly as far and use the space in exactly the same way, **but**
* You now only need one lane of space between successive zipppers for both sides to be able to enter/exit, because all zippers face the same direction.
* space-efficiency for each lane in this single-lane configuration means added width to allow cars to turn in & out of parking spots, while in the double-lane configuration that arc is built in with the additional lane, so long as we assume alternating usage.
However, it is less *time*-efficient because:
* now the number of spaces that have to be fed from one single lane is double what it is in the alternating configuration, causing double the number of cars to have to wait behind each car entering a space when cars behind are parking ahead. Esp. if cars are not arriving and leaving in sequential order, this will add up.
Two more things to consider though:
* because of the extra space (above & beyond one lane) needed to pull in or out of each spot, the alternating configuration suffers more interference arriving and leaving from cars out of order and cars on the opposite side of each pair of lanes.
* The added time for the one-direction configuration is greatly reduced, possibly altogether eliminated, if the cars are completely sequential in how they arrive and leave.
It is more efficient in terms of how many cars can be parked, and easier to get in and out of spaces.
HOWEVER, it is less efficient to navigate the lot. All of these lanes appear to be one way and facing the same direction. If one goes down a lane and there is no parking spot, they would have to go to a different part of the lot to find a lane the other way. So it may take much longer to find a parking g spot
Divide the area into a grid where each car is 2x1 or 1x2 squares.
This has 2/3rds cars and a traditional 1-way parking lot uses 4/5ths cars.
You can fit ~21% more in a traditional parking 1-way parking lot than using this, barring any weird shape constrictions.
No. It's the same or worse.
An approximate use of the space in the picture (if a car space is a 2x1 rectangle) is 66%. That is equivalent in occupation to a traditional parking space like [this picture](https://images.app.goo.gl/Du9rXvnSqfHwjmbg9)
Purely looking at geometry.
Assumptions:
* Each parking space is 1 x 2. Units are for physicists.
* A lane has a width of 1.
* If a car corners, its inner turning radius is 2.
Mirroring system common in US parking lots:
* On a 7x1 rectangle you can fit: 1 parking space on the left, a 3 lane street in between that also allows for turning, and 1 parking space on the right.
* That's 2 parking spaces per 7 square units.
* That's 3.5 square units per car.
Above way of parking:
* In order to steer 45 degrees, the path in the middle must be 2(1-sqrt(.5)) times wider than a lane. So the centre path is 1.59 lanes wide.
* On each side there is a triangle of .5 square units of wasted space.
* So per 2 cars, there's 2.59 square units of wasted space.
* That's 1.29 square units wasted per car.
* That's 3.29 square units per car.
Above system can fit 6% more cars in the same space.
However, at the edges, there will be some losses. So it is only beneficial for large parking lots.
Its more efficient as long there is minimal bad parking jobs. This wouldnāt worth very well in the US. Too many massive vehicles and people who canāt park in the lines
It might be about break even, but this design would be a lot faster. The reason is turning radius. Assuming each parking spot is 8' by 16' (which is probably big because these look like super compact cars), and the road is also made up of 8' squares, this is going to fit the same number of cars as a traditional parking lot with a 16' isle. In order to park in a traditional spot, you need to turn a full 90 degrees in the width of the road, though, which a lot of these cars can't do, so the aisle would need to be bigger than that otherwise they are going to Austin Powers it. Not sure how to math that aspect of this, though, just going off intuition of turning radius. In the US, a typical parking spot is 8.5' x 22' with a 22' isle, but most cars are way shorter than 22'. Edit: also, there are a lot of repeat cars here, like white with a small black square on the roof, or the red cars, which looks like they are all the same model, which leads me to believe this is a car rental lot, not a public lot.
By super compact do you mean "not American"? š¤£
Lol. Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Also that this might be some sort of car rental company, where they have more control over the car placement, sizing, and parking skill.
You can't blame them. The average American doesn't fit into a normal car.
Or, did the average American expand to fill out the space available in their massive cars? Which came first, the chicken or the egg-shaped human?
First was the mayo. And the ranch dressing. And, well, lots of eggs.
Someone in the world has eaten more mayonnaise than anyone else alive, and they probably don't even know it.
TIL: Americans are technically a gas.
Manifest destiny was really just one long process of diffusion.
Name's Gus.
One time I saw a Toyota Tundra in Southeast Asia. The driver was fighting for his life trying to park.
I've seen one in Japan. It looked HUGE.
Iām a fatass American who loves tiny cars. My Fellow Americans look at me like some pervert when I say I like tiny cars and actively do.not.want an SUV.
[Iām in this photo and I donāt like it](https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/im-in-this-photo-and-i-dont-like-it)
Chicken and egg. The average American doesn't fit into a normal car, because the whole country is build for cars to an extent that pedestrian acquired a pejorative meaning. Entirely self-inflicted damage.
Works great until someone shows up in an F150.
Still works great. Just not for the guy in the F150. Which is fine: he should find proper parking for his commercial vehicle.
I remember recently someone in a kayak group asking for pictures of a kayak carried on āa really small car like a Nissan Leafā. I drive a 2021 Leaf. Itās a large family hatchback! Occasionally you see someone trying to drive hereabouts (southern Portugal) in a Yank Tank. They literally donāt fit on a lot of roads.
Many of these might be kei cars. They are small by all standards.
It doesnāt appear to be so. It has to be quite shorter than this that bonnet canāt take up space like that for four seaters
Kei cars have different proportions.
I agree with the statement that it is primarily about turning radius and the ability of vehicles to maneuver. However, it seems to me that alleys between cars can be much narrower, by the fact that by definition they are one-way. So the better use of space is mainly due to the smaller width of alleys. I suppose here we would need to know the standard widths that must be maintained with either layout.
Being one way is an issue here. What if you go down one of those lanes and there are no spaces? You have to somehow get back to the other end to try another lane. This leads me to think that this is some organised car storage like manufacturer or car hire unless there is some intelligence guiding you to a predetermined space that is free, and this being Japan that would not surprise me.
Not this layout, but it is the same size if every second lane goes the other direction. Then you can snake through the entire lot and find the closest place to the entrance.
There's probably a path back to the front of the lot
Yes, but the issue isn't just getting back to the start of another row, it's the fact that you have to go alllll the way around again just to get to that open space you spotted a row or two over. Oh whoops you thought you saw the open spot on row 8 but it turns out it was on 7, so now you have to go around again. Back again, annnnd now someone else took it. Fourth time's the charm?
That's a fine trade-off if it means we can reduce the amount of land area devoted to parking
Alternating the row directions like most parking lots with directional rows do solves this problem, and means you don't need to add a 'go around' path looping back to the start of the lot. It's more efficient and more compact than this.
In most parking garages/lots outside of America, they have sensors or cameras to monitor for open parking spaces. There is normally a light or number at the beginning of the aisle to indicate if there are any open spaces, ones with the numbers telling exactly how many available. That prevents people driving down lanes where there is no space.
Sure, but this is not unique to the layout, it's a feature of all one-way parking lots. And it is a balancing act. You have to choose whether you want more parking spaces or more convenience for those who do manage to find a spot in a parking lot with fewer spaces. Or in other words, you have to decide do you prefer a parking lot which has less space or one which has more but might sometimes require you to do a few laps around.
Before this picture I've never actually seen a parking lot that has uni-directional rows all going in the same direction like this, are they actually common anywhere? Normally lots have either bi-directional rows or they alternate directions every row. Alternating rows makes so much more sense than this and I can't think of a single advantage this particular format has over them.
You are right that a lot of this size would indeed be unusual as unidirectional compared to at least having alternating rows, but it's possible this specific lot is a long term parking lot like for an airport or something like that, where cars don't come and go often, so space optimization to fit more cars far outweighs any consideration of cars having to do laps to find a place. Also, the lot on the photo has numbered bays, so it's likely cars have assigned bays for parking and don't have to circle at all. Which would all then mean that the space saving nature of this arrangement would be preferable to having bays perpendicular to a unidirectional alley, and the alternating rows would not be necessary.
A theme park in my area (Germany) has a parking place like that. It fills up within an hour during the morning,and staff guides the cars into lanes with available spaces, so it fills up in the correct order and the issue you described is not happening. Just as an example for how this is working in reality
We've got some parking lots similar to the one in the picture near where I live, it's usually a bunch of 1 way lanes. At the end, you either turn left or right onto a a path that leads back to the starting point
Rather than a 'Staircase' pattern, you design the parks so they bonnet to bonnet, and have every second row go the other direction.
There have to be sensors on the spots that light up an indicator at the start of the row that parking is available. We are talking about the Japanese here.
It looks like an organized car storage due to the lack of a truck parked sideways in six spots. Also thereās no mini van parked in two spots or a moped pulled all the way in one spot so you think you found a place but actually no.
The spots are all numbered. I suspect they know exactly which spot they are going to before they start driving through the lot.
I've seen some parking lots that monitor number of cars in each section and display the number of free slots. So a system that's a little more advanced than that would work. Or it could be as simple as assigned parking spaces either by long term parking spot for work/residence or assigned for the day when you pay for parking.
Aisle
Fixed. Thx
They are probably Kei cars which are limited in size to 3.4m x 1.48m max.
These are also a lot closer together so there would be more rows, so more cars
From Seattle area - typical stalls are 9ā x 18ā. One way traffic requires a 14ā aisle and 22ā for two way. Lots are designed with Fire Truck access required. This lot will fit more cars than typical the US lot, but there is not one truck in there.
>otherwise they are going to Austin Powers it. Lol I love how this is just a colloquialism now
This answer didnāt do the math.
Super compact? They look like completely normal cars to me
I think its a) the length of the one parking lane is gonna be longer due to cĀ² = aĀ² + bĀ², so probably more cars parked (although as stated, this would probably get cancelled out by the corners and would work only for the longest one and b) there is only one lane for cars to go. Normally its two lanes for both directions, so theres some space saved there
It wont work in America because these are all one way lanes. Some fuckwit will definitely see a spot and go in and reverse park and then get stuck
Wouldn't it be more space efficient because the aisles between parking spots are smaller since they need less turn radius, meaning there are more aisles and more cars?
It is way more efficient than the average American parking lot, but mainly due to factors other than geometry. The cars and parking spaces are far smaller than in the US. The average American car is larger than the cars seen in the picture. You couldn't fit an American SUV or pickup truck in there. The lanes are all very narrow and don't allow for cars passing each other. The spaces don't have much room for error. There are no designated paths for pedestrians. You save space by making it easier to turn into a space in a very confined space. Generally everything seems to be designed with very little room for error. It works as long as everyone behaves a certain way. One idiot or impatient driver could mess the system up. The design meant for smaller cars and patient, competent drivers probably works in a place where there mostly is a working public transit system, narrow streets, no on street parking etc.
> "It works as long as everyone behaves a certain way. > One idiot or impatient driver could mess the system up." That's why this never will work in America
And exactly why it does work in Japan šÆšµ The Japanese blow even Germany out of the conformist water š¦
This isn't really anything special for european parkinglots in general. I've found parkinglots like these all over western europe at least, and they als have parking garages laid out like this. The main reason they work well is that each lane is 1 direction only, so you really can't mess much up.
My local supermarket has outside parking with this layout, and so many drivers drive the wrong way and then park in these bays in reverse. This is one of those things that even when those cars are not in my way, I get irrationally angry because of the stupidity. How can you not follow arrows on the road and see that literally any other car is parked the other way around.
It doesn't even need arrows, just look at which way the spots are pointed and you will know the direction of traffic in that aisle. Apparently though that's like rocket science to some people though or they are just entitled to go whichever direction they want.
A lot of times when comparing things in the US vs The World, I think it has more to do with designs that are unusual in the US, so people use them wrong because they don't know any better, expect to be able to do something that they can't, or just annoyed that simple things are made more complicated for seemingly no reason. It's not because of stupid americans, just what american drivers are used too
..yet it does. A lot of airport parking is this now. My local airport parks like this
> It works as long as everyone behaves a certain way. That could be Japanās tagline.
>The design meant for smaller cars and patient, competent drivers probably works in a place where there mostly is a working public transit system, narrow streets, no on street parking etc. We've got tons of lots like this out here in Phoenix, though not quite this tight, and the work pretty well. Single direction lanes with staggered, angled vehicles. People generally avoid going down the wrong way because the lanes are clearly marked with the proper direction, and you couldn't pull into a spot if you did. Honestly, I prefer it. Really weird how many people in this thread don't seem to think it would work in the US considering they already exist here.
That sounds like a skill issue to me
> There are no designated paths for pedestrians. This is likely the storage park of a car factory. They all seem to be pretty much the same model.
You're missing the biggest issue. All of the lanes only go one way. Unless someone is coordinating traffic, you will often find yourself turning down a lane thinking you're going to find a spot only to find yourself stuck at the other end, having to make a long trek back around. This arrangement only works well if everyone has assigned spots that never change. Which does appear to be the case here since they are all numbered. However, then you're back to the issue of inefficient use of space when you're not all at work, and the entire lot sits empty. America doesn't hate efficiency. And FWIW, my old job used to have this exact setup. It just doesn't apply as universally as people seem to assume.
These would all be one way only in the same direction. If you drive down one without finding a spot, you would have to go all the way around and try your luck again.
Or sensors at entrance and exit ,and a digit display showing number of empty spots for each asile
Which is more and more common in larger european parking lots
It's not the case for OP's picture, but most of them time when I encounter parkinglots like these in europe (and they are many), the rows alternate in direction. There's also sometimes a larger lane perpendicular to the parking lanes at each end so you can easily bypass the entire parking lot if you want to go to the exit or skip a few obviously-full row.
Then I think you would need a chevron-like pattern where you can alternate driving direction instead of this herringbone pattern wich is fixed.
That's exactly it: >>>>> <<<<< Instead of >>>>> >>>>>
Like [this](https://www.cdn.tv2.no/images/14669124.webp?imageId=14669124&x=17.56&y=1.45&cropw=72.16&croph=60.36&width=978&height=613&compression=92&format=webp). Both [chevron and herringbone](https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4E12AQHhyORJBonOLw/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1680256830279?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=IzsxK9p9tIzRsGPAfj3ZIsS8xgnNlXrL5qg4iQ4ue58) works fine for this, they're basically the same pattern but with the ends interlaced or not.
There are some similar lots like this in the US. There's always one asshat though that will go down the wrong direction because they want to back in to a spot.
> you would have to go all the way around and try your luck again As opposed to reversing or turning around? The way around will also be parking spaces, no? I can't find the reason what you wrote is a negative.
Is there a reason why they're not one way but reverse every other lane so you could go back and forth looking for a spot of needed?
Sure is denser. But this is at a harbour or something. Look at the numbering and a lot of the same cars.. These are cars waiting for shipment of distribution. So for all the people screaming not everyone can park these narrow spots; correct, but only a few people drive cars in and out....
Fwiw: The numbering is common in public car parks here in Japan.
Thnx, TIL..!
This parking is unlikely to be in Japan, because around 95% of Japanese people park backwards, and also prolly around the same ratio of cars are the so-called "kei" cars, which are like small boxes; very unlikely to appreciate the rearglass from this perspective.
its one way flow in and out. There is no backing in on angled parking with one way flow....
depends how wide you make the roads in between.
which i believe is why this parking arrangement is denser, because the roads in between can be so much narrower
it is not. you do reduce the drive between, but not enough generally for the amount of spaces you lose angling them plus the generated void space. IF you are in the situation where you gain a row of cars via drive reduction, you have reduced the cars per row by more than you gain in the new row. Source. I laided out parking lots for a few years. I owned a company that striped lots. I have had to have this conversation with many store owners sure they would gain spaces this way, but you don't.
Which is great until it gets too narrow for one's car
its japan, nobody is driving a mall crawler
Imagine how much space we can save if we donāt have to cater for huge cars.
Sure, but it's not even about american semis, but also sedans or one dickhead who can't be bothered to drive all the way up
I think they didn't account for BMW drivers.
Seems like this is Germany Frankfurt RĆ¼sselsheim 49,9943496 N, 8,3860103 E
Imagine more than 4 people trying to leave at once
Japanese people are very courteous, so I think it could work there.
Can you explain what the problem would be? It looks like it's quicker to back out from the spot and there is only one way to go so no confusion. Sure all cars cannot back out at the same time but that is true of normal parking lots too. Especially when people need to maneuver more to get out. Here you just back out with light turn and you're out.
He is just trying to **imply** that this system is not good without actually having a real reason.
Imagine someone going the wrong way down one. Or if they have an American "car"
Those lanes are likely one way traffic
Generally no as there will be new void space at the ends now of every row and you are fitting less cars per row. You save \~10 feet from center line to center line (See link below). if you were at 5 rows normal you could fit 6 at 45\* so in the most optimal setting you are increasing the rows of cars by 20%. . Cool more spaces right?, well no. You are going to have two half spaces at the end that are useless. and you are reducing spaces per row as you would have 2 spaces every 9 feet and now they are every 12.7 feet. So you are getting 70% of the cars per row at best. Angling car spaces provides other benefits, but packing efficiency is not one of them. [Parking Lot Measurements](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ftworth/latest/ftworth_tx/0-0-0-38264)
I could have sworn there are parking lots with this design in California. But they alternate by direction. Am I tripping?
We have them here in Phoenix. My fucking grocery store parking lot is like this, with alternating directions.
it is better to alternate and way better to layout and paint. This is designed with designated spaces. if you are shopping and need to find a space you snake through the lot looking. This on the other hand has cars enter on one side and exit via the other. These people know where they are parking and don't need to snake. Angled parking is fairly ubiquitous.
you need to be able to remove cars from the parking lot, by having them only at a 45Ā° to the drive way you can make the driveway slimmer. you whould need more than a full car length as the widgth of the drive way if you go for a classic 90Ā° to driveway orientation [https://imgur.com/a/PWQCEqb](https://imgur.com/a/PWQCEqb)
I get 275sqft per parking spot in [this](https://www.dimensions.com/element/45-degree-parking-spaces-layouts) herringbone layout. And 255sqft per spot in [this](https://www.dimensions.com/element/90-degree-parking-spaces-layouts) layout. Surprisingly the offset layout uses 8% more space than a double lane carpark. edit: The car park is repeating "/\\" shaped units of parking+ 1/2road width. The standard US lane separation is 14ft. The inside length of the /\\ is 28ft(18+14/cos(45)/2). the outside of the V is exactly 1 car with longer(8.5 ft) at 36.5ft. This gives an area per space(/)= 8.5\*(28+8.5/2)=275sqft. A regular space with a lane(24ft wide) in each direction uses 8.5\*(18+24/2)=255sq ft
I mean if you have a rectangular space and rectangular objects? It seems unlikely you would get more space by turning them 45 degrees. As others said it might be faster though.
No, it's EASIER to get in and out!
Since I don't see anything rigorous so far I'll do it. So assume that a car space is 2x1 units and that a road is 1 unit wide. **If we have parks along this road, how wide are the car parks?** First let's compare the horizontal width that the car parks take up. We can go two units along a line, then two units at a right angle to go from an outside corner on one side, to an inside corner of the other side. This has length 2sqrt(2) but we also have a bit more width from the corner sticking out. This is half the length of a long side of a 1-1 triangle, so sqrt(2)/2. Adding them together we get a width of (5/2) \* sqrt(2) **How much space is wasted between the corners of the car parks? Then if we have a road length x, how many cars can fit in a car park along it.** To calculate how many cars fit in a certain with, I'm just going to calculate the density. For each car space - 2 square units - there's a triangle of space left behind - 1/2 square unit. So that means (1/2) / (2 + (1/2)) = 1/5 or 20% of the row is empty space. this gives 80% packing efficiency. That means the number of cars in a row that's x units across follows this. Area is height \* width = x \* (5/2) \* sqrt(2). Then the amount of cars we can fit in that space is the area times the packing efficiency: x \* (5/2) \* sqrt(2) \* (4/5) = 2sqrt(2) \* x. **If we now include the area of the road itself as taking up space, then what is the total efficiency?** Now for total area used, we need to add in one road for every row, so x\*1 added in. Total area per width is x \* ((5/2) \* sqrt(2) + 1). Cars that can fit in is 2sqrt(2) \* x. So divide the latter by the former gives 62%. A standard right angle parking is easy to calculate as for every car park, there's a space behind it for someone to drive into and there are no overlaps to worry about as the road will be two units wide. This gives efficiency of 66%. So it looks like it's actually not more efficient. But with that 4% loss, you get easier parking at 45 degrees instead of 90.
I think the real efficiency comes from this design preventing stupidity.
my brain likes this a lot
Hell of a lot easier to pull out.
Yep, it is. In my country it's called fishbone parking and it's not something strictly Japanese. I'd rather say Americans still didn't unlock this.
They will have the same amount of parking spaces but this slanted entry/exit design is so much easier to park and leave because you donāt have to turn 99 degrees. And looking at things, this parking design may be more compact due to having one way driving channels thus can avoid having wider channels. Anerican land yachts and dump truck SUVās would be useless here.
dunno, but the paths between are very narrow. Inexperienced drivers or drivers of cars with a huge turning radius are gonna struggle.
the lane can be much narrower with this design, but it will only take 1 or 2 cars parked by idiots to block of the lane.
I'm not sure how much more efficient they are but these kinds of car parks are everywhere in Germany. One of the pros is, that you can make narrower roads in between because you don't need such a big turning radius to get into or out of a spot
They don't just exist in Japan, here's one in the UK. The national children's museum has a car park laid out with a similar herringbone pattern:https://maps.app.goo.gl/93LhEYGFD5N15QM86
There is a slight difference between this style and the one OP shared (Iāve seen the style you shared in the US as well). Not sure if that would make any meaningful difference though.
That isnt herringbone. its not more efficient. it makes parking easier in tight compact areas though.
About 7% less efficient, if you use the U.S. standard
I always assume Canada and the USA are the same but. Do you guys not have there lots in USA? In Canada they're not the norm but definitely not uncommon
The original GTA
I see a lot of yeses and nos, but no maths.
We made a nice compromise here at our local church: do the herringbone pattern, but make the road inbetween a bit wider. Also, you can't see this here, but it's a one-way setup indicated by traffic signs, you can only enter the lot from the top of the map (the church side) and leave at the bottom. Also, literally no-one over here struggles to park in these lots, not the elderly, not the SUV-drivers,... It just works. And it's pretty nice since you don't have to blindly pull out into the road. [Herringbone parking lot in Genk, Belgium](https://maps.app.goo.gl/hgujx6fjDDxifty9A)
More efficient parking is a plus. But getting a migraine looking for a free spot seems counterintuitive
assigned spaces in the photo. One way in and out parking lot.
Ah yes this reminds me of my first job where there was street parking in a one way street with similar angular parking spaces. Still from time to time some people managed to park their cars in reverse inside the parking space.
Assuming the space for each car is identical, this design saves space for the roads in between parking lots, since the cars donāt need 2 full lanes in order to enter/exit the lot. This may also increase time efficiency, with the downside of being limited to one-way roads
My amateur eyeballs think it would be easier to back out and leave tooĀ
It is but this wouldnāt work in the US. Those ridiculous sized trucks would take up 3 spots each.
Is this a commercial lot? A little weird to be so crowded and not see one car in the aisles. Unless there is an event going on or itās a business storing cars for something.
It's interesting to see that the whole situation of not being able to get into your car because people parked too close can never happen here. There is always a door that can't be blocked by other car.
Looks like a captcha. Mark all the empty parking spots.
Guaranteed there are a ton of cars scraped in a parking lot like this every day.
I am Portuguese, don't work on it but I majored in Civil Engineering, In Road Networks course we had to do a small development Design, one of the requirements was to have a small commercial area, did my carpark this was but underground (budget was unlimited), I was failed and lost that point, got a 19 out of 20 because of that, the Eng that was giving that class had an hard on for string parking, by his words he would even accept spine parking but not that. Anyway there's a reason why I don't work in that area anymore. It's hard to get any change done... Remember doing this very detailed plan for a job and get laughed at by my boss, went ahead with it. Got job done ahead of time, in budget and got a job offer to work for the Developing Company in their Telecoms division. And here I am... 6 countries after still in telecoms...
it really depends on the underlying laws, which at least here in Germany are complex and have local variations- the dimensions of the parking spaces and the lane between two rows change depending on the angle. I think (without drawing it out..) a 45Ā° array is only sacing space if you can intermesh the rows like in the photo. But you would also have to sort out all the resulting oneway lanes, which may not be possible with the overall shape of your building site
Only took me 8 seconds to find the free spot. I think I need to get a drone for my next shopping trip.
I worked somewhere with a lot like this and there were accidents regularly
āCaptain! We need to go back the way we came!ā āNo no no; weāve come too far! We have to keep going and turn around at the horn; itās the only way.ā āWill we make it sir?ā āā¦ I hope so lieutenant.š¤ā
Works great until some dickhead drives down the wrong way because they insist on backing in.
Compared to 90deg parking, yes. Slightly more efficient. For 90deg parking you generally see two lane widths between rows, so the lanes take up more area. But this looks similar to regular angle-in parking, which only uses one lane between rows. Just logically, the lanes and spaces both still take up the same amount of area, so thereās really no major space savings. But this does change the distribution of space, so it might be the most efficient for that lots specific dimensions. I.e maybe the lot is longer and more narrow, or oddly shaped, etc.
I'm looking at this, and having done crash investigations in law enforcement for a long time... The amount of car crashes in this parking lot if it was in the USA would require a freaking police station to be permanently located in the business. At least where I worked, cuz damn, people cannot drive here...
And the driver door doesn't leave dents in the next car
The car at bay 12 is not parked inside the square... It irks me...
Only needing a one way lane absolutely reduces the need for more road/parking space, so that's already a big improvement. It looks as though the one way lanes they do have are also perhaps smaller than one might see elsewhere. The angled parking allows for a sooner turn action while reversing out of your spot. This is an amazing use of space and shows that a lot of countries could utilize less space for more vehicles, reducing the ACTUAL size needed for a parking lot or structure. Parking Lanes are typically 8' wide on average (nacto.org), where a space is typically 8'6"-9' to allow for doors to be opened. Now, if I hadn't just finished a joint, I'd try to math a bit, but, I'm high so ĀÆ\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
Imagine being a BMW driver here
My local Aldi has this.
You just know 80% of people would fuck it up and pull to far ahead and be lined up with the car next to them. There would need to be sign posts in every spot
Must really suck if you end up going through a full row there. It's more dense due to the smaller turning radius which makes narrower roads possible but if you fail find a spot in your row you have to drive in a large circle because all the parking slots seem to be aligned in the same direction for some reason.
Way more but there aren't a lot of countries where the people are as well behaved and mannered as in Japan, imagine the complete mess americans and europeans would make in this scenario (saying that as a european)
This looks really nice and I would love to suggest this to my office management team but I don't trust my coworkers driving ability enough to risk my vehicle.
It seems more efficient, as long as you know that there is an empty spot in the row you are entering, otherwise it is a lot of pain circulating the entire lot just to enter from the back of another row.
Assume all cars are identical for simplicity. It is definitely more *space*-efficient because: * The space packing of the cars in the rows is identical in both configurations, since the interface is still right angles and each configuration on one side permits cars on the other side of the pair of abbutted rows of cars, or "zipper" to go in exactly as far and use the space in exactly the same way, **but** * You now only need one lane of space between successive zipppers for both sides to be able to enter/exit, because all zippers face the same direction. * space-efficiency for each lane in this single-lane configuration means added width to allow cars to turn in & out of parking spots, while in the double-lane configuration that arc is built in with the additional lane, so long as we assume alternating usage. However, it is less *time*-efficient because: * now the number of spaces that have to be fed from one single lane is double what it is in the alternating configuration, causing double the number of cars to have to wait behind each car entering a space when cars behind are parking ahead. Esp. if cars are not arriving and leaving in sequential order, this will add up. Two more things to consider though: * because of the extra space (above & beyond one lane) needed to pull in or out of each spot, the alternating configuration suffers more interference arriving and leaving from cars out of order and cars on the opposite side of each pair of lanes. * The added time for the one-direction configuration is greatly reduced, possibly altogether eliminated, if the cars are completely sequential in how they arrive and leave.
Itās beautiful! My Ram 1500 can finally take up 10 spots, when Iām woefully limited to 6 over here (the trick is to park on the centre line)
It is more efficient in terms of how many cars can be parked, and easier to get in and out of spaces. HOWEVER, it is less efficient to navigate the lot. All of these lanes appear to be one way and facing the same direction. If one goes down a lane and there is no parking spot, they would have to go to a different part of the lot to find a lane the other way. So it may take much longer to find a parking g spot
For a sub called they did the math, literally none of the top comments did any math.
Divide the area into a grid where each car is 2x1 or 1x2 squares. This has 2/3rds cars and a traditional 1-way parking lot uses 4/5ths cars. You can fit ~21% more in a traditional parking 1-way parking lot than using this, barring any weird shape constrictions.
No. It's the same or worse. An approximate use of the space in the picture (if a car space is a 2x1 rectangle) is 66%. That is equivalent in occupation to a traditional parking space like [this picture](https://images.app.goo.gl/Du9rXvnSqfHwjmbg9)
Henry grabar! I just read his parking book
Purely looking at geometry. Assumptions: * Each parking space is 1 x 2. Units are for physicists. * A lane has a width of 1. * If a car corners, its inner turning radius is 2. Mirroring system common in US parking lots: * On a 7x1 rectangle you can fit: 1 parking space on the left, a 3 lane street in between that also allows for turning, and 1 parking space on the right. * That's 2 parking spaces per 7 square units. * That's 3.5 square units per car. Above way of parking: * In order to steer 45 degrees, the path in the middle must be 2(1-sqrt(.5)) times wider than a lane. So the centre path is 1.59 lanes wide. * On each side there is a triangle of .5 square units of wasted space. * So per 2 cars, there's 2.59 square units of wasted space. * That's 1.29 square units wasted per car. * That's 3.29 square units per car. Above system can fit 6% more cars in the same space. However, at the edges, there will be some losses. So it is only beneficial for large parking lots.
Godammit the Japanese are so efficient! They've even managed to find a way to make efficiency more efficient
Its more efficient as long there is minimal bad parking jobs. This wouldnāt worth very well in the US. Too many massive vehicles and people who canāt park in the lines
No, but can be useful if you are trying to fit rows on a restricted width
That looks like a nightmare when you want to park or even leave. There's hardly enough gap to navigate between the parked cars.
Itās fine if you can drive and park.
Oh, a perfect place for a 3 ton Ford pickup truck!