Australia may increase standard car parking spaces to fit the tanks

[Thoglette]

The Guardian reports Australia may increase standard car parking spaces as huge vehicles dominate the streets

The plan is to make them 20cm longer to fit our beloved crewcab uts.

It would be the first change since 1993, when a new Ford Falcon was about 1.86 metres wide and 4.92 metres long.

Today, Australia’s most popular car is the Toyota HiLux dual cab ute, which is about 5.27 metres long – giving it less than 15cm of breathing space in average parking spots.

Some vans and SUVs are even longer – approaching 6 metres – but the authority determined that basing the standard on the HiLux and Ford Ranger would be representative of at least 85% of Australian registered vehicles.

Some wonk Australia say

“Is it smart to accommodate … people … making what I consider to be silly decisions about cars and then demanding we change the urban environment to accommodate their decision? No.

but said that SA would anyway

[am50em]

Unintended consequences:

More alarming is the weight of electric vehicles. Large batteries can mean some EVs are more than a tonne heavier than their combustion-engine counterparts.

“Our car parks aren’t structurally safe for our heavier cars,” Mepham said. He has urged a wholesale review of car park attitudes in Australia and recommends ultimately building fewer of them to nudge commuters on to public and active transport.

[P!N20]

“Our car parks aren’t structurally safe for our heavier cars,” Mepham said.

Any structural engineers in the house? Sounds like **** to me.

[am50em]

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest ... 4-04-2023/

Currently, for simplicity, the installation of charge points tends to be in one location, thus putting all the heavyweight vehicles together, rather than randomly distributed throughout the car park. This could cause overloading in certain areas. Also many vehicle manufacturers have plans to offer fully autonomous vehicles by 2030, which will be capable of parking closer together. As a result, the loading on car park decks will further increase.

The increase in loading has significant implications for existing car parks, especially older ones which may have been weakened by structural deterioration or have issues of concern. Should the structure fail, it would be difficult to blame the owner or driver of the vehicle and the onus would be on the owner/operator of the car park to ensure that it is safe.

Also
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/o ... cle-weight

[brumby33]

If they're going to go down this Path, maybe a congestion tax to accommodate these tanks.

Lets face it, these RAMs, Silverados and even some of the Asian and European Utes are now growing in size to the point that they cannot fit in ordinary parking areas whether on the road or in parking locations, and are not cheap vehicles to buy or own so if people can afford these behemoths, then they can afford to pay extra to accommodate them.

Even an ordinary Ford Ranger or Toyota Hilux ute, if they have a bull bar and a huge tow bar assembly are a very long vehicle and quite wide if they have oversize mud tyres.

It's not being discriminating at all, just making them pay their share of space provided for them.

brumby33

[Mr Purple]

“Our car parks aren’t structurally safe for our heavier cars,” Mepham said.

Any structural engineers in the house? Sounds like **** to me.

No, this does not surprise me in the slightest. Consider when the car parks were made the average vehicle weight would have been well over 1500kg, and a lot of them especially the EVs are well over 2000kg now. The margins were unlikely to be that high.

Also bizarrely people are often so overweight themselves these days that it's not that difficult to exceed the GVM of some cars with a bunch of heavy passengers and some luggage.

I think it's all linked. More people (over 60% of the population) are overweight. So they buy bigger cars because they're easier to get in and out of (plus accommodate for their various injuries caused by being overweight). Personally the fact I didn't fit in my car would cause me to think 'I should lose weight' rather than just buy a bigger car but we're clearly in the minority now.

Weird progression. People are bigger so buy bigger cars, which now need bigger parking spaces. What annoys me most about this is that a lot of these massive cars get tax breaks. We should be absolutely taxing the oblivion out of them. It'd be easy to do - even keeping it fair with exemptions for big families and rural buyers. Of course everyone thinks they need a massive SUV 'because of country driving' despite having an inner city postcode.

[elantra]

“Our car parks aren’t structurally safe for our heavier cars,” Mepham said.

Any structural engineers in the house? Sounds like **** to me.

Easy problem to fix - just make each Parking space proportionally bigger so that the total loading on the structure won’t be greater.

And then we might have to build more car parks-
Yeah, nah.

Yes just about every “car” these days is heaps heavier than when the boom in buildings big Shopping centres started in the late 1960’s
My first “car” was a 1970 Toyota Corona. It weighed 970 kg - less than a Ton !
My current “car” is a 2015 Holden Colorado 7-seater. Weighs 2,100kg. !! Just over 2 ton. !!!
And the average recent model dual cab 4WD ute with all the bells and whistles weighs considerably more than this, as do many of the new EV’s.

As for Congestion Tax - well I spose we already have that, we just don’t call it for what it is.
Time is money- in so many ways- and the current levels of traffic congestion in many parts of metropolitan Australia is like a default congestion tax.
It is a form of Congestion Tax which our politicians love because they are not going to get caned for it in the polls.
But it is a form of “tax” in so far as it does cost us time and money and it does restrict our use of the roads.
In places like Brisbane, cyclists and public transport users are a blessing to the city because without these types of commuters, the roadspace would be more gridlocked than it already is.

[bychosis]

Unintended consequences:

More alarming is the weight of electric vehicles. Large batteries can mean some EVs are more than a tonne heavier than their combustion-engine counterparts.

“Our car parks aren’t structurally safe for our heavier cars,” Mepham said. He has urged a wholesale review of car park attitudes in Australia and recommends ultimately building fewer of them to nudge commuters on to public and active transport.

Most EVs are more like 200-300kg heavier than comparable ICE. Some of the stupidly big battery models are more like 500kg heavier. The F150 lightning is apparently 1000lbs heavier than a regular F150. (According to 5min looking at google)

Our more common larger SUVs are already 2t. A lot heavier than the 70s falcon. Yes, 300kg per vehicle is going to add up over a whole carpark, but it’s not as bad as it sounds in that quote.

[am50em]

Yes I think it is really older car parks in poor repair that are the concern and centralising charging bays.
But then there are the stupidly large EVs ...

Other models that may eventually find their way to Australia such as the GMC Hummer EV weigh over 4000kg, which makes its GVWR an incredible 4800kg. The battery pack alone weighs over 1300kg, about the weight of a small car equipped with an internal-combustion engine.

The RAM 1500 REV we saw in New York last week (confirmed for Australia) has a gigantic 229kWh battery and is expected to have a kerb weight of over 4000kg, which would make its GVWR even higher than the Hummer.

https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/o ... cle-weight

[bychosis]

I hope we don’t get those stupidly large EVs. Although I suspect there’s going to be some cars with stupidly big batteries because apparently everyone has to have 1000km of range if they don’t have that much range they’ll never be able to complete their 30km round trip commute in 10km/h traffic while dreaming of driving to Uluṟu without stopping for a feed or a toilet.

[g-boaf]

Yes I think it is really older car parks in poor repair that are the concern and centralising charging bays.
But then there are the stupidly large EVs ...

Other models that may eventually find their way to Australia such as the GMC Hummer EV weigh over 4000kg, which makes its GVWR an incredible 4800kg. The battery pack alone weighs over 1300kg, about the weight of a small car equipped with an internal-combustion engine.

The RAM 1500 REV we saw in New York last week (confirmed for Australia) has a gigantic 229kWh battery and is expected to have a kerb weight of over 4000kg, which would make its GVWR even higher than the Hummer.

https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/o ... cle-weight

Does it do 2 seconds to 100km/h? Would make it an ideal urban battleship to take on other rivals.


These things are ridiculous:

https://www.ramtrucks.com.au/vehicles/1 ... trackingme

Surely a small 4WD light truck would do the job better. But wouldn’t be so cool at the local pub for showing off to the mates.

[bychosis]

Those rams are hopeless compared to a truck if you want to carry stuff. They aren’t even rated for a tonne in the bed. There’s a reason only the boss has a ram in any ‘work fleet’. Everyone else has a standard ute or a light truck.

[redsonic]

There is straight-in parking near me, right up against a footpath. With a lot of construction going on lately, the footpath has been pretty much un-useable with all the huge tradie's utes reversed in; trays and towing set-ups overhanging the walking space. The more you look for unthinking, car-centric design, it seems the more you find.

[am50em]

. The more you look for unthinking, car-centric design, it seems the more you find.

I don't even have to look!

[Andy01]

It doesn't surprise me that some are suggesting making carparks bigger.

What does surprise me is that there is apparently a "standard" and that the suggested increase is length, not width.

I have an Outback and I weigh 64kg, so I don't require the door to be fully open to get in and out, which isn't huge but the number of times I see carparks that are so ridiculously narrow that I would struggle get out of the car. Other places (even in the same shopping centre) have carparks that are perfectly adequate - I am yet to see any evidence of an (enforced) standard.

It seems that often shopping centre management just paint the lines a bit closer to jam in a few extra spaces - a bit like budget airline seats.

About 14 years ago I visited a Target shopping centre in Denver, Colorado on a work trip, and I was astonished at the size of parking spaces - they were like extra long 1½ garages each. I parked next to a Ford F350 (the one with the double wheels at the back), and it fitted easily with room to spare. I was driving a Lincoln Town car (larger than a Commodore) and it swung into the parking bay like I was parking solo in a double garage.

Ford F350 - 6760 x 2438 x 2057mm

[JPB]

What does surprise me is that there is apparently a "standard" and that the suggested increase is length, not width.

Same, my first thought was width.

[bychosis]

We have a Costco nearby. Their parking spaces are all ‘standard width’ but have a wide double line between each space so in effect it’s extra wide. Makes it really easy to get their stupid oversized troleys around! Also makes it a lot harder to hit your door on the next vehicle.

[familyguy]

It doesn't surprise me that some are suggesting making carparks bigger.

What does surprise me is that there is apparently a "standard" and that the suggested increase is length, not width.

I have an Outback and I weigh 64kg, so I don't require the door to be fully open to get in and out, which isn't huge but the number of times I see carparks that are so ridiculously narrow that I would struggle get out of the car. Other places (even in the same shopping centre) have carparks that are perfectly adequate - I am yet to see any evidence of an (enforced) standard.

It seems that often shopping centre management just paint the lines a bit closer to jam in a few extra spaces - a bit like budget airline seats.

The AS2890 series covers it all. Enlightening reading. Usage categories determine minimum width and length of spaces related each, wheel stops, overhangs, ramps, etc. AS/NZS2890.1:2004 is the one you want to find.

As for shopping centres, their usage category should give the widest space dimension, unless someone plays a bit fast and loose and categorises them differently. Immediately save 100mm width per space. Over the run of 25 spaces that's an additional car. Multiply that by 50 or 100 for a big centre and you're gaining cars at a great rate. As for who enforces it and penalises if it's not as per standard, that's anyones guess. So guess who takes the risk on classification and never seems to lose?

Another 200mm length and 100mm width minimum is probably needed.

[Cyclophiliac]

Making parking spaces bigger to accommodate larger cars seems to me to be a lot like making our freeways wider to accommodate more traffic. We should instead be forcing car manufacturers to build reasonably sized cars. Again, it seems Australia is just blindly following the USA.

[fat and old]

are not cheap vehicles to buy or own so if people can afford these behemoths, then they can afford to pay extra to accommodate them.


It's not being discriminating at all, just making them pay their share of space provided for them.

brumby33

You sure that's not discriminatory? Justifying the capacity to pay on the material worth of the vehicle? Slippery slope. What about the Landrover Defender owner? $150-250k worth? Landcruiser twin cabs at 150k+++? Any number of high end exotica and not so exotic?

Consider when the car parks were made the average vehicle weight would have been well over 1500kg, and a lot of them especially the EVs are well over 2000kg now. The margins were unlikely to be that high

You can't build a structure like that based on an "average". It's designed and constructed with an "ultimate" load in mind, then a safety margin added on. What that is depends on the designed use.

[familyguy]

are not cheap vehicles to buy or own so if people can afford these behemoths, then they can afford to pay extra to accommodate them.


It's not being discriminating at all, just making them pay their share of space provided for them.

brumby33

You sure that's not discriminatory? Justifying the capacity to pay on the material worth of the vehicle? Slippery slope. What about the Landrover Defender owner? $150-250k worth? Landcruiser twin cabs at 150k+++? Any number of high end exotica and not so exotic?

Not at all. It's the Finnish Speeding Ticket theorem. If you are spending $150k on a Defender (P.S. you're mad to start with) then the storage of same is a cost of your ownership and your personal wealth behind that is immaterial. Even if you're leasing it at a reduced cost, the RRP of the vehicle should absolutely enter into consideration. It won't always target the exact users intended, there will be outliers on each side of the curve.

We do it now with registration of heavier vehicles and weight/size toll pricing schemes on freeways.

Consider when the car parks were made the average vehicle weight would have been well over 1500kg, and a lot of them especially the EVs are well over 2000kg now. The margins were unlikely to be that high

You can't build a structure like that based on an "average". It's designed and constructed with an "ultimate" load in mind, then a safety margin added on. What that is depends on the designed use.

And live load v dead load? e.g. you can drive a scissor lift across a timber floor, but you can't park it one place for long? Deflections might be amplified but still within limits, it will be the cycles of deflections that might increase and shorten the safe working lifespan of a structure.

[g-boaf]

are not cheap vehicles to buy or own so if people can afford these behemoths, then they can afford to pay extra to accommodate them.


It's not being discriminating at all, just making them pay their share of space provided for them.

brumby33

You sure that's not discriminatory? Justifying the capacity to pay on the material worth of the vehicle? Slippery slope. What about the Landrover Defender owner? $150-250k worth? Landcruiser twin cabs at 150k+++? Any number of high end exotica and not so exotic?

Consider when the car parks were made the average vehicle weight would have been well over 1500kg, and a lot of them especially the EVs are well over 2000kg now. The margins were unlikely to be that high

You can't build a structure like that based on an "average". It's designed and constructed with an "ultimate" load in mind, then a safety margin added on. What that is depends on the designed use.

Defenders probably cheaper than the Landcruiser double-cabs at $250-300k. It's crazy...

[Mr Purple]

Not at all. It's the Finnish Speeding Ticket theorem. If you are spending $150k on a Defender (P.S. you're mad to start with) then the storage of same is a cost of your ownership and your personal wealth behind that is immaterial. Even if you're leasing it at a reduced cost, the RRP of the vehicle should absolutely enter into consideration. It won't always target the exact users intended, there will be outliers on each side of the curve.

We do it now with registration of heavier vehicles and weight/size toll pricing schemes on freeways.

My theory was that danger is not only linked with speed but with momentum. So we should set speeding fines based on momentum.

You get done doing 20km/hr over the limit in a 2.5T SUV you pay twice as much as a small hatchback.

Well my original theory was that the speed limits should also be based on car size but that would make my Mini the fastest car in town.

[brumby33]

are not cheap vehicles to buy or own so if people can afford these behemoths, then they can afford to pay extra to accommodate them.


It's not being discriminating at all, just making them pay their share of space provided for them.

brumby33

You sure that's not discriminatory? Justifying the capacity to pay on the material worth of the vehicle? Slippery slope. What about the Landrover Defender owner? $150-250k worth? Landcruiser twin cabs at 150k+++? Any number of high end exotica and not so exotic?

Consider when the car parks were made the average vehicle weight would have been well over 1500kg, and a lot of them especially the EVs are well over 2000kg now. The margins were unlikely to be that high

You can't build a structure like that based on an "average". It's designed and constructed with an "ultimate" load in mind, then a safety margin added on. What that is depends on the designed use.

Yep....all those behemoths you mentioned and then some......even watched a Hilux dual cab ute, raised with big tires, trying to park in a shopping centre carpark this arvo, with the crappy turning circle those things have, he must have had 8 goes at parking in an ordinary carpark. They are impractical for every day use.

[Andy01]

It doesn't surprise me that some are suggesting making carparks bigger.

What does surprise me is that there is apparently a "standard" and that the suggested increase is length, not width.

I have an Outback and I weigh 64kg, so I don't require the door to be fully open to get in and out, which isn't huge but the number of times I see carparks that are so ridiculously narrow that I would struggle get out of the car. Other places (even in the same shopping centre) have carparks that are perfectly adequate - I am yet to see any evidence of an (enforced) standard.

It seems that often shopping centre management just paint the lines a bit closer to jam in a few extra spaces - a bit like budget airline seats.

The AS2890 series covers it all. Enlightening reading. Usage categories determine minimum width and length of spaces related each, wheel stops, overhangs, ramps, etc. AS/NZS2890.1:2004 is the one you want to find.

As for shopping centres, their usage category should give the widest space dimension, unless someone plays a bit fast and loose and categorises them differently. Immediately save 100mm width per space. Over the run of 25 spaces that's an additional car. Multiply that by 50 or 100 for a big centre and you're gaining cars at a great rate. As for who enforces it and penalises if it's not as per standard, that's anyones guess. So guess who takes the risk on classification and never seems to lose?

Another 200mm length and 100mm width minimum is probably needed.

Mmmmm, interesting. According to the standard, shopping centre parkings should be classified as 3A.

Parkings at 90°designated 3A should be 2.6m wide and 5.4m long. I call BS on every shopping centre I have visited in Brisbane/Gold Coast etc in the last 20 years.

Scenario - 3 parking bays each with a Subaru Outback (decent sized car at 4870L x 1875W) parking exactly in the middle of the parking space. The centre car should have 725mm between it's mirrors and the mirror's of the car on each side, or 960mm door to door (I have just measured mine in the garage) - almost a full metre between cars - never happens. This should allow me to open both front doors almost full extent.

A standard shopping trolley is 560mm wide so this should easily allow trolleys to be taken between cars with plenty of room to spare (should get two abreast with smaller cars). I usually put the shopping bags behind my driver's seat to stop it flying around in the back of the wagon, and in most places I am hard pressed neatly fitting the trolley between the car doors (which should be almost a metre), never mind the mirrors.

I cannot remember last when I was able to open one door that far never mind both doors. I am aware that many (most) cars don't park exactly in the middle, but usually I am grateful that my wife and I are fairly slim otherwise we would struggle to get out, with similarly sized cars next to me.

I would suggest that the average parking bay is probably closer to 2.4m wide, and some are probably under 2.3m wide. My wife has a little i30 and she weighs 48kg, and she regularly complains about having space to open the door at our smaller suburban centre, and the small centre where our doctor is.