|Parking has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Civil engineering||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Urban studies and planning||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
Types of Parking
The page currently states that there are 4 types of parking. A few months ago I had contributed an illustration of what the page calls "Anderson parking" because I know it is a real type of parking. The problem is that I do not know that it is actually called "Anderson parking" and I cannot find any official sources mentioning it. (The driving books tend to only mention the first 3 types.) Furthermore, this type of parking is not a self park configuration as the article claims. Hence, I believe I should do two things.
1. The name Anderson parking should be removed even if it is a common knowledge name. (Unless a source can verify it.)
2. This type of parking should be somehow arranged into the segment about ad-hoc parking methods.
38K is too big??? --Dmsar 02:50 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- That isn't the issue - the pixel width of the image is way too big. On standard res screens (800x600) the image pushes the text into a column that has 2 or 3 words per line. That ain't good. --mav 02:55 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Well I've already deleted my copy. IMHO people should use 1024x768 unless they're poor. Is it an easy fix for someone to make it fit? Dmsar 03:06 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- BTW: I'm trying to really make things smaller (images). I just have a hang-up on poor image quality.. Well I'm learning. Dmsar 03:08 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Heph! Dmsar 03:14 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- No problem (although I still need to upgrade Photoshop *grin*)
- Generally anything wider than 500px is, imo, too big for a Wikipedia page. Additionally, things from 300-500px are too wide to use a div float, it's best to center those. For the "larger image" links though I like to go at least 600px wide if possible. That's from trial and error, and consulting with Arpingstone, whom I consider sort of the Wikipedia image guru. :) - Hephaestos 03:19 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I hear those terms (parking structure, parking ramp, etc) used more or less interchangeably in the US. I don't really think they're regional - rather used to differentiate slightly different kinds of facilities and based on an individual's personal preference for a particular term. What do others think? Moncrief, 7 Mar 2004
- I've never heard the term parking ramp anywhere. RickK 05:19, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- How could you not think they're regional? In Minneapolis, everyone says "parking ramp"; in most of the country, no one's heard the term. In California, reportedly everyone says "parking structure", but I reached the age of 40 before hearing it, and then only because I raised the topic of regional variation in terms for such facilities in a forum devoted to English usage. Michael Hardy 21:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I too question some of these terms as regional. I live in the Western US and tend to say "parking garage" for any enclosed parking area, whether it's a surface facility or underground, and "parking structure" does not at all seem colloquial to me. I'm no expert on British vernacular either, but I really doubt that "Multi-storey car park" is common. It's quite a mouthful.--Mncuso 21:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Mouthful or not, it is the standard term.--jrleighton 01:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they're regional, but not so sure of the boundaries between the regions. When I first entered "parking structure" into this article, I said "California", not "western USA". I never heard the term at all until I saw it in a discussion of parking regionalisms on alt.usage.english. I've heard it only from Californians, except that I saw it one on a sign in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Michael Hardy 22:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I have lived in Minneapolis for 8 years - I disagree that Parking Garage emphatically means "indoor". Also, in common usage, Parking Ramp could easily refer to the whole structure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Parking space sizing standard
Around the world, the norm for parking space width seems to be 2.0 metres along roads and 2.3 metres for spaces for side-by-side parking, as in carparks. Yet there seems to be no international standard for these nigh universal widths. How, then, did they become so prevalent? Is there an actual or a de facto standard?
- It is a good question. I cannot provide you a full answer.
- One partial answer is that in France, there is some norm such as NF which provides some guidelines; see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquage_du_stationnement_en_France
- An other partial answer is that in Canada, a 2m60 (Normes applicables à l’aménagement d’un stationnement d’une habitation de 4 logements et plus) seams to be a possible minimum for stationnement wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Arcelor mital makes also a reference to an english norm in regard to permitted tons par square meter. Additionaly it appears they consider 2m50 wide parkings .
- English size is documented in specific article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parking_space
- There is also a Temecula Municipal Code whose describe it in its section 17.24.050 Parking facility layout and dimensions. And in united states, it appears there are various regional standards regulations.
- In UK, the norm appears to be 2m50 wide: www.norfolk.gov.uk/view/ncc055283
- Anywhere, it appears to exist a TSRGD 1032 and 1033, which might give 1.8 meters minimum and 2.7 metres maximum, which appears to be controversial when car manufacturers begin to sold cars wider than the parkings size.
- All this might be possibily integrated in a section of an article. althout there may are various other norms for instance for bicycle or disabled (handicapé) and trucks, also depending whether the parking is public owned, residential, or a commercial facility. At last but not least, in some offices, there is no one car place by employee, due to size constraints.
- Also, an history perspective might provide understanding on why parking dimension is regulated.
I just made up the above name to describe what I have seen in airport and supermarket car parks in Thailand. There, parking begins in a perpendicular manner in paired rows. When these become full, later arrivals form parallel lines next to and therefore blocking in the perpendicular cars. The parallel-parkers leave their handbrakes off (the terrain in most of Thailand is perfectly flat) so that when the blocked-in drivers return to their cars, they can roll the later arrivals out of the way. This is quite amusing for a visitor, and demonstrates a high degree of trust amongst Thai drivers.
- Does anyone know of other countries where this happens? --Heron 2 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
- I have seen the same phenomenon in Delhi, India. --188.8.131.52 20:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Legal definition of parking
The first sentence is very inaccurate and misleading. Legal definition should be
Title XXII: Motor Vehicles
Chapter 316: State Uniform Traffic Control
Section 316.003: Definitions
(27) PARK OR PARKING.--The standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers as may be permitted by law under this chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Legal definitions (especially titles, subtitles, chapters, and sections) vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Hence, we should not cite any specific laws; though it may be worth noting the American differentiation between parking, standing, and stopping. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think such a distinction is actually quite common. In the UK, for example, 'waiting' is used where in North America 'standing' is used. All that typically differs is the terminology. As to the source above: what jurisdiction is it? The definition may be a model one, but it there would probably need to be additional (multiple) references to highlight international uniformity.Synchronism (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that under this legal definition car waiting for the green light qualifies as parked, which doesn't make sense. Therefore, this legal definition is inferior to the common sense based one in this article. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Cite - "Most influential car-parking publication, "Put it in Park, Fellow"
Please cite the following section or it should be removed !!
I can not find any reference to the author or this publication in any library or citation engines such as 'world cat' I also doubt its the 'most influential' -- for whom and for what? Traffic engineers? public officials? anyone? Most influential publications on parking of the that era (1940s) where those by the Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Regulations.
Questionable paragraph: "New York real estate investor, David Augustine Palame, started the country's most influential car-parking publication, "Put it in Park, Fellow", in 1942. The magazine was self-published and only saw three editions ever reach a small readership. The publication sought to remove the stigma from car-parking as a lowly profession, playing up the skill and strategy required for "big city parking". Mr. Palame spent the summer of 1942 living in his automobile and parking in various Manhattan neighborhoods."
- I concur and have deleted it. There is no reference to the author or article outside wikipedia, so its probably made up. Even if not, it would be rejected on notability grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveLoughran (talk •
contribs) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
POV in parking economics section
This section has a very clear anti-car bias. For example, this sentence: "When municipal motor vehicle parking is underpriced and roads are not tolled, the shortfall in tax expenditures by drivers, through gas tax and other taxes amounts to a very large subsidy for automobile use." A subsidy is not the same as the absence of a tax. A tax is not the default state of affairs; taxes are a public policy tool meant to either raise revenue, discourage a particular behavior, or both. Stian (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps "subsidy" is technically the wrong term, but it's pretty clear that the costs of parking exceed the revenue generated. The difference is made up in direct user costs, as well as transfers from other revenue sources such as property, sales and income taxes. As SteveLoughran said, feel free to re-write it, but I think it's too important a topic to blank the section.--Triskele Jim 19:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)