Article

A Multi-Objective Approach for Optimizing Aisle Widths in

Underground Parking
Igor Kabashkin 1, * , Alua Kulmurzina 2 , Assel Zhandarbekova 2 , Zura Sansyzbayeva 3 and Timur Sultanov 3

1 Engineering Faculty, Transport and Telecommunication Institute, Lauvas 2, LV-1019 Riga, Latvia
2 LLP “Universal Tech Decisions”, Kabanbay Batyr Avenue 53/42, Astana KZ-10000, Kazakhstan
3 Faculty of Transport and Energy, Eurasian National University, Satpajeva 2, Astana KZ-10000, Kazakhstan
* Correspondence: kiv@[Link]

Abstract: This study presents a multi-objective optimization approach for determining

optimal aisle widths in underground parking facilities, balancing vehicle maneuverabil-
ity against parking capacity. The research methodology integrates geometric modeling,
computational simulations, and empirical validation to establish evidence-based recom-
mendations for aisle width design. Through systematic testing of aisle widths ranging from
4.5 to 6.0 m across various vehicle types, the study identifies 5.0–5.5 m as the optimal range
that maximizes both objectives for modern vehicle fleets. Geometric modeling establishes
theoretical minimum widths based on vehicle turning radii, while software simulations
quantify maneuverability metrics including parking success rates, time requirements, and
collision probabilities. Physical testing in operational underground parking facilities vali-
dates these findings through controlled experiments with drivers of varying experience
levels. The research demonstrates that aisle widths below 5.0 m significantly compromise
maneuverability, particularly for larger vehicles, while widths exceeding 5.5 m provide neg-
ligible additional benefits while reducing capacity. A case study application in Kazakhstan,
examining regional vehicle distributions and regulatory frameworks, confirms the model’s
practical utility. The findings suggest that current parking standards in some regions may
require revision to accommodate changing vehicle dimensions. This optimization frame-
work provides urban planners, architects and engineers with a data-driven methodology
Academic Editor: Youssef Diab
for designing underground parking facilities that enhance both user experience and space
utilization efficiency.
Received: 6 March 2025
Revised: 10 April 2025
Accepted: 18 April 2025
Keywords: parking facility design; aisle width optimization; underground parking; multi-
Published: 21 April 2025 objective optimization; geometric modeling; parking simulation; collision risk; parking
Citation: Kabashkin, I.; Kulmurzina,
efficiency
A.; Zhandarbekova, A.; Sansyzbayeva,
Z.; Sultanov, T. A Multi-Objective
Approach for Optimizing Aisle Widths
in Underground Parking. Infrastructures 1. Introduction
2025, 10, 100. [Link]
1.1. Background and Motivation
10.3390/infrastructures10040100
The rising density of urban development, coupled with the ever-increasing number
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
and variety of private vehicles, has intensified the demand for efficient parking solutions [1].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article Underground parking structures are becoming more prevalent as they conserve ground-
distributed under the terms and level space for other commercial or public uses [2]. Despite their growing importance, the
conditions of the Creative Commons design of underground parking facilities remains a complex challenge. A critical element
Attribution (CC BY) license in this design process is determining the optimal distance between opposing parking rows.
([Link]
If the distance (or aisle width) is set too wide, the parking structure uses up valuable
licenses/by/4.0/).

Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 [Link]

Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 2 of 36

floor area, resulting in fewer total spaces—a less profitable or less serviceable outcome.
Conversely, if the distance is too narrow, drivers, especially those with larger vehicles or
limited maneuvering skills, face difficulty navigating tight turns and stalls.
Vehicle dimensions have been steadily growing. Sports utility vehicles and pickup
trucks making up a larger portion of urban fleets, yet not all parking guidelines account
for these trends. As a result, existing standard practices might not reflect current vehicle
distributions or the diversity of driver abilities.
There is a pressing need for a systematic, data-driven study to determine how best to
optimize the spacing between parking rows in underground facilities. By examining ease
of maneuvering as an indicator of user satisfaction and safety alongside total capacity as
key factor in both economic feasibility and public benefit, this research aims to provide
clear, actionable guidance for future parking structure designs. Ultimately, such insights
can enhance driver experience, minimize the incidence of parking-related collisions, and
help developers maximize the utility of limited underground space.

1.2. Related Works

Many guidelines and standards address aisle widths for 90◦ parking because they
directly impact vehicle maneuverability and user safety. The recommended dimensions
help ensure smooth turning paths, reduce the risk of collisions, and provide enough space
for fire or emergency services when needed.
Table 1 outlines typical aisle width ranges under various national and international
standards. It also highlights that local building and planning authorities often adapt
or refine these baseline recommendations to suit specific conditions in underground or
multi-level parking garages.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 3 of 36

Table 1. National and international standards on parking aisle width ranges.

Standard/Guideline Typical Aisle Width (ft) Typical Aisle Width (m) Notes Reference
IBC itself does not specify a
IBC (International 22–24 ft ~6.7–7.3 m strict dimension. Local codes [3]
Building Code, US) typically require 22–24 ft for
90◦ stalls.
Emphasizes clearances for
No direct spec.
NFPA 88A (Parking emergency vehicles &
(Focus on fire/emergency No direct spec. [4]
Structures, US) occupant egress; does not
access)
prescribe exact aisle width.
Common references for
municipal parking
ITE/APA (US Planning &
~20–24 ft ~6.1–7.3 m requirements; 22 ft often used [5]
Traffic Eng.)
as a standard minimum for
90◦ .
IStructE “Design
Typical guidance for standard
Recommendations for
Multi-storey and ~19.7 ft ~6.0 m cars; can vary if columns or [6]
Underground Car Parks” structural elements reduce
effective turning space.
(UK)
Best-practice guidance rather
British Parking than a strict standard; often
~19.7 ft ~6.0 m [7]
Association (BPA) (UK) aligns with local authority
requirements.
Offers Europe-wide “best
European Parking practice” guidelines; local
~19.7–21.3 ft ~6.0–6.5 m [8]
Association (EPA) (EU) building codes may require
slightly different widths.
NBC does not specify exact
National Building Code of aisle widths; most
~19.7–24 ft (in local bylaws) ~6.0–7.3 m (in local bylaws) provinces/municipalities set [9]
Canada (NBC)
ranges in their zoning bylaws.
Primarily address accessible
Accessibility Regulations stall widths & adjacent
(ADA in US, BS 8300 in Varies Varies [10,11]
UK, etc.) transfer aisles; can indirectly
affect overall layout.

Most codes and standards do not provide a single, universal number but rather defer
to local zoning, traffic engineering guidelines, or best-practice documents. For 90◦ parking,
a common range is around 6.0–7.3 m (20–24 ft).
Research on aisle widths in underground parking typically spans multiple disciplines—
architecture, structural engineering, traffic engineering, and human factors. One
common thread in the literature is the trade-off between space efficiency and user
safety/convenience.
Study [12] introduces a novel concept of parking comfort and develops a quantitative
calculation model to address the challenge of evaluating parking comfort across numerous
spaces in underground garages. The model operates by analyzing potential collision points
throughout the parking process, establishing coordinate relationships between vehicle
collision points and environmental obstacles to generate specific comfort values.
Through examining Hangzhou as a case study, study [13] investigates how achieving
equilibrium between road infrastructure and vehicle resources while optimizing parking
allocation can support urban growth and improve transportation accessibility.
Study [14] presents a dual-phase research methodology to analyze parking patterns
and enhance parking space distribution. The first phase develops a hierarchical framework
of parking lots, zones, and berths to evaluate parking characteristics through metrics
including saturation, turnover, and duration, the second phase introduces a nonlinear
optimization model.
A method integrating automated planning with manual adjustments is proposed
in [15] to address escalating parking challenges caused by increasing vehicle usage, focusing
on optimizing existing parking facility utilization. The approach segments parking lots into
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 4 of 36

optimal rectangular zones, applying automatic planning to each section to maximize space
efficiency, followed by manual refinements to account for obstacles and maintain necessary
access routes. This methodology is supported by a mathematical optimization model, with
its practical effectiveness demonstrated through case study validation, offering a systematic
solution to enhance parking space distribution and utilization in existing facilities.
The growing disparity between parking demand and availability in urban central
business districts necessitates the development of underground parking systems to reduce
surface traffic congestion. Study [16] examines key planning components for these systems,
including hierarchical organization, capacity determination, access point placement, and
internal traffic flow management.
Urban complexes above subway stations, encompassing diverse functions like residen-
tial, office, and commercial spaces, present unique opportunities for shared parking due to
their varying peak usage times. Study [17] examines parking demand patterns and user
behavior to develop a predictive model incorporating shared parking concepts for more
efficient approach to parking space allocation in mixed-use transit-oriented developments.
Study [18] presents comprehensive models for autonomous vehicle navigation at low
speeds, focusing on parking and docking maneuvers within confined spaces. Utilizing
kinematic vehicle models due to low-speed operations, the study examines three vehi-
cle types: passenger cars, long wheelbase trucks, and articulated vehicles with variable
steering configurations.
Through analysis of existing parking management research and evaluation of simula-
tion modeling applications, one study [19] proposes a decision support system incorporat-
ing intelligent parking management solutions with environmental considerations.
Paper [20] develops guidelines for optimizing parking space dimensions based on
design vehicle specifications. The study introduces and defines the concept of a “design
vehicle,” establishing optimal parameters and proposing a standardized template for
parking space design, ultimately providing practical recommendations for transportation
infrastructure planning that can be applied in various urban contexts.
Study [21] examines the inadequacy of current parking space standards, which have
not kept pace with the significant increase in passenger vehicle dimensions over the past
three decades. Using Croatia as a case study, where there has been substantial growth
in mid-sized and large vehicle ownership, the research presents an analytical methodol-
ogy that considers the nation’s vehicle registration data to determine reference vehicle
dimensions. The study then combines these reference measurements with ergonomic
requirements to propose updated parking space standards, offering both specific recom-
mendations for Croatian parking design and a replicable analytical framework that can be
applied to parking space standardization in other regions.
Study [22] addresses the growing challenges of parking organization in modern multi-
story residential developments, where insufficient planning leads to disorganized vehicle
parking that encroaches on green spaces, playgrounds, and access routes. The study aims
to optimize parking space organization in densely populated residential areas, focusing
specifically on maximizing the efficient use of available courtyard space.
Architectural layout configuration for underground parking is often constrained by
complex factors such as site conditions and design requirements, leading to reduced
design efficiency. Study [23] presents a design tool that leverages site information to
produce practical reference solutions for underground parking layouts. By extracting spatial
modules and translating design constraints into adjacency rules, the research develops a
generation and optimization model.
Study [24] analyzes smart parking systems from a technical standpoint by provid-
ing a comprehensive overview of smart parking technologies, the study classifies these
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 5 of 36

systems within the broader category of vehicular detection technologies and explores
communication modules in detail.
While individual studies provide valuable insights into specific aspects of parking de-
sign, a broader synthesis reveals several recurring themes. First, much of the literature high-
lights the importance of balancing space efficiency with user safety and maneuverability—
especially as urban vehicle sizes grow, and parking becomes increasingly constrained.
Second, several contributions integrate simulation or optimization techniques, yet relatively
few studies combine these with real-world validation. Third, there is a notable regional gap,
as most studies are concentrated in urban areas in China, the EU, or North America, with
limited empirical focus on Central Asian contexts like Kazakhstan. These patterns collec-
tively suggest that a unified, multi-objective optimization framework—validated through
simulation and empirical testing—remains underexplored. This paper seeks to address
that gap by combining geometric modeling, simulation-based performance assessment,
and physical testing in a Central Asian case study.

1.3. Research Gap, Contributions and Paper Structure

The design of underground parking facilities, particularly the optimization of aisle
width, has been addressed in numerous guidelines and studies. However, existing research
often lacks a comprehensive, multi-objective approach that systematically balances vehicle
maneuverability with parking capacity. Many national and international standards define
broad aisle width recommendations but do not provide a detailed, data-driven methodol-
ogy for determining the optimal range based on real-world vehicle behavior. Additionally,
prior studies have primarily focused on geometric modeling or empirical observations,
with limited integration of computational simulations and controlled physical testing.
Most parking standards have not been updated to account for evolving vehicle dimen-
sions, especially the increasing prevalence of SUVs and pickup trucks in urban environ-
ments. Existing regulations may still adhere to outdated vehicle size distributions, leading
to aisle widths that compromise either parking capacity or maneuverability. Previous stud-
ies have also largely overlooked regional variations in vehicle distributions and regulatory
frameworks, limiting their applicability to diverse urban environments.
This study addresses these gaps by integrating geometric modeling, software-based
simulations, and empirical validation to develop a data-driven approach for aisle width
optimization in underground parking facilities. Unlike prior research, which often focuses
on a single aspect of parking design, this study considers both maneuverability constraints
and parking capacity trade-offs in a unified framework. Additionally, the case study
application in Kazakhstan ensures that the findings are not only theoretically sound but
also practically relevant to urban planners, architects, and engineers working in diverse
regulatory environments.
The primary contributions of this study are as follows:
• Development of a multi-objective optimization framework which presents a novel
methodology that systematically balances vehicle maneuverability and parking ca-
pacity by integrating geometric modeling, computational simulations, and empirical
testing. This approach allows for a more precise determination of optimal aisle widths
than conventional regulatory guidelines.
• Unlike previous studies that rely solely on theoretical models or simulations, this research
incorporates real-world parking trials using a diverse fleet of vehicles. The findings
confirm the feasibility and practicality of the proposed aisle width recommendations.
• Identification of an optimal aisle width range through a systematic analysis of maneu-
verability metrics, including parking success rates, time requirements, and collision
probabilities.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 6 of 36

• Application to a real-world case study ensures that the findings are grounded in real-
world conditions and can serve as a guideline for policymakers, urban planners, and
transportation engineers.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the conceptual
framework and research methodology, detailing the geometric modeling, software-based
simulations, and empirical validation processes used to optimize aisle width. Section 3
presents the findings from each stage of the research, including geometric modeling out-
comes, simulation-based maneuverability metrics, physical testing results, and case study
applications. Section 4 interprets the results, compares them with existing parking reg-
ulations, discusses study limitations, and outlines potential future research directions.
Section 5 summarizes the key findings and their implications for underground parking de-
sign, offering practical recommendations for engineers, urban planners, and policymakers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Conceptual Model & Theoretical Framework
The conceptual model and theoretical framework of this study are built upon the
fundamental principles of parking design optimization, integrating geometric modeling,
computational simulations, and empirical validation to develop an optimal approach for
aisle width determination in underground parking facilities. The model is structured
around two key objectives: ensuring maneuverability for different vehicle types while
maximizing parking capacity within spatial constraints.
At the core of this framework is the geometric modeling component, which establishes
the fundamental relationships between aisle width, vehicle turning radii, and required
clearance for successful parking maneuvers. The model incorporates Ackermann steering
geometry [25], which governs vehicle turning behavior, along with swept path analysis to
determine the minimum space required for different vehicle classes, including compact
cars, sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks. These theoretical calculations provide the first set of
constraints for defining aisle width limits, ensuring that vehicles can enter and exit parking
stalls with minimal corrective maneuvers.
Building upon this foundation, the study integrates software-based simulations to
analyze vehicle dynamics in real-time parking scenarios. Using tools such as AutoTURN-
2024 [26] and ParkCAD-2024 [27] the conceptual model simulates driver behavior, trajectory
adjustments, and potential collision risks under varying aisle width configurations. This
simulation-based approach refines the initial geometric constraints by incorporating real-
world driving variability, such as driver hesitation, multi-step corrections, and reaction
times, which cannot be captured purely through theoretical calculations. The results from
these simulations provide quantitative maneuverability metrics, including parking success
rate, time required for parking, number of reversing attempts, and collision probability,
which are essential for validating the theoretical framework.
The final component of the framework involves empirical validation through physical
testing in real underground parking facilities. This phase ensures that the conceptual model
is not only mathematically robust but also practically feasible. By conducting controlled
parking trials across different aisle widths and vehicle types, the study collects real-world
maneuverability data, refining the maneuverability function within the optimization model.
This empirical testing phase provides critical insights into driver adaptability, environmen-
tal influences (e.g., column placements, ramp gradients), and actual parking success rates,
which help fine-tune the theoretical predictions and simulation results.
By combining geometric modeling, computational simulations, and empirical valida-
tion, the conceptual model ensures that the optimal aisle width recommendations are both
data-driven and applicable to real-world parking infrastructure (Table 2).
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 7 of 36

Table 2. Key components of the study.

Study Component Use in Research

Establish theoretical aisle width requirements based on turning radii and vehicle sizes. Validate
Geometric Modeling
mathematical formulation of E( x ) and N ( x ).
Test aisle widths in a controlled virtual environment. Compare failure rates, maneuvering time, and
Software Simulations
clearance distances. Generate parking trajectory visualizations for study.
Provide real-world validation of theoretical and simulated results. Identify critical widths where user
Physical Testing
experience declines. Ensure recommendations are practical and usable.
Compare results with existing standards and propose updates if needed. Support practical policy
Regulatory Analysis
recommendations for urban planning.

The theoretical framework integrates mathematical modeling, dynamic simulations,

and empirical testing to create a multi-objective optimization model, balancing maneu-
verability and capacity while aligning with urban planning standards and engineering
best practices. This approach provides a scientifically validated foundation for improving
underground parking layouts, ensuring that aisle width recommendations enhance both
usability and efficiency in parking facility design.

2.2. Data Collection

The data collection process for this study was designed to ensure a comprehensive,
evidence-based approach to optimizing underground parking aisle widths.

2.2.1. Sources of Data

To achieve reliable and practical insights, the study gathered data from three primary
sources.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 8 of 36

1. Geometric Modeling Data

Geometric modeling was conducted to determine the minimum required aisle width
for different vehicle types based on their turning radii, wheelbase lengths, and approach
angles. These data were derived from:
• Manufacturer vehicle specifications (length, width, turning radius).
• CAD-based modeling (AutoCAD and Revit 2024) to graphically simulate vehicle
movement and clearance zones.
• Mathematical calculations of swept path and turning envelopes, identifying the mini-
mum space required for successful parking maneuvers.
2. Software-Based Simulation Data
Simulation data were collected using specialized software applications to test parking
scenarios under controlled digital conditions. This included:
• AutoTURN Online for simulated turning paths and vehicle clearance in parking
layouts.
• ParkCAD 4.0 for optimized stall arrangements and measured efficiency in space
utilization.
• Revit + Dynamo Scripts for tested 3D parking layouts and clearance zones dynamically.
The simulation results provided empirical maneuverability metrics for various aisle
widths, including:
• Success rate—part of vehicles parked without additional maneuvers.
• Time to park—the duration required to complete a parking maneuver.
• Number of reversing attempts as additional adjustments needed due to space
constraints.
• Collision risk—probability of hitting adjacent vehicles or obstacles.
3. Physical Testing Data
Real-world testing was conducted in operational underground parking facilities to
validate geometric and simulation findings. Data were collected by performing controlled
parking tests at aisle widths of 4.5 m, 5.0 m, 5.5 m, and 6.0 m, using a diverse fleet of
vehicles. Key parameters recorded during physical testing included:
• Parking success rates for different vehicle classes.
• Observed driver corrections and overcorrections due to insufficient space.
• Time taken per parking attempt to assess efficiency.
• Maneuverability constraints near structural elements such as columns and ramps.
• The physical testing phase helped refine the maneuverability function E(x) by incorpo-
rating actual driver behavior, error rates, and real-world space limitations.

2.2.2. Summary of Vehicle Fleet and Parking Standards

The study considered a representative sample of vehicle types, ensuring that the results
were applicable to diverse urban traffic compositions. The test fleet and key dimensions
used for modeling and validation are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Vehicle fleet characteristics.

Vehicle Type Example Models Turning Radius Length Width

Compact Cars Toyota Corolla, VW Golf 5.2–5.5 m 4.2–4.6 m 1.75–1.80 m
Sedans Toyota Camry, Honda Accord 5.5–5.8 m 4.7–5.0 m 1.80–1.85 m
SUVs Haval Dargo, Toyota RAV4 5.8–6.3 m 4.7–5.2 m 1.85–1.95 m
Pickups Toyota Hilux, Ford Ranger 6.2–6.7 m 5.2–5.5 m 1.90–2.00 m
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 9 of 36

The study reviewed global and national parking guidelines to establish reference aisle
width standards (Table 3).
After collection, the data were systematically processed and analyzed to extract mean-
ingful insights:
• Geometric calculations were used to establish minimum width constraints based on
turning radii.
• Simulation results were processed to generate statistical distributions of parking
success rates, maneuvering times, and failure rates for each aisle width scenario.
• Physical testing observations were compiled to identify critical width thresholds where
driver errors significantly increased.
A comparative analysis was conducted to align results from the three data sources. If
discrepancies arose between simulated and real-world parking success rates, the optimiza-
tion model was adjusted to reflect empirical findings more accurately.
The collected data were incorporated into the multi-objective optimization model,
ensuring that theoretical calculations, simulation-based findings, and physical test results
were fully aligned.
The geometric modeling results defined the lower bound of feasible aisle widths.
The simulation data provided performance curves for different widths, guiding ma-
neuverability penalties in the optimization function.
The physical testing results validated the final aisle width recommendations, confirm-
ing that the model reflects real-world driver behavior and constraints.
By combining geometric modeling, software-based simulations, and physical testing,
the data collection process ensured that the study’s findings were comprehensive, evidence-
backed, and practical. The integration of these datasets ensured that the recommended
aisle widths maximize maneuverability, efficiency, and parking capacity while remaining
grounded in real-world feasibility.

2.3. Model Formulation

In this study, the core design variable is the aisle distance x between two opposing
rows of parking stalls in an underground lot. While respecting geometric and regulatory
constraints, the model seeks to link this decision variable to two competing objectives: (1)
ease of maneuvering and (2) parking capacity.
The decision variable x is aisle distance between two opposing rows of parking stalls.
This distance is measured from the edge of one parking stall to the edge of the stall
immediately facing it across the aisle. Practically, x is bounded by both physical (available
floor space, location of columns or walls) and regulatory (minimum fire-lane widths, code
requirements) limits. We denote these bounds as

xmin ≤ x ≤ xmax (1)

In the study, there are two objective functions.

1. Ease of maneuvering E( x )
E(x) is intended to quantify how easily drivers can enter, park, and exit stalls. It
typically increases with x: larger aisle widths make maneuvering simpler, reducing multi-
point turns and collision risks.
Depending on data availability, E(x) can be formulated using:
• Analytical geometry with turning-circle or swept-path calculations.
• Simulation with recording the success rate or average time to park in a virtual envi-
ronment for a range of aisle widths.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 10 of 36

• Empirical metrics with field observations (e.g., average stall-entry time, frequency of
corrective maneuvers).
2. Parking capacity N ( x )
N ( x ) denotes the total number of vehicles that can be parked within the fixed under-
ground facility footprint. It generally decreases as x increases, since wider aisles occupy
more of the available floor space.
A typical geometric approach is to calculate how many stalls fit along each row,
multiplied by the number of rows that can be arranged, considering the aisles needed for
vehicular circulation
W − kx
 
N (x) = × Lr (2)
ws
where W is the total width available for parking plus aisles, ws is the stall width (or effective
width required per stall + buffer), k is s the number of aisles in the layout, Lr is the total
length available for rows (or the number of stalls that can fit in the longitudinal dimension).
Expression (2) for the capacity function N ( x ) is derived from foundational models in
transportation engineering that relate aisle geometry to vehicle movement dynamics. These
principles are frequently applied in software tools such as AutoTURN and ParkCAD [25,26],
which simulate vehicle paths using Ackermann steering geometry and clearance envelopes.
The details may vary based on the exact configuration of the garage.
3. Constraints
• Physical and structural constraints. The physical layout of the underground
lot (columns, ramps, load-bearing walls) may limit the placement of parking
rows or reduce the effective width where cars can park. These constraints can
be represented by adjustments to xmin or specific additional inequalities. For
instance, if columns encroach on the turning path, a larger x might be required
near specific columns.
• Regulatory constraints. Many local or national building codes specify minimum
aisle width and minimum stall dimensions for different vehicle classes. Denote
this lower bound as xmincode . If the building code sets x code > x
min min for structural
code
reasons, then the actual feasible region starts at xmin . Fire safety regulations
could impose additional constraints, such as emergency access lanes.
• Operational constraints. Requirements for pedestrian walkways, handicap-
accessible stalls, and special-use stalls (e.g., electric charging stations) may indi-
rectly constrain how many conventional stalls fit, effectively affecting N ( x ) or
imposing a separate feasible region for x.
• Speed constraints. In underground parking facilities, vehicle speeds are typi-
cally low, ranging from 5 to 10 km/h due to spatial constraints, signage, and
safety regulations. At these speeds, maneuverability is primarily governed by
geometric constraints such as turning radii and available clearance, rather than
velocity-dependent dynamics like braking distance. Therefore, the optimization
model in this study assumes low-speed conditions typical of real-world parking
behavior. Although vehicle speed is not an explicit parameter in the objective
functions, it is indirectly captured through simulation and empirical testing,
where maneuvering times and collision risk reflect realistic driver behavior. This
approach ensures that the recommended aisle widths remain valid and safe
under practical speed conditions commonly observed in underground garages.
In most formulations, these constraints can be grouped into a set C , such as x ∈ C .
4. Optimization approaches
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 11 of 36

Depending on the project’s objectives, the model can be expressed in one of the
following ways:
• Single-objective optimization combines both criteria (ease of maneuvering and capac-
ity) into a single objective function, typically by assigning weights α and β

max F ( x ) = αE( x ) + βN ( x ) (3)

x ∈C

where α and β are user-defined to reflect the relative importance of maneuverability vs.
capacity. The optimal solution x ∗ s found by maximizing F ( x ) over the feasible region
C . In the multi-objective optimization formulation, the weights α and β represent the
relative importance assigned to maneuverability and parking capacity, respectively.
The selection of these weights depends on the design priorities of the parking facility
and the specific needs of stakeholders. In practice, these weights can be determined
through one or more of the following approaches:
(1) Stakeholder input—urban planners, facility managers, or transportation authorities
can define priorities (e.g., prioritizing capacity in high-demand areas or maneuver-
ability in premium residential zones);
(2) Scenario analysis—multiple optimizations runs can be performed with varying α and
β values to identify Pareto-optimal solutions and support trade-off decisions;
(3) Empirical calibration—user satisfaction surveys or observational data (e.g., from
physical tests) can inform the relative utility of improved maneuverability vs. lost
capacity.
In this study, a balanced weighting scheme was adopted (α = 0.5, β = 0.5) to reflect
an equal prioritization of both objectives, but the framework allows for flexible adjustment
based on contextual needs.
• Constrained optimization uses one criterion as the objective and set the other as a
constraint

max N ( x ) (4)
x ∈C

subject to E( x ) ≥ Emin (5)

The model seeks to maximize capacity while guaranteeing a minimum ease-of-

maneuver standard Emin
• Multi-objective optimization treats E( x ) and N ( x ) as distinct objectives to be optimized
simultaneously
max{ E( x ), N ( x )} (6)
x ∈C

This approach yields a Pareto frontier—a set of aisle distances for which no single
objective can be improved without negatively impacting the other. Decision-makers then
select the most suitable trade-off point based on additional criteria (e.g., cost, expected
user mix).
In essence, the model formulation starts with the decision variable x and quantifies
how it affects ease of maneuvering E( x ) and capacity N ( x ). It then incorporates relevant
constraints (physical, regulatory, and operational) to define the feasible range for x. An
optimization approach is selected depending on whether the study focuses on a single
combined metric or seeks an informed balance among multiple design priorities.
This formulation ensures a transparent, data-driven framework for deciding the
aisle distance that aligns with both engineering constraints and user needs, ultimately
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 12 of 36

guiding the design of underground parking facilities toward better usability and efficient
space utilization.

2.4. Model Implementation and Validation

The implementation and validation of the optimization model for underground park-
ing aisle widths follow a structured approach that integrates computational modeling,
simulation analysis, and empirical validation. The goal is to ensure that the proposed
model accurately captures the trade-off between maneuverability and parking capacity
while aligning with real-world parking constraints. The process involves developing the
model within a computational environment, validating its assumptions through simula-
tions, and confirming its practical applicability through physical testing.
The model implementation begins with the formulation of maneuverability constraints
and capacity calculations, based on geometric relationships and real vehicle movement
dynamics. The aisle width is the primary decision variable, affecting both ease of vehicle
entry and exit and the total number of available parking spaces. The model incorporates
two competing objective functions: the maneuverability function E(x), which quantifies the
ease of parking in terms of turning clearance, number of corrective maneuvers, and time
required for parking; and the capacity function N(x), which represents the total number of
parking spaces available within a fixed parking lot footprint.
To implement the model, software-based simulations are conducted, which simulate
real-world vehicle trajectories, turning paths, and driver behaviors across different aisle
widths. These simulations allow for the fine-tuning of model parameters by incorporating
realistic driving constraints, such as reaction delays, multi-step parking attempts, and minor
errors in steering angles. The simulation results are used to refine the model’s mathematical
formulations, ensuring that theoretical predictions align with observed vehicle behavior in
virtual environments.
The validation phase of the study involves empirical testing in real underground park-
ing facilities, where the simulated results are compared against actual parking performance
metrics. A diverse fleet of compact cars, sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks is used to assess
maneuverability constraints across multiple aisle widths. Each vehicle undergoes repeated
parking attempts at different aisle widths, and key performance indicators are measured to
determine whether the simulated results hold true in real-world conditions.
The final step of validation involves iterative refinement of the model, where discrep-
ancies between simulated and real-world results are analyzed to update the optimization
parameters. If the empirical tests indicate that maneuverability constraints are underes-
timated or overestimated in the computational model, adjustments are made to penalty
functions, constraint thresholds, and weighting factors to improve accuracy. The validated
model is then used to generate optimized aisle width recommendations, ensuring that
the final design strikes the optimal balance between maximizing parking capacity while
maintaining a high level of usability for drivers.
By following this multi-stage validation process, the study ensures that the proposed
aisle width optimization model is both theoretically rigorous and practically applicable.
The integration of geometric modeling, software-based validation, and real-world em-
pirical testing provides a scientifically grounded framework for improving underground
parking facility design, making the findings relevant to urban planners, civil engineers,
and parking facility designers seeking to optimize parking layouts for both efficiency and
user experience.
 and parking facility designers seeking to optimize parking layouts for both efficiency and
user experience.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 13 of 36
2.5. Case Study: Application to the Republic of Kazakhstan
To illustrate the practical implementation of the proposed optimization model for
underground
2.5. Case Study:parking aisletowidths,
Application the study
the Republic uses the Republic of Kazakhstan as a case
of Kazakhstan
[Link] illustrate the practical implementation ofurban
This selection is based on the country’s development
the proposed trends, regulatory
optimization model for
frameworks, and growing demand for efficient parking solutions in
underground parking aisle widths, the study uses the Republic of Kazakhstan as a casedensely populated
cities.
[Link] applying
This the is
selection model
basedwithin
on the this regional urban
country’s context, the study ensures
development trends,that its find-
regulatory
ings are aligned
frameworks, andwith real-world
growing demandurbanforinfrastructure constraints
efficient parking solutionsandinlocal parking
densely stand-
populated
ards.
cities. By applying the model within this regional context, the study ensures that its findings
The Republic
are aligned of Kazakhstan
with real-world urbanhas experiencedconstraints
infrastructure rapid urbanization,
and localparticularly in cities
parking standards.
such The
as Astana, Almaty, Shymkent, and Karaganda, leading to increased
Republic of Kazakhstan has experienced rapid urbanization, particularly in vehicle owner-
cities
ship and parking congestion.
such as Astana, Almaty, Shymkent, and Karaganda, leading to increased vehicle ownership
The average
and parking annual growth rate of motorization in Kazakhstan over the past five
congestion.
yearsThewasaverage
8% [28].annual
Basedgrowth
on the rate
current growth trend,
of motorization in the number over
Kazakhstan of vehicles asfive
the past of 1years
Jan-
uary 2028 is projected to reach 561,060 units, reflecting a 32% increase [28]. As
was 8% [28]. Based on the current growth trend, the number of vehicles as of 1 January 2028 an example,
Figure 1 presents
is projected to reachdata fromunits,
561,060 the same source
reflecting on the
a 32% number
increase [28].ofAspassenger
an example,vehicles
Figurein1
Astana.
presents data from the same source on the number of passenger vehicles in Astana.

Figure 1. Number of passenger vehicles in Astana.

The existing parking infrastructure in these cities often faces challenges related to
space utilization and maneuverability, making it an ideal setting to test and refine the
proposed model. Furthermore, Kazakhstan’s building codes and urban planning policies
provide a structured regulatory framework against which the optimization model can
be assessed.
To ensure relevance, the study incorporates local parking design standards, national
construction regulations, and vehicle fleet composition data from Kazakhstan. Key pa-
rameters, such as standard stall dimensions, regulatory aisle width requirements, and the
typical mix of vehicle types, were gathered from Kazakhstan’s building codes and urban
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 14 of 36

planning documents [29]. For example, Table 4 presents the recommended minimum aisle
width between rows of parked cars.

Table 4. Recommended minimum aisle width between rows of parked cars.

Parking Angle, Degrees Traffic Flow Width of Passage, m Parking Space Width, m
90 Double-sided 6.95 Full width—3.0
90 One-sided 6.0 Full width—3.0
60 One-sided 4.2 3.0
45 One-sided 3.6 3.0

The model was tested across real underground parking facilities in Kazakhstan, where
empirical validation is conducted through physical testing in operational parking lots.
These facilities represent a range of modern and older parking structures, allowing for
a comprehensive assessment of how different aisle widths affect maneuverability and
parking efficiency in local conditions.
The vehicle fleet composition in Kazakhstan was also considered, ensuring that the
Infrastructures 2025, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 36
study reflects the types of vehicles commonly used in urban environments. As an example,
Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the top 10 new passenger cars over three years in
Kazakhstan, along with their key overall dimensions, which are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 2. The distribution of the top 10 new passenger cars over three years in Kazakhstan.

Figure 2. Thedata
Similar distribution
on largeofpassengers’
the top 10 new passenger
cars cars overare
in Kazakhstan three yearsin
shown in Figures
Kazakhstan.
4 and 5.
The distribution between the two types of passenger cars is shown in Figure 6.
Given the prevalence of both compact cars and larger vehicles such as SUVs and
pickup trucks, the optimization model was designed to accommodate a diverse range
of vehicle sizes and turning capabilities. Empirical tests were conducted using vehicles
frequently found on Kazakhstani roads, such as Toyota Camry, Hyundai Tucson, Kia
Sportage, Toyota Land Cruiser, and Nissan Patrol, ensuring that the study’s findings are
applicable to real-world driving conditions.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 36
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 15 of 36

Figure 3. Key overall dimensions of the top 10 new passenger cars over three years in Kazakhstan.

Similar data on large passengers’ cars in Kazakhstan are shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Figure 3. Key overall dimensions of the top 10 new passenger cars over three years in Kazakhstan.
Figure 3. Key overall dimensions of the top 10 new passenger cars over three years in Kazakhstan.

Similar data on large passengers’ cars in Kazakhstan are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. The distribution of the top new large passenger cars over three years in Kazakhstan.
Figure 4. The distribution of the top new large passenger cars over three years in Kazakhstan.

Figure 4. The distribution of the top new large passenger cars over three years in Kazakhstan.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 36
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 16 of 36

Figure 5. Key overall dimensions of the top new large passenger cars over three years in Kazakhstan.

The distribution between the two types of passenger cars is shown in Figure 6.
Figure
Figure 5. Key overall
5. Key overall dimensions
dimensions of
of the top new
the top new large
large passenger
passenger cars over three
cars over three years
years in
in Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan.

The distribution between the two types of passenger cars is shown in Figure 6.

Distributionofofpassenger
[Link]
Figure passengercars
carsininKazakhstan.
Kazakhstan.

The case study approach allows for direct comparison between the model’s theoreti-
Given the prevalence of both compact cars and larger vehicles such as SUVs and
cal predictions,
Figure 6.
simulation
Distribution
results,
of passengermodel
and real-world performance in Kazakhstan’s parking
cars in Kazakhstan.
pickup trucks, the optimization was designed to accommodate a diverse range of
facilities. The findings provide valuable insights into how local conditions, regulatory
vehicle sizes and turning capabilities. Empirical tests were conducted using vehicles fre-
frameworks,
Given and
the driver behavior
prevalence of both influence
compact optimal aisle width [Link], the
quently found on Kazakhstani roads, such cars and
as Toyota larger vehicles
Camry, as SUVs Kia
Hyundai Tucson, and
study’s results
pickup trucks, can serve as a guideline for policymakers, urban planners, and engineers in
Sportage, Toyotathe optimization
Land Cruiser, and model wasPatrol,
Nissan designed to accommodate
ensuring that the study’sa diverse range
findings areof
Kazakhstan,
vehicle sizes helping
and turningto optimize future
capabilities. underground
Empirical parking
tests were facilities
conducted to improve
using vehiclesboth
fre-
applicable to real-world driving conditions.
efficiency
quently and
found usability.
on approach
Kazakhstani roads, such comparison
as Toyota Camry,
The case study allows for direct betweenHyundai
the model’s Tucson, Kia
theoret-
By using
Sportage, ToyotaKazakhstan
Land as a reference,
Cruiser, and NissanthePatrol,
study ensures
ensuring that
thatitsthe
recommendations
study’s findings are
are
ical predictions, simulation results, and real-world performance in Kazakhstan’s parking
grounded
applicable in practical
to real-world applications while
drivingvaluable still
conditions. being adaptable for other urban environments
facilities. The findings provide insights into how local conditions, regulatory
with Thesimilar
caseparking
study [Link]
approach The methodology
for direct used in this
comparison case study
between can be extended
theFurthermore,
model’s theoret-
frameworks, and driver behavior influence optimal aisle width design. the
to other
ical cities
predictions, and regions,
simulation providing
results, a
and scalable
real-world framework for
performance optimizing
in underground
Kazakhstan’s parking
study’s results can serve as a guideline for policymakers, urban planners, and engineers
parking layouts based on data-driven analysis and into
empirical
how validation.
infacilities.
Kazakhstan, The helping
findings toprovide
optimize valuable insights
future underground parkinglocal conditions,
facilities regulatory
to improve both
frameworks, and
efficiency and usability. driver behavior influence optimal aisle width design. Furthermore, the
3. Results
study’s results can serve as a guideline for policymakers, urban planners, and engineers
By using Kazakhstan as a reference, the study ensures that its recommendations are
3.1.
in Geometric Modeling
Kazakhstan, helping Predictions
toapplications
optimize future underground parking facilities
grounded in practical while still being adaptable fortoother
improve both
urban
This section
efficiency describes the geometric modeling methodology used to predict the re-
and usability.
quired Byaisle
using width for underground
Kazakhstan parking,
as a reference, based ensures
the study on vehicle
thatdimensions, turning radii,
its recommendations are
and spatial constraints.
grounded in practicalGeometric
applications modeling
whileprovides a theoretical
still being adaptable foundation
for otherfor evaluat-
urban
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 17 of 36

ing maneuverability and setting minimum width constraints before conducting simulations
or real-world testing.
Geometric modeling aims to:
• Establish minimum aisle width requirements based on vehicle kinematics.
• Determine the turning paths and clearances needed for different vehicle categories.
• Provide an initial constraint framework for optimization before validating results with
simulations and physical tests.
By graphically and mathematically analyzing vehicle movement within parking aisles,
the model quantifies clearance distances, turning angles, and stall-accessibility limits.
The geometric model is built using key vehicle parameters:
• Turning radius Rt —the minimum circular path a vehicle can turn without reversing.
• Wheelbase Wb —distance between the front and rear axles, influencing turning charac-
teristics.
• Overall vehicle length Lv —affects the entry angle into parking stalls.
• Vehicle width Wv —determines lateral clearance in tight turns.
To ensure that the model accounts for diverse vehicle sizes, the different categories
were considered (Table 3). These values were extracted from manufacturer specifications
and validated against previous parking design studies.
The turning movement of a vehicle is defined by the Ackermann steering principle,
which governs how the front wheels rotate during turns. The swept path is calculated using

Wv
Rinner = Rt − (7)
2
Wv
Router = Rt + (8)
2
where Rinner is the inner turning radius of the front wheel, Router is the outer turning radius
required for clearance, and Wv is the vehicle width.
For a vehicle to successfully turn into or out of a parking stall, the minimum required
aisle width xmin is derived from

xmin = 2Router + K (9)

where K is an additional clearance buffer for driver errors and safety margins (typically
0.5–1.0 m).
For different vehicle classes, these yields are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Required aisle width.

Vehicle Type Required Aisle Width xmin

Compact Cars 4.8–5.2 m
Sedans 5.2–5.5 m
SUVs 5.5–6.0 m
Pickups 6.0–6.5 m

This serves as the first constraint in the optimization problem: aisle widths below
these values significantly increase maneuvering difficulty.
To validate these calculations, CAD-based geometric modeling was performed using
AutoCAD and Revit. Two-dimensional turn paths were plotted for each vehicle type
(Figure 7).
 these values significantly increase maneuvering difficulty.
To validate these calculations, CAD-based geometric modeling was performed using
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100
AutoCAD and Revit. Two-dimensional turn paths were plotted for each vehicle type (Fig-
18 of 36
ure 7).

(a) (b)

Figure
[Link]
Graphical determination
determination of of
thethe
drive aisle
drive width
aisle in ainparking
width areaarea
a parking when a vehicle
when exits:exits:
a vehicle (a)
forward exit;exit;
(a) forward (b) reverse [Link].
(b) reverse

Theclearance
The clearancearea
arearequired
requiredforfor smooth
smooth turns
turns waswas visualized.
visualized. Variations
Variations in entry
in entry an-
angles
gles andand multi-point
multi-point turns
turns were
were examined.
examined.
Keyfindings
Key findingsfrom
fromCADCADanalysis:
analysis:
•• At 𝑥x = 4.5 m, compact
At compact cars
cars could
could turn
turn with
withsome
somedifficulty.
difficulty. Larger
Largersedans
sedansand
andSUVs
SUVs
requiredextra
required extramaneuvers.
[Link]
Pickuptrucks
trucksrequired
requiredreversing
reversingmaneuvers
maneuversbefore
beforecom-
com-
pleting turns.
pleting turns.
•• At 𝑥x = 5.0 m, most
At most sedans
sedans and
and SUVs
SUVs could
could park
park smoothly.
smoothly. Pickup
Pickuptrucks
trucksstill
stillfaced
faced
occasional multi-turn adjustments.
occasional multi-turn adjustments.
•• At ≥ 5.5
At 𝑥x ≥ 5.5 m,
m, all
allvehicle
vehicletypes,
types,including
includingpickup
pickuptrucks, could
trucks, couldpark without
park multi-turn
without multi-
adjustments.
turn adjustments.
Thegeometric
The geometricmodeling
modelingresults
resultsdirectly
directlyinform
informthe
the optimization
optimization constraints.
[Link] They
show that increasing x
show that increasing 𝑥 above 5.5 m offers diminishing returns in ease of parking. This
above 5.5 m offers diminishing returns in ease of parking. This leads
to a capacity
leads optimization
to a capacity trade-off.
optimization When
trade-off. the design
When objective
the design emphasizes
objective emphasizes maximizing
maxim-
izing parking capacity, an aisle width of approximately 5.0 m is recommended. In con-if
parking capacity, an aisle width of approximately 5.0 m is recommended. In contrast,
driver
trast, if comfort and maneuverability
driver comfort are prioritized,
and maneuverability a wider aisle
are prioritized, in theaisle
a wider rangein of
the5.5range
to 6.0ofm
is more appropriate.
5.5 to 6.0 m is more appropriate.
Geometricmodeling
Geometric modelingpredicted
predictedthat
that5.0
5.0mmshould
shouldbe bethe
thepractical
practicalminimum
minimumfor forgen-
gen-
eral usability.
eral usability.

3.2. Software-Based Modeling: Methodology and Application

3.2. Software-Based Modeling: Methodology and Application
This section outlines the methodology for software-based modeling, which was used to
simulate vehicle movement in underground parking aisles. The goal of this approach was to
validate geometric predictions, test various aisle width configurations, and evaluate vehicle
maneuverability under controlled conditions before conducting real-world experiments.
By leveraging computational tools, the study ensured that the proposed aisle widths were
not only mathematically feasible but also practically functional in real parking scenarios.

3.2.1. Modeling Scenarios

The software modeling stage was designed to simulate vehicle movement in differ-
ent aisle width scenarios and measure maneuverability constraints (Figure 8), compare
 ing scenarios.

3.2.1. Modeling Scenarios

Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 19 of 36
The software modeling stage was designed to simulate vehicle movement in different
aisle width scenarios and measure maneuverability constraints (Figure 8), compare theo-
retical geometric predictions with real-world driving behavior through dynamic simula-
theoretical geometric predictions with real-world driving behavior through dynamic simu-
tions, identify critical thresholds where parking success rates decline due to insufficient
lations, identify critical thresholds where parking success rates decline due to insufficient
space, and provide quantitative insights for optimizing the aisle width function 𝐸(𝑥) in
space, and provide quantitative insights for optimizing the aisle width function E( x ) in the
the optimization model.
optimization model.

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Simulation
Simulation scenarios.
scenarios.

The Figure
Figure 99illustrates
illustratestwo
twomain
mainextreme situations
extreme in underground
situations parking
in underground modeling
parking mod-
basedbased
eling on vehicle size and
on vehicle sizepassage [Link].
and passage
1. Realistic situation (common scenario)
This situation represents a typical underground parking environment where a variety
of vehicles are present, including compact cars, sedans, SUVs, and some larger vehicles
like pickup trucks.
The passage width varies from 4 m to 5.5 m, ensuring that most vehicles, including a
Toyota Hilux 2023 (a mid-sized pickup truck), can maneuver and park without excessive
difficulty.
The probability of occurrence is estimated at 90%, meaning that in most real-world
parking lots, the mix of vehicles is diverse, and the aisle width is generally within a
practical range.
Parking layout allows for smooth traffic flow and reasonable parking success rates,
with only minor maneuverability challenges at narrower aisle widths (e.g., 4.5 m).
2. Extreme situation (all vehicles are oversized)
This scenario models an unrealistic yet worst-case parking scenario, where all vehicles
are large SUVs or pickup trucks (Toyota Hilux 2023, Toyota Land Cruiser 300, Toyota
Highlander 2024).
The parking area is filled exclusively with oversized vehicles, dramatically reducing
maneuverability and increasing congestion.
The passage width remains within the range 4.5 m to 6 m, but the need for larger turn-
ing radii results in blocked access, failed parking attempts, and increased risk of collision.
The probability of this scenario occurring is close to 0%, since real parking lots gener-
ally accommodate a mix of vehicle sizes, reducing the likelihood of complete congestion
due to oversized vehicles.
The parking layout in this scenario results in significant maneuverability challenges,
where turning and reversing require additional space that is not available, leading to
gridlock and ineffective use of parking capacity.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100
x FOR PEER REVIEW 2020of
of 36
36

Figure 9. Main extreme situations in underground parking modeling.

Figure 9. Main extreme situations in underground parking modeling.

These two extreme cases highlight how vehicle distribution and passage width impact
1. Realistic situation (common scenario)
maneuverability in underground parking lots. The realistic situation demonstrates a
This situation
functional parkingrepresents
environment a typical
with underground
high usability,parking
while theenvironment where a vari-
extreme situation with
ety of vehicles are present, including compact cars, sedans, SUVs, and some larger
oversized vehicles creates a highly inefficient, impractical parking scenario where vehicles vehi-
cles like pickup
struggle trucks.
to navigate the space effectively.
The passage width
Unlike static geometricvaries from 4 mwhich
modeling, to 5.5 relies
m, ensuring that most
on predefined vehicles,
turning including
radii, a
software-
Toyota Hilux 2023 (a mid-sized pickup truck), can maneuver and park without
based simulations allow for real-time dynamic analysis of vehicle motion, accounting for excessive
difficulty.
steering, acceleration, and braking patterns.
The probability of occurrence is estimated at 90%, meaning that in most real-world
3.2.2.
parking Defining Input
lots, the mix Parameters
of vehicles is diverse, and the aisle width is generally within a prac-
tical range.
The simulation models were set up using real-world vehicle dimensions, driver be-
haviorParking layoutand
constraints, allows for smooth
site-specific traffic flow
conditions. Keyand reasonable
input parametersparking success rates,
included:
with only minor maneuverability challenges at narrower aisle widths
• Vehicle fleet composition with modeling different types of vehicles, including (e.g., 4.5 m).
compact
2. Extreme situation
cars, sedans, SUVs,(all
andvehicles
pickupare oversized)
trucks.
• Aisle width variations
This scenario models an with simulation
unrealistic yetparking scenarios
worst-case forscenario,
parking 4.5 m, 5.0 m, 5.5all
where m,vehi-
and
6.0 large
cles are m aisles
SUVsto observe
or pickup maneuverability differences.
trucks (Toyota Hilux 2023, Toyota Land Cruiser 300, Toyota
• Driver behavior
Highlander 2024). constraints with assumed realistic turning speeds, reaction times, and
parking approach
The parking area isangles.
filled exclusively with oversized vehicles, dramatically reducing
• Structural obstacles
maneuverability and increasingwith consideration
congestion. the impact of columns, ramps, and clearance
heights
The on maneuverability.
passage width remains within the range 4.5 m to 6 m, but the need for larger
turning radii
Each results in
simulation blocked
run tested access, failed
entry and exitparking attempts,
maneuvers, and increased risk of col-
including:
lision.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 21 of 36

• Forward parking entry and reverse exit.

• Reverse parking entry and forward exit.
• Adjustments required if the initial maneuver was unsuccessful.

3.2.3. Software Applications Used in Practice

To conduct the simulations, the study used specialized parking design and vehicle
movement software tools, including AutoTURN for simulating vehicle turning paths and
clearance zones, ParkCAD for optimizing parking layouts and evaluating space efficiency,
and Revit with Dynamo Scripts for modeling 3D parking layouts and dynamically testing
clearance zones. Each software tool was applied to specific modeling tasks, ensuring
comprehensive validation of the optimal aisle width predictions.
This study employs computational simulations to evaluate parking maneuverability
under different conditions, focusing on the impact of aisle width and vehicle type on
parking efficiency. The analysis consists of two primary cases: an extreme parking scenario
with only oversized vehicles and a realistic scenario with a diverse mix of vehicle types.
Additionally, specific vehicle simulations provide detailed insights into maneuvering
challenges within each case.
The extreme parking case, illustrated in Figure 10, represents a worst-case scenario
where all parked vehicles are oversized models, including the Toyota Land Cruiser 300,
Toyota Hilux, and Toyota Highlander 2024. This simulation assesses maneuverability across
different aisle widths ranging from 4.5 m to 6.0 m. The results show that aisle widths below
5.5 m significantly reduce maneuverability, forcing vehicles to make multiple correctives
turns and increasing congestion. At 4.5 m width, severe traffic bottlenecks form, preventing
smooth circulation, while 5.5 m and 6.0 m allow for fluid movement and successful parking.
A more detailed analysis of the Toyota Land Cruiser 300, shown in Figure 11, highlights
the specific maneuvering challenges associated with large SUVs. The simulation tracks its
turning radius and clearance space, identifying critical points where the vehicle struggles
due to aisle width constraints. The results confirm that at widths ≤5.0 m, multi-step
adjustments become necessary, leading to prolonged parking times and potential traffic
blockages. However, at 5.5 m or greater, maneuverability improves considerably, reducing
reversing attempts and enhancing parking efficiency.
In contrast, the realistic parking case, depicted in Figure 12, presents a more com-
mon urban underground parking scenario with a mix of compact cars, sedans, SUVs,
and pickups. The study evaluates how aisle width affects maneuverability in driveways
ranging from 4.0 m to 6.0 m. The results indicate that compact and mid-sized vehicles
can successfully park in widths as narrow as 4.5 m, but larger SUVs and pickups require
additional corrective maneuvers. At 5.0 m, most vehicles can enter and exit parking stalls
efficiently, with minimal reversing adjustments. Increasing the aisle width to 5.5 m or more
facilitates seamless parking but slightly reduces the total parking capacity.
To further refine these findings, Figure 13 focuses on a Toyota Hilux 2023, analyzing its
maneuverability within the realistic parking case. The simulation reveals that at 4.5 m, the
Hilux requires extra steering corrections, increasing parking time. At 5.0 m, maneuverability
improves significantly, with smooth entry and exit movements. At 5.5 m or more, parking
becomes effortless, but the trade-off is a reduction in the number of available spaces.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 36

Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 22 of

form, preventing smooth circulation, while 5.5 m and 6.0 m allow for fluid movement and36
successful parking.

Figure 10. Simulation scenarios for extreme parking conditions with oversized
oversized vehicles.
vehicles.

The
A moresimulation
detailedmodels
analysiswere setToyota
of the up using real-world
Land vehicle
Cruiser 300, dimensions,
shown in Figuredriver be-
11, high-
havior constraints,
lights the and site-specific
specific maneuvering conditions.
challenges Key input
associated withparameters
large [Link] vehicle
The simulation
fleet composition, which modeled different types of vehicles such as compact cars,
tracks its turning radius and clearance space, identifying critical points where the vehicle sedans,
SUVs, anddue
struggles pickup trucks;
to aisle widthaisle width variations,
constraints. which
The results tested
confirm parking
that scenarios
at widths at multi-
≤5.0 m, 4.5 m,
5.0 m, 5.5 m, and 6.0 m to observe maneuverability differences; driver behavior
step adjustments become necessary, leading to prolonged parking times and potential constraints,
which
traffic assumed
[Link] turning
However, speeds,
at 5.5 reaction maneuverability
m or greater, times, and parking approach
improves angles; and
considerably,
structural obstacles, which considered the impact of
reducing reversing attempts and enhancing parking efficiency. columns, ramps, and clearance heights
on maneuverability. Each simulation run tested various parking maneuvers, including
forward parking entry with reverse exit, reverse parking entry with forward exit, and
adjustments required if the initial maneuver was unsuccessful.
To measure maneuverability performance across different aisle widths, the study used
key evaluation metrics, including success rate, which measured the percentage of vehicles
that successfully parked without additional maneuvers; time to park (seconds), which
captured the total time required for a vehicle to complete parking; number of reversing
attempts, which tracked additional maneuvers needed to fit into a parking stall; and
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 23 of 36

collision risk, which calculated the probability of hitting adjacent vehicles or obstacles.
The simulation results showed that at 4.5 m aisle width, compact cars parked successfully
85% of the time, but SUVs and pickups required additional maneuvers, with an increased
collision risk and time to park exceeding 40 s. At 5.0 m aisle width, the parking success
rate improved to 94%, with fewer extra maneuvers needed. SUVs and sedans parked
comfortably, though pickups required occasional adjustments. At 5.5 m aisle width, the
success rate reached 98%, with near-optimal ease of parking, and the time to park remained
consistent at ~25 s, with minimal extra adjustments. At 6.0 m aisle width, maneuverability
was excellent, but total parking capacity was significantly reduced, and no meaningful
improvement in parking success was observed compared to 5.5 m. The software-based
modeling confirmed that 5.0–5.5 m provides the best trade-off between ease of maneuvering
Infrastructures 2025, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 36
and space efficiency.

Figure 11.
Figure Detailed maneuverability
11. Detailed maneuverabilityanalysis
analysisofofToyota
ToyotaLand Cruiser
Land 300300
Cruiser in extreme parking
in extreme conditions.
parking condi-
tions.

In contrast, the realistic parking case, depicted in Figure 12, presents a more common
urban underground parking scenario with a mix of compact cars, sedans, SUVs, and
pickups. The study evaluates how aisle width affects maneuverability in driveways rang-
ing from 4.0 m to 6.0 m. The results indicate that compact and mid-sized vehicles can
successfully park in widths as narrow as 4.5 m, but larger SUVs and pickups require ad-
 straints, which assumed realistic turning speeds, reaction times, and parking approach
angles; and structural obstacles, which considered the impact of columns, ramps, and
clearance heights on maneuverability. Each simulation run tested various parking maneu-
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 vers, including forward parking entry with reverse exit, reverse parking entry with for-
24 of 36
ward exit, and adjustments required if the initial maneuver was unsuccessful.

Figure 12. Simulation scenarios for realistic parking conditions with a mixed vehicle fleet.

The findings from the software simulations were incorporated into the optimization
model by refining the maneuverability function E( x ). Empirical data were used to adjust
E( x ), penalizing aisle widths below 5.0 m due to increased failed parking attempts. The
simulation results also informed the multi-objective optimization framework, ensuring that
the chosen width balances maximum parking spaces with high success rates for vehicle
entry and exit. The geometric model’s predictions were validated through the software
models, reinforcing the validity of theoretical constraints.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 36

Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 25 of 36

Figure 12. Simulation scenarios for realistic parking conditions with a mixed vehicle fleet.

Figure 13. Maneuverability

Figure13. Maneuverabilityanalysis
analysisof
ofToyota
ToyotaHilux
Hilux2023
2023ininaarealistic
realisticparking
parkingscenario.
scenario.
3.2.4. Evaluation Metrics and Key Findings
To measure maneuverability performance across different aisle widths, the study
To measure maneuverability performance across different aisle widths, the different
used key evaluation metrics, including success rate, which measured the percentage of
evaluation metrics were used (Table 6).
vehicles that successfully parked without additional maneuvers; time to park (seconds),
which
Table 6. captured
Evaluationthe totalfor
metrics time required
assessing for amaneuverability
parking vehicle to complete parking;aisle
across different number of re-
widths.
versing attempts, which tracked additional maneuvers needed to fit into a parking stall;
Metric Description Ideal Value
and collision risk, which calculated the probability of hitting adjacent vehicles or obsta-
Success rate (%) Percentage of vehicles that successfully park without additional maneuvers. >90%
cles. The simulation results showed that at 4.5 m aisle width, compact cars parked suc-
Time to park (seconds) Total time required for a vehicle to complete parking. <30 s
cessfully 85% of the time, but SUVs and pickups required additional maneuvers, with an
Number of reversing attempts Number of extra maneuvers needed to fit into the parking stall. ≤1
Collision risk (%)
increased collision risk and time to park exceeding 40 s. At 5.0 m aisle width,
Probability of hitting adjacent vehicles or obstacles. <5%
the parking
success rate improved to 94%, with fewer extra maneuvers needed. SUVs and sedans
parked comfortably, though pickups required occasional adjustments. At 5.5 m aisle
3.2.5. Aisle Width Impact on Maneuverability
width, the success rate reached 98%, with near-optimal ease of parking, and the time to
At 4.5 m aisle width:
park remained consistent at ~25 s, with minimal extra adjustments. At 6.0 m aisle width,
• Compact cars parked successfully 85% of the time, but SUVs and pickups required
additional maneuvers.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 26 of 36

• Collision risk increased significantly due to limited clearance.

• Time to park exceeded 40 s in some cases.
At 5.0 m aisle width:
• Parking success rate improved to 94%, with fewer extra maneuvers needed.
• SUVs and sedans parked comfortably, though pickups required occasional adjustments.
At 5.5 m aisle width:
• Success rate reached 98%, with near-optimal ease of parking.
• Time to park was consistent at ~25 s, with minimal extra adjustments.
At an aisle width of 6.0 m, maneuverability was optimal; however, the overall parking
capacity was notably reduced. The improvement in parking success compared to the 5.5-m
width was marginal and did not justify the additional space consumption.
The software-based modeling confirmed that 5.0–5.5 m provides the best trade-off
between ease of maneuvering and space efficiency.

3.2.6. The Role of Software-Based Modeling in the Study

By using advanced parking simulation tools, this study systematically tested realistic
vehicle behavior in different aisle width scenarios. The software-based approach allowed:
• Validation of geometric predictions using dynamic simulations.
• Precise measurement of maneuverability constraints using real-time parking maneuvers.
• Optimization of aisle width based on empirical success rates.
• Identification of an optimal width range (5.0–5.5 m) that ensures both usability and
efficiency.
The insights gained from software-based modeling were essential in refining the
optimization framework, ensuring that the recommended aisle widths are not only mathe-
matically sound but also proven to be functional in real parking environments.

3.3. Physical Testing

The primary goal of physical testing was to empirically confirm the minimum required
aisle width for various vehicle types by observing real driver behavior, parking success rates,
and the number of corrective maneuvers required. By conducting tests under controlled
but practical conditions, the study ensured that the optimization model reflects actual
driving challenges and constraints rather than relying solely on theoretical assumptions or
simulated behavior.
The physical testing phase aimed to empirically validate theoretical predictions re-
garding aisle width requirements, assess real-world driver behavior, including variations in
maneuvering skills and parking strategies, identify the impact of structural constraints such
as columns, ramps, and lighting obstructions, and refine the maneuverability function E( x )
by integrating actual success rates and failure scenarios. Unlike software-based modeling,
which assumes idealized vehicle movements, physical testing accounts for real-world
uncertainties, such as driver hesitation, overcorrection, and inconsistent approach angles.

3.3.1. Testing Environment

The physical tests were conducted in operational underground parking facilities, se-
lected to ensure representative site conditions for realistic evaluation. Testing locations
included standard underground parking garages with 90-degree perpendicular parking
stalls and constrained environments with fixed column placements and limited maneuver-
ing space. A diverse set of vehicles with varying dimensions and turning radii was used to
ensure broad applicability of results. The test fleet included compact cars (Toyota Corolla,
VW Golf), sedans (Toyota Camry, Honda Accord), SUVs (Haval Dargo, Toyota RAV4), and
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 27 of 36

pickup trucks (Toyota Hilux, Ford Ranger). The inclusion of various vehicle types allowed
for a more comprehensive analysis of aisle width requirements across different categories.
To ensure consistency across all tests, environmental conditions were kept constant
during physical trials:
• Controlled lighting to simulate real underground parking environments.
• All external vehicular movement was restricted during testing to ensure consistency
and eliminate interference, with only authorized test drivers present in the facility.
• Standardized approach angles marked for each test vehicle to maintain consistent
entry positions.

3.3.2. Measured Performance Metrics

Key performance indicators (KPIs) were recorded for each vehicle at each aisle width
(Table 7).

Infrastructures 2025, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Table 7. Key performance indicators of physical testing. 28 of 36

Metric Description Measurement Method

Percentage of vehicles successfully parked without
Success rate (%) Direct observation, pass/fail recording.
Time to park (s) Time taken to complete aadjustments.
parking maneuver. Timer from start of entry to full stop.
Reversing
Time to park (s) Time taken to complete a parking maneuver. Number of times
Timer fromthestartdriver
of entryhad tostop.
to full reverse
Additional maneuvers required to align properly. Number of times the driver had to reverse or
attempts
Reversing attempts Additional maneuvers required to align properly. or adjust.
adjust.
Collision
Driver reports, observed near-miss
Collision risk risk
(%)(%) Probability of
Probability
hittingofadjacent
hitting adjacent vehicles/obstacles.
vehicles/obstacles. Driver reports, observed near-miss incidents.
incidents.

Each parking
Each parking test
testwas
wasrecorded
recordedusing
usingvideo
video tracking (Figure
tracking 14)14)
(Figure and direct
and observation,
direct observa-
with data analysts logging key metrics such as:
tion, with data analysts logging key metrics such as:
•• Time to
Time to complete
complete parking.
parking.
•• Number of reversing attempts.
Number of reversing attempts.
•• Successful parking
Successful parking without
without errors.
errors.
•• Observed driver stress levels (qualitative
Observed driver stress levels (qualitative assessment).
assessment).

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 14.
14. Example
Exampleofoftest
testvideo
videorecording
recording from
from different
different angles:
angles: (a) from
(a) from the side;
the side; (b) from
(b) from the
the front;
front; (c)the
(c) from from the back.
back.

Participant feedback
Participant feedback was wascollected
collectedregarding
regardingperceived
perceivedmaneuvering
maneuvering difficulty
difficulty under
un-
each scenario. Data were logged in structured sheets, capturing each KPI across all
der each scenario. Data were logged in structured sheets, capturing each KPI across all four aisle
widths
four forwidths
aisle each vehicle
for eachtype. Eachtype.
vehicle vehicle
Eachtype was tested
vehicle in multiple
type was tested inparking
multipleattempts,
parking
with different drivers to account for skill variability.
attempts, with different drivers to account for skill variability.

3.3.3. Driver
3.3.3. Driver Skill
Skill and
and Experience
Experience Levels
Levels
To ensure
To ensure reliable
reliableandandrepresentative
representativeresults,
results,the
the simulation
simulation andand physical
physical testing
testing in-
incorporated
corporated variabilityinindriver
variability driverskill
skilllevels,
levels,vehicle
vehicletypes,
types,and
andthe
thenumber
numberof
ofexperimental
experimental
parking’s performed. These factors were carefully selected to mirror real-world parking
parking’s performed. These factors were carefully selected to mirror real-world parking
conditions and provide robust data for maneuverability analysis.
conditions and provide robust data for maneuverability analysis.
Since underground parking is used by a diverse range of drivers, it was crucial to
simulate and test varying levels of skill and experience. The experiment included partici-
pants from different driving backgrounds (Table 8).
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 28 of 36

Since underground parking is used by a diverse range of drivers, it was crucial

to simulate and test varying levels of skill and experience. The experiment included
participants from different driving backgrounds (Table 8).

Table 8. Driving experience of test participants.

Driver Category Experience Level Characteristics Percentage of

Participants
Less confident, slower
Novice drivers <2 years of experience parking speeds, more 30%
corrections
Moderate confidence,
Regular drivers 2–10 years of experience average parking times, 50%
occasional corrections
Confident, efficient
Experienced drivers >10 years of experience parking, minimal 20%
adjustments

Including novice drivers ensured that the study accounted for realistic parking delays,
errors, and hesitation.
Regular drivers formed the majority, as they represent the largest proportion of park-
ing users.
Experienced drivers helped establish the best-case performance benchmark under
ideal maneuvering conditions.
To maintain consistency, each driver received clear instructions before testing but was
left to park as they normally would, minimizing external influence on their approach.

3.3.4. Number of Experimental Parking’s Performed

To ensure statistical reliability, each vehicle type was tested across all four aisle widths
(4.5 m, 5.0 m, 5.5 m, and 6.0 m), with multiple drivers performing repeated parkings
(Table 9).

Table 9. Summary of experimental parking tests.

Vehicle Type Number of Parkings per Total Experimental Parkings per

Aisle Width Vehicle
Compact cars 30 120
Sedans 30 120
SUVs 30 120
Pickups 30 120

Total experimental parkings conducted—480 (4 vehicle types × 4 aisle widths × 30

parking’s per width).
A total of 30 repetitions per condition ensured statistical significance and helped
eliminate outliers due to unexpected driver behavior.
All tests were randomized to prevent systematic biases from affecting results.
Different drivers performed the tests, providing variability in skill level, confidence,
and reaction time.

3.3.5. Results and Interpretation

The key findings from physical testing revealed that at 4.5 m aisle width, compact cars
parked successfully ~85% of the time, but sedans and SUVs required multiple corrections.
Pickup trucks consistently required reversing maneuvers to complete parking, indicating
spatial inadequacy at narrower aisle widths. The time to park exceeded 40 s due to
additional steering adjustments. At 5.0 m aisle width, the parking success rate improved
to ~94%, with SUVs and sedans maneuvering smoothly, though pickups still required
occasional extra maneuvers. The collision risk dropped significantly compared to 4.5 m.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 29 of 36

At 5.5 m aisle width, the parking success rate reached ~98%, with minimal need for
adjustments, while the time to park stabilized around 25 s for all vehicle types. At 6.0 m
aisle width, maneuverability was optimal, but total parking capacity was significantly
reduced, with no meaningful improvement in success rates compared to 5.5 m. The physical
tests confirmed that 5.0–5.5 m provides the best trade-off between ease of maneuvering
and space efficiency.
The empirical findings directly impacted the optimization framework by refining the
maneuverability function E( x ). Empirical success rates and failure points were incorpo-
rated into the penalty structure for aisle widths below 5.0 m, ensuring that parking failure
rate thresholds were used to reject suboptimal aisle widths. The model established a hard
lower bound of 5.0 m for practical usability, while aisle widths between 5.0 m and 5.5 m
were confirmed as the optimal range based on physical results. The software simulations
were validated against real driver behavior, reinforcing the model’s reliability and ensuring
that it accounted for human factors such as driver hesitation and overcorrection, making
the recommendations practical rather than idealized.
By incorporating real-world parking trials, this study ensured that theoretical and sim-
ulated results aligned with actual driver experiences. The physical testing phase confirmed
key insights, including 5.0–5.5 m as the optimal aisle width range, ensuring both capacity
and usability; parking success rates declining sharply below 5.0 m, reinforcing geometric
predictions; empirical validation of maneuverability constraints, ensuring realistic design
recommendations; and the elimination of overly narrow aisle widths (4.5 m) from opti-
mization models based on failure rates. The integration of physical testing results into the
final optimization model ensures that recommended aisle widths are not only theoretically
optimal but also practically proven in real-world conditions. This evidence-based ap-
proach enhances the study’s credibility, offering a data-driven methodology for designing
underground parking layouts that optimize efficiency, safety, and user satisfaction.

3.4. Calculating Collision Risk vs. Aisle Width

The collision risk in underground parking facilities is directly influenced by aisle
width, as it determines the space available for vehicle maneuvering, parking precision, and
interaction with adjacent vehicles or obstacles. To quantify this relationship, a systematic
methodology was employed, integrating geometric modeling, software-based simulations,
and empirical validation. The calculation process consists of four key steps:
Step 1. Defining collision risk factors
Collision risk is influenced by several maneuverability constraints, including:
• Turning radius and clearance space—Wider aisles provide more room for turning,
reducing the likelihood of side or corner collisions.
• Reversing frequency—Narrower aisles require more multi-step adjustments, increas-
ing the chance of driver error.
• Vehicle interaction zones—Locations where multiple vehicles maneuver simultane-
ously pose a higher collision probability.
• Obstacle proximity—Structural elements such as columns, walls, and support beams
can further restrict movement in narrow aisles.
Step 2. Simulation-based risk assessment
Using simulation tools, the study models vehicle trajectories under different aisle
width conditions. Each scenario includes:
• Randomized vehicle entries into parking spaces to simulate real-world behavior.
• Calculation of failed parking attempts, where vehicles either contact obstacles or
require excessive corrections.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 30 of 36

• Dynamic driver behavior modeling, incorporating variations in reaction time, parking

angle, and error frequency.
For each aisle width, the number of simulated parking events leading to near-miss or
actual collisions is recorded and translated into a collision probability.
Step 3. Empirical validation through physical testing
To ensure that the simulation results reflect real-world conditions, controlled parking
tests were conducted in operational underground parking lots. Vehicles of different sizes
attempted parking at varying aisle widths, and the following data were collected:
Infrastructures 2025, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 31 of 36
• Observed collision or near-miss incidents (e.g., bumper-to-bumper contact, curb
strikes).
• Driver difficulty assessments, rating ease of parking and maneuvering space.
• The empirical
Required data maneuvers,
corrective were compared as an against
indirect the simulation
indicator results,
of collision ensuring con-
risk.
sistency between modeled predictions and real-world performance.
The empirical data were compared against the simulation results, ensuring consistency
Step 4. Statistical
between modeledcalculation
predictionsand andmodel adjustment
real-world performance.
The final collision risk values were computed by applying a weighted probability
Step 4. Statistical calculation and model adjustment
model
The final collision risk values were computed by applying a weighted probability
𝐶 +𝐶
model 𝐶𝑅(𝑥) = × 100 (10)
C f +𝑇Cn
CR( x ) = × 100 (10)
where 𝐶𝑅(𝑥) is collision risk (%) for a given T aisle width 𝑥, 𝐶 is number of actual colli-
sions recorded
where CR( x ) is in simulations
collision and
risk (%) forphysical
a given tests, 𝐶 is x,
aisle width number of near-miss
C f is number incidents
of actual re-
collisions
quiring
recordedabrupt corrections,
in simulations andand 𝑇 is total
physical tests,number of parking
Cn is number attemptsincidents
of near-miss across allrequiring
tests.
By comparing results across 4.5 m, 5.0 m, 5.5 m, and 6.0 m,
abrupt corrections, and T is total number of parking attempts across all tests.a collision risk curve was
generated, illustrating
By comparing the across
results inverse4.5relationship
m, 5.0 m, 5.5 between
m, andaisle
6.0 m,width and collision
a collision risk curveproba-
was
bility.
generated, illustrating the inverse relationship between aisle width and collision probability.
The Figure
Figure 1515 illustrates
illustratesthe
therelationship
relationshipbetween
betweenaisle
aislewidth
width inin underground
underground park-
parking
ing facilities
facilities andandthe the probability
probability of vehicle
of vehicle collisions
collisions during
during parking
parking maneuvers.
maneuvers. ThisThis anal-
analysis
ysis
helps helps identify
identify the the optimal
optimal aisle
aisle width
width that
that minimizescollision
minimizes collisionrisk
riskwhile
while maintaining
space efficiency.
efficiency.

Figure 15. Collision risk vs. aisle width.

At 4.5 m aisle width, the collision risk is at its highest (~15%), indicating that tight
maneuvering space increases the likelihood of vehicles hitting adjacent parked cars, struc-
tural elements, or requiring multiple corrections.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 31 of 36

At 4.5 m aisle width, the collision risk is at its highest (~15%), indicating that tight ma-
neuvering space increases the likelihood of vehicles hitting adjacent parked cars, structural
elements, or requiring multiple corrections.
As aisle width increases to 5.0 m, collision risk significantly drops (~7%), demonstrat-
ing that slightly wider passages provide better clearance for turning and reversing.
At 5.5 m aisle width, the collision risk further decreases to approximately 3%, suggest-
ing that drivers can complete parking maneuvers more smoothly with fewer adjustments.
Beyond 5.5 m (toward 6.0 m), the collision risk approaches near-zero, implying that at
wider aisles, vehicles have ample space to park with minimal risk of accidental contact.
Implications for parking design:
Narrower aisles (≤4.5 m) pose a significant safety concern, particularly for larger
vehicles such as SUVs and pickup trucks.
An optimal range of 5.0–5.5 m provides a balance between maneuverability and space
efficiency, reducing collision probability while preserving parking capacity.
Aisle widths above 5.5 m show diminishing returns, as the additional space only
marginally improves safety while reducing the number of available parking spots.
This illustration underscores the importance of carefully selecting aisle widths in
underground parking layouts to enhance driver safety, minimize vehicle damage, and
optimize space utilization.

4. Discussion
4.1. Interpretation of Key Findings
The findings of this study provide a comprehensive analysis of how aisle width
influences maneuverability, parking success rates, and overall parking facility efficiency
in underground parking structures. By integrating geometric modeling, software-based
simulations, and empirical physical testing, the study identifies an optimal aisle width
range that balances maneuverability and parking capacity.
The geometric modeling results established the theoretical minimum aisle width re-
quired for different vehicle types based on their turning radii, swept path analysis, and
clearance requirements. The analysis revealed that aisle widths below 5.0 m significantly
constrained vehicle movement, particularly for larger vehicles such as SUVs and pickup
trucks, leading to a high probability of multi-step parking maneuvers and increased colli-
sion risk. The modeling also indicated that increasing aisle width beyond 5.5 m provided
diminishing returns in maneuverability improvement while reducing total parking capacity.
The software-based simulations reinforced these geometric predictions by dynamically
modeling vehicle trajectories in controlled parking scenarios. The simulations quantified
key performance indicators such as parking success rate, time required to park, number of
reversing attempts, and collision risk under varying aisle width conditions.
The results demonstrated that:
• At 4.5 m, parking success rates were notably lower, especially for larger vehicles, with
high collision probability due to limited maneuvering space.
• At 5.0 m, maneuverability improved significantly, with most sedans and SUVs parking
efficiently, though pickup trucks occasionally required corrective maneuvers.
• At 5.5 m, nearly all vehicle types could park smoothly without excessive adjustments,
optimizing both success rate and time to park.
• At 6.0 m, while maneuverability was at its peak, the reduction in total parking capacity
made it less practical for high-density urban environments.
The physical testing phase in operational underground parking facilities further vali-
dated these findings by providing real-world evidence of how different aisle widths affect
driver behavior and maneuvering success. The tests confirmed that an aisle width of
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 32 of 36

5.0–5.5 m represents the most effective compromise between ease of parking and maximiz-
ing available space. Parking attempts at aisle widths below 5.0 m were characterized by
a higher frequency of reversing maneuvers, prolonged parking durations, and a notable
increase in near-collision events. The empirical findings also highlighted the influence
of driver experience levels, with novice drivers struggling more at narrower aisle widths
compared to experienced drivers.
One of the most critical insights from this study is the strong correlation between aisle
width and collision risk. The analysis showed that at widths below 5.0 m, the probability
of accidental vehicle contacts or curb strikes increased sharply. At 5.0–5.5 m, collision risk
dropped significantly, suggesting that this range provides a safe and practical balance for
urban underground parking designs.
The study’s findings confirm that, while increasing aisle width enhances maneuver-
ability, it must be carefully optimized to avoid unnecessary reductions in parking density.
The optimal range of 5.0–5.5 m ensures that underground parking facilities maximize us-
ability while maintaining efficient space allocation, making it a practical recommendation
for urban planners, civil engineers, and facility designers.

4.2. Comparison with Existing Standards and Guidelines

Existing parking regulations provide minimum aisle width recommendations, but
they often fail to specify optimal widths that balance maneuverability and space efficiency.
This study’s findings highlight key differences and suggest potential updates to align with
modern vehicle trends.
Aisle width regulations vary across countries (Table 1). Kazakhstan and the U.S.
require 5.5–6.0 m, ensuring ample maneuverability but reducing capacity. European
standards (5.0–5.5 m) align closely with this study’s findings. Some municipal codes allow
widths as low as 4.5 m, which our results show is insufficient for larger vehicles. This study
confirms that a 5.0–5.5-m range offers the best compromise between efficiency and usability,
suggesting that some existing regulations are overly rigid or outdated.
Numerous existing regulations appear overly rigid or outdated, as they do not ade-
quately account for the widespread increase in SUV and pickup truck usage in contempo-
rary vehicle fleets. Many regulations were developed before SUVs and pickups became
widespread. This study shows:
• SUVs and pickups require at least 5.0 m for smooth parking.
• Standards allowing less than 5.0 m may not accommodate modern vehicle sizes.
• Regulations should be updated to reflect changing vehicle compositions.
Current guidelines often lack adaptability for different parking scenarios. Recom-
mended updates include:
• Allowing mixed-width parking zones (e.g., 4.5–5.0 m for compact cars, 5.5 m for
large vehicles).
• Encouraging dynamic parking layouts using smart parking technology.
• Revising national codes to define both minimum and optimal aisle widths.
Adopting more flexible, data-driven regulations will improve efficiency, safety, and
user experience in underground parking facilities.
The original capacity function formulation in Formula (2) assumes a uniform average
stall width, which is appropriate for simplified layouts or for compliance with design codes.
However, mixed-width parking layouts can enhance both space utilization and operational
efficiency. To extend the model accordingly, the capacity function in Formula (2) can be
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 33 of 36

modified to incorporate weighted stall widths based on the composition of the vehicle fleet.
The adjusted formula becomes

k  
W
N (x) = ∑ w i + bi
· Ri (11)
i =1

where wi is the stall width for vehicle category i, bi is the buffer space required for maneu-
verability or structural offsets, Ri is the proportion of vehicle type i in the fleet, and k is the
number of designated zones. This zoned formulation allows layout optimization tailored
to observed or projected vehicle distributions, which may vary by geographic region or
building function. Such a model can be integrated into the planning process by using local
vehicle registration data, as was done in the Kazakhstan case study, to determine fleet
proportions and dynamically assign stall sizes across the layout.

4.3. Limitations and Sources of Uncertainty

While this study provides valuable insights into optimizing aisle widths for under-
ground parking, several limitations and sources of uncertainty must be acknowledged.
One primary constraint is the limited scope of physical testing, which was conducted in
selected underground parking facilities. This may not fully capture variations in structural
layouts, environmental conditions, and regional parking designs.
Simulations were conducted under idealized vehicle movements, meaning factors
such as driver hesitation, distractions, or unexpected obstacles were not fully modeled.
While the software tools used provide realistic approximations, they cannot fully replicate
human factors and environmental effects.
External influences further contribute to uncertainty in aisle width performance. Struc-
tural elements such as columns, ramps, and irregular layouts can limit maneuverability in
ways that standardized tests do not always capture.
Despite these limitations, the study provides a robust empirical foundation for opti-
mizing aisle width in underground parking. While certain contextual variations may exist,
the core findings remain applicable to urban planners, facility designers, and transportation
engineers. By refining these insights through further research and integrating emerging
vehicle technologies, future studies can enhance underground parking designs to maximize
both maneuverability and space efficiency.

4.4. Future Research Directions

Future studies should focus on incorporating emerging vehicle technologies, diverse
urban environments, and advanced modeling techniques to improve underground park-
ing design.
One key area for future research is the impact of automated vehicles on aisle width
requirements. The increasing adoption of self-parking systems and autonomous vehicles
may reduce the need for wider aisles, as these technologies enable precise maneuvering
with minimal human error.
Real-world driver behavior analysis through AI-powered monitoring systems could
further refine the study’s findings. By using computer vision and real-time data collection,
researchers could track actual parking patterns, corrective maneuvers, and collision risks
over extended periods. This would help validate simulation-based predictions and ensure
that recommended aisle widths account for the full range of human driving behaviors,
including hesitation, misalignment, and varying skill levels.
Another promising research direction is the development of adaptive parking layouts
that adjust aisle width dynamically based on real-time occupancy and vehicle type distri-
bution. Smart parking systems, incorporating sensor-based monitoring and automated
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 34 of 36

guidance, could optimize aisle space depending on whether a facility is predominantly

occupied by compact cars, SUVs, or a mix of both.
By addressing these research areas, future studies can build on this work to create
smarter, safer, and more efficient underground parking facilities that accommodate techno-
logical advancements, evolving vehicle types, and the needs of modern urban mobility.

5. Conclusions
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of aisle width optimization in under-
ground parking facilities, integrating geometric modeling, software-based simulations,
and empirical physical testing to determine the optimal balance between maneuverability,
safety, and parking capacity. The findings highlight that aisle widths below 5.0 m signifi-
cantly hinder vehicle maneuverability, increasing parking time, reversing attempts, and
collision risk, particularly for larger vehicles such as SUVs and pickup trucks. Conversely,
aisle widths above 5.5 m provide only marginal maneuverability improvements while
reducing overall parking density, making them less efficient for high-capacity facilities.
The optimal aisle width range of 5.0–5.5 m was identified as the best compromise between
usability and space efficiency.
Comparing the study’s results with existing parking standards, it was found that many
regulations specify minimum aisle widths but do not always define an optimal range. Some
municipal codes permit aisle widths as low as 4.5 m, which this research demonstrates is
insufficient for modern vehicle sizes. European guidelines (5.0–5.5 m) align closely with
the study’s recommendations, whereas American and Kazakhstani standards (5.5–6.0 m)
tend to be more conservative. These findings suggest that regulatory updates are needed
to better reflect current vehicle trends and real-world maneuverability constraints.
Several limitations of the study were acknowledged, including the geographic scope
of physical testing, driver variability, and assumptions in simulation modeling. Future re-
search should expand real-world testing across diverse parking environments, incorporate
AI-driven monitoring of actual parking behaviors, and explore adaptive parking layouts
that dynamically adjust aisle widths based on vehicle type and occupancy levels. Addition-
ally, the rise of autonomous and electric vehicles may introduce new space requirements,
necessitating further investigations into how underground parking design should evolve
in response to emerging technologies.
The findings are relevant for urban planners, civil engineers, and facility designers,
offering practical guidance to improve parking efficiency and user experience.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.K. and A.Z.; methodology, I.K. and A.K.; software,
A.K.; validation, I.K.; formal analysis, A.Z.; investigation, A.K. and A.Z.; resources, A.K. and A.Z.;
data curation, Z.S. and T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, I.K. and A.K.; writing—review and
editing, I.K., A.K., A.Z., Z.S. and T.S.; visualization, I.K., A.K. and A.Z.; supervision, I.K.; project
administration, T.S.; funding acquisition, A.K., A.Z., Z.S. and T.S. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest: Authors A.K. and A.Z. were employed by the company Universal Tech De-
cisions. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 35 of 36

References
1. Rocco, G.; Pipino, C.; Pagano, C. An Overview of Urban Mobility: Revolutionizing with Innovative Smart Parking Systems.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13174. [CrossRef]
2. Zhang, P.; Chen, Z. Research on Demand Proportion Planning of Urban Underground Parking. A Case Study of Underground
Parking in Shenzhen, China. Chin. J. Undergr. Space Eng. 2011, 7, 9–16.
3. International Building Code (IBC). Available online: [Link] (accessed on 30 August 2024).
4. NFPA 88A. Standard for Parking Structures. Available online: [Link]
standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=88A (accessed on 5 March 2025).
5. ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th ed.; Institute of Transportation Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
6. Design Recommendations for Multi Storey and Underground Car Parks; Institution of Structural Engineers: London, UK, 2018.
7. BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice and Sector Single Code of Practice. Available online: [Link]
uk/code-of-practice-and-compliance-monitoring (accessed on 30 August 2024).
8. EPA Fire Safety Advice—Toolbox. Available online: [Link] (accessed on
5 March 2025).
9. National Building Code of Canada 2020. Available online: [Link]
canada/codes-canada-publications/national-building-code-canada-2020 (accessed on 5 March 2025).
10. ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Available online: [Link]
ADAStandards_prt.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2025).
11. BS 8300-2:2018. Design of an Accessible and Inclusive Built Environment—Buildings. Code of Practice. Available on-
line: [Link]
of-practice?version=standard (accessed on 5 March 2025).
12. Wang, D.; Liu, C. A Quantitative Method for Determining Underground Garage Parking Comfort and Development of a BIM
Based Analysis Program. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5691. [CrossRef]
13. Yang, S.; Huang, L. Research on Planning and Management of Urban Parking Lot—Taking Hangzhou as an Example. Curr. Urban
Stud. 2017, 5, 379–386. [CrossRef]
14. Liu, Y.; Ji, Y.; Ding, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, L. Research on the Parking Characteristics and Optimal Parking Space Allocation in the
Expressway Service Areas: A Two-Stage Framework. SSRN 2023, 29. Available online: [Link]
cfm?abstract_id=4706225 (accessed on 1 January 2025).
15. Guo, C.; Guo, P. Research on Parking Space Optimal Design Method in Parking Lots. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2012, 11, 698–701. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, P.; Chen, Z.; Liu, H. Study on the layout method of Urban underground parking system-a case of underground parking
system in the Central business District in linping New City of Hangzhou. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 46, 101404. [CrossRef]
17. Feng, Y.; Wang, F.; Chen, X.; Zhang, X. Study on Parking Adaptability in Urban Complexes on Top of Subways Based on Shared
Parking Spaces. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7334. [CrossRef]
18. Diachuk, M.; Easa, S.M.; Bannis, J. Path and Control Planning for Autonomous Vehicles in Restricted Space and Low Speed.
Infrastructures 2020, 5, 42. [CrossRef]
19. Makarova, I.; Mavrin, V.; Sadreev, D.; Buyvol, P.; Boyko, A.; Belyaev, E. Rational Organization of Urban Parking Using
Microsimulation. Infrastructures 2022, 7, 140. [CrossRef]
20. Mikusova, M.; Abdunazarov, J.; Zukowska, J.; Jagelcak, J. Designing of Parking Spaces on Parking Taking into Account the
Parameters of Design Vehicles. Computation 2020, 8, 71. [CrossRef]
21. Brčić, D.; Šoštarić, M.; Ševrović, M. Analytic Determination of Reference Passenger Car Size for Parking Space Dimensioning in
Croatia. Promet-Traffic Transp. 2012, 24, 215–222. [CrossRef]
22. Duvanova, I.; Simankina, T.; Shevchenko, A.; Musorina, T.; Yufereva, A. Optimize the Use of a Parking Space in a Residential
Area. Procedia Eng. 2016, 165, 1784–1793. [CrossRef]
23. Lan, D.; Chen, K.; Xu, Z. Underground Parking Layout Generation Based on the WaveFunctionCollapse Algorithm. Buildings
2023, 13, 2898. [CrossRef]
24. Biyik, C.; Allam, Z.; Pieri, G.; Moroni, D.; O’Fraifer, M.; O’Connell, E.; Olariu, S.; Khalid, M. Smart Parking Systems: Reviewing
the Literature, Architecture and Ways Forward. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 623–642. [CrossRef]
25. Kang, Y.-H.; Pang, D.-C.; Zeng, Y.-C. Optimal Dimensional Synthesis of Ackermann Steering Mechanisms for Three-Axle,
Six-Wheeled Vehicles. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 800. [CrossRef]
26. AutoTURN—The Industry’s Leading Swept Path Analysis Software. Available online: [Link]
landing/autoturn-the-industrys-leading-swept-path-analysis-software/ (accessed on 5 March 2025).
27. PARKCAD. Available online: [Link]
parkcad/ (accessed on 30 August 2024).
Infrastructures 2025, 10, 100 36 of 36

28. Ansar Abuevyu. Research of the Car Market of Kazakhstan: Analysis of the Transformation of the Industry. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 5 March 2025).
29. Building Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. SN RK 3.03-05-2014. Car. Car Parking. Parking. Available online: https:
//[Link]/Document/?doc_id=31967233&show_di=1#pos=0;0 (accessed on 5 March 2025).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.