Economic Analysis of Parking Systems

in Urban Areas
Mico Ellerich Comia, Justin Gerald Gonzales, Lowell Andrew Hernandez,
Gene Laser Andrew Orion, Michael Edison Yanga
Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of the Philippines Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

With the large increase in the number of vehicles, the demand for parking spaces in high-density urban areas also
increases. One of the main factors that affect this is the space scarcity in urban areas where parking spaces could be built. This
paper provides an analysis of different parking systems through evaluation of alternatives based on different methods and
techniques and provide convenient and efficient recommendations to address the mentioned issue. The study’s point of view is
from the perspective of the parking system operator. The evaluation and development of alternatives was done with a study
period of 20 years. The main alternatives are the Conventional Multi-storey Car Park System, Semi-Automated Parking System
and the Fully-Automated Parking System. Assumptions were made for the cost of semi-automated parking systems due to lack
of available data but it was derived from the average of other alternatives. Available data from US especially costs that are in
dollars were converted to Philippine pesos and all parking systems are assumed to be stand-alone parking structures that are
above grade (SA, AG) or below building parking structures that are below grade (BA, BG).

For the cash flow development, several assumptions were made for various parking systems. Included in these is the
assumption that each system has a capacity of 200 cars and runs 24/7. The wage of employees is assumed to be based on the
minimum wage in NCR and a flat parking fee of 40 Php for 4 hours is used based on a shopping complex’ parking rate in the
region. A comparison of construction cost per alternative was tabulated and based on this, Conventional (BA, BG) has the
largest construction cost. Annual operating cost per alternative was also tabulated and based on this, the conventional system
has the largest total annual operating cost.

For the cost estimation and projection, income/savings projection, and after tax cash flow analysis, a real property tax
of 2%, inflation rate of 5.05% and MARR of 12% was used. A depreciable life of 27 years was used for conventional parking
system, 17 years for semi-automated parking system, and 7 years for a fully-automated parking system. There is an assumption
of zero tax serving as a tax credit for a zero taxable income. Present Worth method was used to determine the best depreciation
method to use. The method with the least cost based on its present worth is DDB with Switchover to SL method thus, this was
used for the other parking systems remaining.

Based on the present worth comparison, a conventional parking system has the least cost when built as a SA, AG type
but if the system is built as a BA, BG type, a fully-automated system has the least cost due to smaller footprint.

For multi-attributed comparison, the differences between the alternatives are better pointed out by considering three
basic categories of sustainable design (environmental, economic and social) as it applies to automated parking facilities.
Looking at the economic aspect, automated systems yielded a lower amount, due to conventional systems’ consideration of
factors such as employees, insurance and security which are already covered by the machine maintenance in automated systems.
Based on the construction costs, SA, AG type for a conventional system is cheaper but yields the opposite for the BA, BG type.
Lower cost is considered to be more desirable. For environmental factors, conventional system facilities require constant
lighting for drivers’ navigation compared to minimal usage in automated ones. Spatial usage is also maximized in automated
system facilities and it uses land more efficiently resulting to lesser footprint. In this case, lower output is more desired. In
considering the social aspects, conventional system consumes more time when it comes to finding an area where people park
and has weaker security compared to an automated system because of easier accessibility to potentially dangerous people.
Human interaction was also reduced in this case. In this attribute, lower output is more desired.

Different attributes were compared for the alternatives and it was evidently shown that a fully-automated parking
system is the best alternative other than the other alternatives present. To further have a definite choice among the alternatives,
additive weighting technique was used as a compensatory model. Using this technique, a fully-automated parking system still
turned out to be the most cost effective alternative.
 I. INTRODUCTION
A. Statement of the Problem
The number of vehicles in high-density urban areas is
increasing and thus, there is a large demand for parking
spaces. However, this brings forth a problem since there is
a scarcity of space in urban areas where parking spaces
could be constructed.
This study aims to explore what parking system should
be implemented based on economical viability,
convenience, and efficiency. The parking system’s ability
to address issues that plague typical parking systems such
as clogging in loading and unloading zones will be
considered.
B. Scope and Limitations
The study’s viewpoint is from the perspective of the
park system operator and thus, construction, operation, and
maintenance costs are negatively reflected in cash flow
diagrams while revenue from parking fees are reflected
positively. According to Engr. Samuel Schwartz, a
conventional car deck’s useful life is 20 years [1] and so
the proponents aim to evaluate and develop the alternatives
with a study period of 20 years.
Due to the lack of available data for the cost of
semi-automated parking systems, the proponents assumed
that the cost of such system is the average cost of that of a
conventional and fully-automated parking system. This is
because a semi-automated parking system employs the
mechanical system needed for a fully automated parking
system while being housed to structures similar to that of a
traditional car park.
Since the available data for these systems are in US
dollars, the proponents have converted the data to
Philippine pesos. Lastly, all of the parking systems are
assumed to be stand-alone parking structures that are above
grade or parking structures that have buildings on top of
them and are below grade.
in carbon dioxide levels of up to 85%. It has one entry
point and the system automatically finds a parking space
for the driver. Fully automated systems are usually used for
large capacity parking spaces. [3]
C. Semi-Automated Parking System
A system that combines the mechanics of a traditional
and automated parking system. A semi-automated parking
system differs from that of an automated system by
requiring the driver to drive to a vacant parking space that
is found by the system. They are similar in a way that
parking spaces can be stacked and can be stored to give
way to more cars. [4]
III. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Cash Flow Development
For the various parking systems, several assumptions
were made. The study assumes that each system has a
capacity of 200 cars and runs 24/7. It is also assumed that
the wage of employees is based on the minimum wage in
NCR [5], a flat parking fee of 40 Php for 4 hours is used
based on a shopping complex’ parking rate in NCR [6], and
that these parking structures are always full.
The number of parking attendants vary between the
parking structures; zero for a fully-automated system, 1
parking attendant per 10 parking spaces for a
semi-automated system, and 1 parking attendants per 5
parking spaces for a conventional system.
A summary of the construction cost and annual
operating costs per system are shown in Tables I and II,
respectively. SA,AG stands for Stand-Alone, Above Grade
and BA,BG stands for Building Above, Below Grade.
TABLE I
Construction Cost Comparison [7]
Conventional Semi-Automated Fully-Automated

​II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS SA,AG BA,BG SA,AG BA,BG SA,AG BA,BG

A. Conventional Multi-storey Car Park System Constructi 167,859,2 496,125,0 220,970,9 432,468,7 274,082,6 368,503,4
on Cost 00.00 00.00 00.00 50.00 00.00 00.00
A multi-storey car park or a parking garage is a build
(or part thereof) which is designed specifically to be for TABLE II
automobile parking and where there are a number of floors Annual Operating Cost Per System [7]
or levels on which parking takes place. It is just a stacked
parking lot which has an access and exit system to avoid Conventional Semi-Automated Fully-Automated
traffic congestion in and out. [2]

B. Automated Parking System Security 1,122,847.30 745,066.90 367,276.00

It is a mechanical system that offers more parking in Management Fees 388,274.30 388,274.30 388,263.20
less space, particularly, it doubles the parking density, half
the build time, reduced development cost and a reduction Supplies 199,384.10 199,384.10 199,378.40
 Insurance 188,890.20 141,667.65 94,442.40 7 10,351,101.35 5,592,733.33 4,758,368.02 95,167.36 10,255,933.99

Utilities 545,682.80 508,954.15 472,212.00 8 10,873,831.97 5,592,733.33 5,281,098.63 105,621.97 10,768,209.99

Maintenance 703,091.30 2,450,325.65 4,197,440.00 9 11,422,960.48 5,592,733.33 5,830,227.15 116,604.54 11,306,355.94

Misc. 104,939.00 104,939.00 104,936.00 10 11,999,819.99 5,592,733.33 6,407,086.65 128,141.73 11,871,678.25

Employee Wages 6,935,000.00 3,467,500.00 0.00 11 12,605,810.89 5,592,733.33 7,013,077.56 140,261.55 12,465,549.34

Total 10,188,109.00 8,006,111.75 5,823,948.00 12 13,242,404.34 5,592,733.33 7,649,671.01 152,993.42 13,089,410.92

13 13,911,145.76 5,592,733.33 8,318,412.43 166,368.25 13,744,777.52

B. Cost Estimation and Projection, Income/Savings
Projection, After Tax Cash Flow Analysis 14 14,613,658.63 5,592,733.33 9,020,925.29 180,418.51 14,433,240.12

Since the parking fee is a flat rate of 40 Php for 4 hours,

15 15,351,648.39 5,592,733.33 9,758,915.05 195,178.30 15,156,470.08
all parking systems have a steady cash inflow of
17,520,000 Php. A real property tax of 2% [8], inflation
16 16,126,906.63 5,592,733.33 10,534,173.30 210,683.47 15,916,223.16
rate of 5.05% [9], and MARR of 12% was used. The
salvage value was assumed to be 10% of the initial
17 16,941,315.41 5,592,733.33 11,348,582.08 226,971.64 16,714,343.77
construction cost. A depreciable life of 27 years was used
for a conventional parking system, 17 years for a
18 17,796,851.84 5,592,733.33 12,204,118.51 244,082.37 17,552,769.47
semi-automated parking system, and 7 years for a fully
automated parking system since parking lifts are
19 18,695,592.86 5,592,733.33 13,102,859.53 262,057.19 18,433,535.67
considered as equipment and thus, has a lower depreciable
life [10]. For a zero taxable income, the proponents
assumed a tax of zero, serving as a tax credit. [12] The 20 19,639,720.30 5,592,733.33 14,046,986.97 280,939.74 19,358,780.56

proponents used Present Worth method to determine the

best depreciation method to use. Tables III, IV, and V show PW -88,499,759.01

the before and after tax cash flow of a stand-alone,

above-grade conventional parking system. TABLE IV
Sum of the Years Digits Method
TABLE III
Straight-Line Method
Conventional

Taxable
Conventional EOY BTCF d​K Tax ATCF
Income

Taxable 167,782,000.0
EOY BTCF d​K Tax ATCF
Income 0 167,782,000.00 - - - 0
167,782,000.0
0 167,782,000.00 - - - 0 1 7,702,118.93 7,989,619.05 -287,500.12 0.00 7,702,118.93

1 7,702,118.93 5,592,733.33 2,109,385.60 42,187.71 7,659,931.22 2 8,091,075.94 7,590,138.10 500,937.84 0.00 8,091,075.94

2 8,091,075.94 5,592,733.33 2,498,342.60 49,966.85 8,041,109.08 3 8,499,675.27 7,190,657.14 1,309,018.13 0.00 8,499,675.27

3 8,499,675.27 5,592,733.33 2,906,941.94 58,138.84 8,441,536.43 4 8,928,908.87 6,791,176.19 2,137,732.68 0.00 8,928,908.87

4 8,928,908.87 5,592,733.33 3,336,175.54 66,723.51 8,862,185.36 5 9,379,818.77 6,391,695.24 2,988,123.53 0.00 9,379,818.77

5 9,379,818.77 5,592,733.33 3,787,085.44 75,741.71 9,304,077.06 6 9,853,499.62 5,992,214.29 3,861,285.33 0.00 9,853,499.62

6 9,853,499.62 5,592,733.33 4,260,766.28 85,215.33 9,768,284.29 7 10,351,101.35 5,592,733.33 4,758,368.02 95,167.36 10,255,933.99
 8 10,873,831.97 5,193,252.38 5,680,579.59 113,611.59 10,760,220.37 9 11,422,960.48 6,714,621.78 4,708,338.70 94,166.77 11,328,793.71

9 11,422,960.48 4,793,771.43 6,629,189.05 132,583.78 11,290,376.70 10 11,999,819.99 6,217,242.39 5,782,577.60 115,651.55 11,884,168.43

10 11,999,819.99 4,394,290.48 7,605,529.51 152,110.59 11,847,709.40 11 12,605,810.89 5,756,705.91 6,849,104.98 136,982.10 12,468,828.79

11 12,605,810.89 3,994,809.52 8,611,001.37 172,220.03 12,433,590.87 12 13,242,404.34 3,448,788.99 9,793,615.35 195,872.31 13,046,532.04

12 13,242,404.34 3,595,328.57 9,647,075.77 192,941.52 13,049,462.83 13 13,911,145.76 3,448,788.99 10,462,356.77 209,247.14 13,701,898.63

13 13,911,145.76 3,195,847.62 10,715,298.14 214,305.96 13,696,839.80 14 14,613,658.63 3,448,788.99 11,164,869.63 223,297.39 14,390,361.23

14 14,613,658.63 2,796,366.67 11,817,291.96 236,345.84 14,377,312.79 15 15,351,648.39 3,448,788.99 11,902,859.39 238,057.19 15,113,591.20

15 15,351,648.39 2,396,885.71 12,954,762.67 259,095.25 15,092,553.13 16 16,126,906.63 3,448,788.99 12,678,117.63 253,562.35 15,873,344.28

16 16,126,906.63 1,997,404.76 14,129,501.87 282,590.04 15,844,316.59 17 16,941,315.41 3,448,788.99 13,492,526.42 269,850.53 16,671,464.89

17 16,941,315.41 1,597,923.81 15,343,391.60 306,867.83 16,634,447.58 18 17,796,851.84 3,448,788.99 14,348,062.85 286,961.26 17,509,890.59

18 17,796,851.84 1,198,442.86 16,598,408.99 331,968.18 17,464,883.66 19 18,695,592.86 3,448,788.99 15,246,803.87 304,936.08 18,390,656.78

19 18,695,592.86 798,961.90 17,896,630.96 357,932.62 18,337,660.24 20 19,639,720.30 3,448,788.99 16,190,931.31 323,818.63 19,315,901.67

20 19,639,720.30 399,480.95 19,240,239.35 384,804.79 19,254,915.51 PW -88,271,286.07

PW -88,379,269.95 The method with the least cost based on its present
worth is DDB with Switchover method and thus, the
proponents used this method for the remaining parking
TABLE V systems.
Double Declining Balance with Switchover Method The cash flow diagram for all of the proposed systems
are similar to Figure 1 and as such, tables were used
Taxable
EOY BTCF d​K
Income
Tax ATCF instead to show the cash flow of the different parking
systems.
167,782,000.0
0 167,782,000.00 - - - 0

1 7,702,118.93 12,428,296.30 -4,726,177.37 0.00 7,702,118.93

2 8,091,075.94 11,507,681.76 -3,416,605.82 0.00 8,091,075.94

3 8,499,675.27 10,655,260.89 -2,155,585.61 0.00 8,499,675.27

4 8,928,908.87 9,865,982.30 -937,073.43 0.00 8,928,908.87

5 9,379,818.77 9,135,168.80 244,649.97 0.00 9,379,818.77

6 9,853,499.62 8,458,489.63 1,395,009.99 0.00 9,853,499.62

Fig. 1. Cash Flow Diagram

7 10,351,101.35 7,831,934.84 2,519,166.51 50,383.33 10,300,718.02

a. Conventional
8 10,873,831.97 7,251,791.52 3,622,040.45 72,440.81 10,801,391.16 Refer to Table V for cash flow of a conventional
parking system that is stand-alone and above ground.
 Taxable
EOY BTCF d​K Tax ATCF
TABLE VI Income
Conventional Parking System, BA,BG
221,215,225.0
0 221,215,225.00 - - - 0
Taxable
EOY BTCF d​K Tax ATCF -16,035,024.6
Income
1 9,990,295.97 26,025,320.59 2 0.00 9,990,295.97
496,125,000.0
0 496,125,000.00 - - - 0 -12,468,712.2
2 10,494,805.92 22,963,518.17 5 0.00 10,494,805.92
-29,050,746.8
1 7,699,253.17 36,750,000.00 3 0.00 7,699,253.17
3 11,024,793.61 20,261,927.79 -9,237,134.18 0.00 11,024,793.61
-25,939,712.3
2 8,088,065.45 34,027,777.78 3 0.00 8,088,065.45
4 11,581,545.69 17,878,171.58 -6,296,625.89 0.00 11,581,545.69
-23,010,688.8
3 8,496,512.76 31,507,201.65 9 0.00 8,496,512.76
5 12,166,413.75 15,774,857.28 -3,608,443.53 0.00 12,166,413.75
-20,247,748.2
4 8,925,586.65 29,173,334.86 1 0.00 8,925,586.65
6 12,780,817.64 13,918,991.72 -1,138,174.07 0.00 12,780,817.64
-17,636,018.3
5 9,376,328.78 27,012,347.09 1 0.00 9,376,328.78
7 13,426,248.94 12,281,463.28 1,144,785.66 22,895.71 13,403,353.22
-15,161,599.1
6 9,849,833.38 25,011,432.49 1 0.00 9,849,833.38
8 14,104,274.51 8,289,987.71 5,814,286.79 116,285.74 13,987,988.77
-12,811,483.8
7 10,347,249.97 23,158,733.79 2 0.00 10,347,249.97
9 14,816,540.37 8,289,987.71 6,526,552.66 130,531.05 14,686,009.32
-10,573,485.9
8 10,869,786.09 21,443,272.03 4 0.00 10,869,786.09
10 15,564,775.66 8,289,987.71 7,274,787.94 145,495.76 15,419,279.90

9 11,418,710.29 19,854,881.51 -8,436,171.22 0.00 11,418,710.29

11 16,350,796.83 8,289,987.71 8,060,809.12 161,216.18 16,189,580.65

10 11,995,355.16 18,384,149.54 -6,388,794.39 0.00 11,995,355.16

12 17,176,512.07 8,289,987.71 8,886,524.35 177,730.49 16,998,781.58

11 12,601,120.59 17,022,360.69 -4,421,240.10 0.00 12,601,120.59

13 18,043,925.93 8,289,987.71 9,753,938.21 195,078.76 17,848,847.16

12 13,237,477.18 19,150,155.77 -5,912,678.59 0.00 13,237,477.18

14 18,955,144.19 8,289,987.71 10,665,156.47 213,303.13 18,741,841.06

13 13,905,969.78 19,150,155.77 -5,244,186.00 0.00 13,905,969.78

15 19,912,378.97 8,289,987.71 11,622,391.26 232,447.83 19,679,931.14

14 14,608,221.25 19,150,155.77 -4,541,934.52 0.00 14,608,221.25

16 20,917,954.11 8,289,987.71 12,627,966.39 252,559.33 20,665,394.78

15 15,345,936.42 19,150,155.77 -3,804,219.35 0.00 15,345,936.42

17 21,974,310.79 8,289,987.71 13,684,323.08 273,686.46 21,700,624.33

16 16,120,906.21 19,150,155.77 -3,029,249.56 0.00 16,120,906.21

18 23,084,013.48 0.00 23,084,013.48 461,680.27 22,622,333.21

17 16,935,011.98 19,150,155.77 -2,215,143.79 0.00 16,935,011.98

19 24,249,756.16 0.00 24,249,756.16 484,995.12 23,764,761.04

18 17,790,230.08 19,150,155.77 -1,359,925.69 0.00 17,790,230.08

20 25,474,368.85 0.00 25,474,368.85 509,487.38 24,964,881.47

19 18,688,636.70 19,150,155.77 -461,519.07 0.00 18,688,636.70

TABLE VIII
Semi-Automated Parking System, BA, BG
20 19,632,412.86 19,150,155.77 482,257.08 9,645.14 19,622,767.71

Taxable
EOY BTCF d​K Tax ATCF
Income
b. Semi-Automated 432,468,750.0
0 432,468,750.00 - - - 0
TABLE VII
Semi-Automated Parking System, SA, AG -40,888,380.5
1 9,990,295.97 50,878,676.47 0 0.00 9,990,295.97
 -34,398,143.9 -26,444,833.6
2 10,494,805.92 44,892,949.83 1 0.00 10,494,805.92 3 13,553,074.47 39,997,908.16 9 0.00 13,553,074.47

-28,586,632.7
3 11,024,793.61 39,611,426.32 0 0.00 11,024,793.61 4 14,237,504.73 18,139,051.35 -3,901,546.62 0.00 14,237,504.73

-23,369,712.8
4 11,581,545.69 34,951,258.52 2 0.00 11,581,545.69 5 14,956,498.72 18,139,051.35 -3,182,552.63 0.00 14,956,498.72

-18,672,932.0
5 12,166,413.75 30,839,345.75 0 0.00 12,166,413.75 6 15,711,801.91 18,139,051.35 -2,427,249.44 0.00 15,711,801.91

-14,430,369.7
6 12,780,817.64 27,211,187.43 8 0.00 12,780,817.64 7 16,505,247.91 18,139,051.35 -1,633,803.45 0.00 16,505,247.91

-10,583,622.3
7 13,426,248.94 24,009,871.26 2 0.00 13,426,248.94 8 17,338,762.92 0.00 17,338,762.92 346,775.26 16,991,987.67

8 14,104,274.51 16,206,663.10 -2,102,388.59 0.00 14,104,274.51 9 18,214,370.45 0.00 18,214,370.45 364,287.41 17,850,083.04

9 14,816,540.37 16,206,663.10 -1,390,122.73 0.00 14,816,540.37 10 19,134,196.16 0.00 19,134,196.16 382,683.92 18,751,512.24

10 15,564,775.66 16,206,663.10 -641,887.44 0.00 15,564,775.66 11 20,100,473.07 0.00 20,100,473.07 402,009.46 19,698,463.60

11 16,350,796.83 16,206,663.10 144,133.73 2,882.67 16,347,914.15 12 21,115,546.96 0.00 21,115,546.96 422,310.94 20,693,236.02

12 17,176,512.07 16,206,663.10 969,848.97 19,396.98 17,157,115.09 13 22,181,882.08 0.00 22,181,882.08 443,637.64 21,738,244.44

13 18,043,925.93 16,206,663.10 1,837,262.83 36,745.26 18,007,180.67 14 23,302,067.12 0.00 23,302,067.12 466,041.34 22,836,025.78

14 18,955,144.19 16,206,663.10 2,748,481.09 54,969.62 18,900,174.57 15 24,478,821.51 0.00 24,478,821.51 489,576.43 23,989,245.08

15 19,912,378.97 16,206,663.10 3,705,715.87 74,114.32 19,838,264.65 16 25,715,002.00 0.00 25,715,002.00 514,300.04 25,200,701.96

16 20,917,954.11 16,206,663.10 4,711,291.01 94,225.82 20,823,728.29 17 27,013,609.60 0.00 27,013,609.60 540,272.19 26,473,337.41

17 21,974,310.79 16,206,663.10 5,767,647.69 115,352.95 21,858,957.83 18 28,377,796.88 0.00 28,377,796.88 567,555.94 27,810,240.95

18 23,084,013.48 16,206,663.10 6,877,350.38 137,547.01 22,946,466.48 19 29,810,875.63 0.00 29,810,875.63 596,217.51 29,214,658.11

19 24,249,756.16 16,206,663.10 8,043,093.06 160,861.86 24,088,894.30 20 31,316,324.85 0.00 31,316,324.85 626,326.50 30,689,998.35

20 25,474,368.85 16,206,663.10 9,267,705.75 185,354.12 25,289,014.74 TABLE X

Automated Parking System, BA, BG

Taxable
c. Automated EOY BTCF d​K
Income
Tax ATCF

TABLE IX 368,910,850.0
Automated Parking System, SA, AG 0 368,910,850.00 - - - 0

105,403,100.0 -93,121,761.2
Taxable 1 12,281,338.77 0 3 0.00 12,281,338.77
EOY BTCF d​K Tax ATCF
Income
-62,386,382.1
274,385,650.0 2 12,901,546.38 75,287,928.57 9 0.00 12,901,546.38
0 274,385,650.00 - - - 0
-40,224,017.3
-66,114,561.2 3 13,553,074.47 53,777,091.84 6 0.00 13,553,074.47
1 12,281,338.77 78,395,900.00 3 0.00 12,281,338.77
-10,150,406.4
-43,095,525.0 4 14,237,504.73 24,387,911.15 1 0.00 14,237,504.73
2 12,901,546.38 55,997,071.43 5 0.00 12,901,546.38

5 14,956,498.72 24,387,911.15 -9,431,412.42 0.00 14,956,498.72

 6 15,711,801.91 24,387,911.15 -8,676,109.24 0.00 15,711,801.91 D. Multi-Attributed Comparison

7 16,505,247.91 24,387,911.15 -7,882,663.24 0.00 16,505,247.91 Several characteristics of conventional,

semi-automated, and fully-automated car parking are given
8 17,338,762.92 0.00 17,338,762.92 346,775.26 16,991,987.67 and the table below lays out the differences of these
alternatives in various attributes. These comparison of
9 18,214,370.45 0.00 18,214,370.45 364,287.41 17,850,083.04
attributes are better pointed out by Hunn [11] in his article,
in which he urges consideration of the three basic categories
10 19,134,196.16 0.00 19,134,196.16 382,683.92 18,751,512.24
of sustainable design (environmental, economic and social)
as it applies to automated parking facilities.
11 20,100,473.07 0.00 20,100,473.07 402,009.46 19,698,463.60
TABLE XII
Multi-Attributed Comparison
12 21,115,546.96 0.00 21,115,546.96 422,310.94 20,693,236.02

Alternatives
13 22,181,882.08 0.00 22,181,882.08 443,637.64 21,738,244.44

Attribute Conventional Semi-Automated Fully-Automated

14 23,302,067.12 0.00 23,302,067.12 466,041.34 22,836,025.78
Total Operating
Costs (economic) 10,188,109.00 8,006,111.75 5,823,948.00
15 24,478,821.51 0.00 24,478,821.51 489,576.43 23,989,245.08
Construction
Costs; SA,AG
16 25,715,002.00 0.00 25,715,002.00 514,300.04 25,200,701.96
(economic) 167,589,200 220,970,900 274,082,600

17 27,013,609.60 0.00 27,013,609.60 540,272.19 26,473,337.41 Construction

Costs; BA,BG
(economic) 496,125,000 432,468,750 368,505,400
18 28,377,796.88 0.00 28,377,796.88 567,555.94 27,810,240.95
Lighting needed Normal Reduced Almost none
(environmental)
19 29,810,875.63 0.00 29,810,875.63 596,217.51 29,214,658.11
Building footprint High Moderate Low
20 31,316,324.85 0.00 31,316,324.85 626,326.50 30,689,998.35 (environmental)

Vulnerability to High Moderate Low

threats (social)
C. Economic Analysis
Time spent in A lot Minimal Very minimal
facility (social)
TABLE XI
Present Worth Comparison

Conventional Semi-Automated Fully-Automated a. Economic

Data for the operating costs was taken from earlier.

SA,AG BA,BG SA,AG BA,BG SA,AG BA,BG
Automated systems yielded a lower amount, due to the fact
-88,300,7 -416,108, -118,010, -328,767, -148,021, -242,547, that conventional systems have to take account employees,
PW
37.30 080.69 870.71 113.94 980.95 180.95 insurance, and security which are covered by the machine
maintenance in automated systems. Construction costs were
also taken from earlier, where in a stand alone, above grade
As observed in Table XI where the present worth of the a conventional one is cheaper than automated but it is the
various parking systems are summarised, a conventional other way around for the below grade option. A lower
parking system has the least cost when it is constructed as a amount is much more desirable.
standalone structure, above grade. However, if a parking
system is to be constructed below a building and below b. Environmental
grade, a fully-automated system has the least cost due to the
smaller footprint it needs to offer a similar capacity to that of For environmental factors, conventional facilities
a conventional parking system. require constant light sources in order to be able to navigate
s the structure as compared to automated ones, where there is
minimal. Automated facilities also minimize spatial
requirements and use land effectively in order to reduce its (economic)
footprint. Furthermore, automated systems have lesser
engines running, which lessens emissions, which is better Lighting needed Better Better Better
(environmental)
for the environment. For these attributes, a lower output is
much more desired. Building Better Better Better
footprint
c. Social (environmental)

Vulnerability to Better Better Better

Finally in considering the social aspects, conventional threats (social)
facilities take so much time in looking and finding an area to
park. Also, automated systems provide more security since Time spent in Better Better Better
facility (social)
they store away vehicles harder access to by other
potentially dangerous people, plus they also reduce human Dominant? Yes Yes Yes
interaction. For these attributes, a lower output is much
more desired.
Based from the table above, using dominance again as a
TABLE XIII method for decision making, a fully-automated system is the
Paired Comparison (SA,AG) best alternative when a below building, below grade parking
lot is constructed. As seen here, it is shown that a
Attribute Semi-Automated Fully-Automated Fully-Automated
semi-automated parking system is much better than a
vs. Conventional vs. Conventional vs. conventional system but a fully-automated one is much
Semi-Automated
better than both a semi-automated one and a conventional
Total Operating
one. From these attributes presented and their comparisons,
Costs it is evident that a fully-automated parking system is the
(economic) Better Better Better best alternative than the other alternatives present.
Construction
To further have a definite choice among the
Costs; SA,AG alternatives, the proponents used additive weighting
(economic) Worse Worse Worse technique as a compensatory model. From the viewpoint of
Lighting needed Better Better Better
an operator, the following comparisons were established for
(environmental) the different attributes.
Building Better Better Better
footprint
Construction Costs > Total Operating Costs
(environmental) Total Operating Costs >Lighting needed
Vulnerability to Better Better Better
Total Operating Costs > Building footprint
threats (social) Total Operating Costs > Vulnerability to threats
Total Operating Costs > Time spent in facility
Time spent in Better Better Better
facility (social) Construction Costs > Lighting needed
Construction Costs > Building footprint
Dominant? No No No
Construction Costs > Vulnerability to threats
Construction Costs >Time spent in facility
The table above shows that using the non-compensatory method of
dominance, no conclusion can be made when a stand-alone, above grade Building footprint > Lighting needed
parking lot is constructed. This is because based from the table above, no Lighting needed > Vulnerability to threats
attribute dominates one from the other. Lighting needed >Time spent in facility
Building footprint > Vulnerability to threats
TABLE XIV
Paired Comparison (BA,BG) Building footprint > Time spent in facility
Vulnerability to threats > Time spent in facility
Attribute Semi-Automated Fully-Automated Fully-Automated
vs. Conventional vs. Conventional vs. Based on the paired comparisons, the relative ranking of
Semi-Automated
the attributes are Construction Costs = 6, Total Operating
Total Operating Costs = 5, Building Footprint = 4, Lightning Needed = 3,
Costs Vulnerability to threats = 2, and Time spent in facility = 1.
(economic) Better Better Better

Construction
Costs; BA,BG Better Better Better
 TABLE XV
Costs
Rating Procedure and Dimensionless Value (economic)

Lighting
Attribute Value Rating Procedure Dimensionless needed
Value (environment 0.14285714
al) 29 0 0.07142857143 0.1428571429
Total Operating 5,823,948. (Cost - Max. Cost)/(Min. Cost -
Costs 00 Max. Cost) 1
Building
8,006,111. footprint
(environment 0.19047619
75 0.5
al) 05 0 0.09523809524 0.1904761905
10,188,109
.00 0 Vulnerability
to threats 0.09523809
Construction 167,589,20 (Cost - Max. Cost)/(Min. Cost - (social) 524 0 0.04761904762 0.09523809524
Costs; SA,AG 0 Max. Cost) 1
Time spent
220,970,90
in facility 0.04761904
0 0.5 (social) 762 0 0.02380952381 0.04761904762
274,082,60
0 0 Total 1 0.29 0.50 0.71

Construction 368,505,40 (Cost - Max. Cost)/(Min. Cost -

Costs; BA,BG 0 Max. Cost) 1

432,468,75
TABLE XVII
0 0.5
Additive Weighting Technique for BA, BG

496,125,00
0 0 Attribute Normalize Conventional Semi-Autom Fully-Automa
d Weight ated ted
Almost
Lighting needed none (Relative rank - 1)/(2) 1 Total
Operating
Reduced 0.5 Costs 0.238095238
(economic) 1 0 0.1190430772 0.2380952381
Normal 0

Building Construction 0.285714285

footprint Low (Relative rank - 1)/(2) 1 Costs 7 0 0.1425133757 0.2857142857

Moderate 0.5
Lighting
High 0 needed
(environment 0.142857142
Vulnerability to al) 9 0 0.07142857143 0.1428571429
threats Low (Relative rank - 1)/(2) 1
Building
Moderate 0.5 footprint
(environment 0.190476190
High 0 al) 5 0 0.09523809524 0.1904761905
Time spent in Very
facility Minimal (Relative rank - 1)/(2) 1 Vulnerability
to threats 0.095238095
Minimal 0.5 (social) 24 0 0.04761904762 0.09523809524

A lot 0
Time spent
in facility 0.047619047
(social) 62 0 0.02380952381 0.04761904762

TABLE XVI Total 1 0.00 0.50 1.00

Additive Weighting Technique for SA, AG

Using the additive weight technique, a fully-automated

Attribute Normaliz Conventional Semi-Autom Fully-Automa
ed ated ted system is best for both standalone, above grade and building
Weight above, below grade applications.
Total
Operating
IV. CONCLUSION
Costs 0.23809523
(economic) 81 0 0.1190430772 0.2380952381
In analyzing different parking system alternatives,
different factors were considered like the cash flow
0.28571428
Construction
57 0.2857142857 0.1424949474 0
development, income/savings projection, after tax cash
flow analysis, and even multi-attributed comparison. Based
on these factors and considerations, a fully-automated
parking system is the most cost effective alternative among
all the alternatives mentioned. It is the most economically
viable, environmentally sustainable and socially desired.

V. REFERENCES
[1]S. Schwartz, "The Garage of the Future Must be
Green,", ​National Parking Association,​ 2009.
[2]“Multi Storey Car Parking,” ​Scribd​. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/2194924/8-Multi-Store
y-Car-Parking.
[3]Skyline Parking. (2019). ​Skyline Parking​. [online]
Available at: https://skyline-parking.com/.
[4]“Semi Automatic Parking Systems,” ​Mechanical
Parking Systems​. [Online]. Available:
https://www.mechanical-parking-systems.com/semi-
automatic-parking-systems/.
[5]Psa.gov.ph, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/cls/
Tab%2021.pdf.
[6]"Smartpark System Solutions, Inc – Ayala Commercial
Center Group", ​Smartpark.net.ph​. [Online].
Available:
http://smartpark.net.ph/portfolio-item/ayala-commer
cial-center-group/.
[7]​Parking.org​, 2012. [Online]. Available:
https://www.parking.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/0
1/TPP-2012-09-Man-vs-Machine.pdf?fbclid=IwAR
2L5VrnP2YqeJn_y3bmpMnH6JHnDd3IYvzHn3tml
rwcL-UxQ0BqpN19lec.
[8]"What Is Real Property Tax? | Lamudi", ​Lamudi​, 2014.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.lamudi.com.ph/journal/real-property-tax
/.
[9]"Summary Inflation Report Consumer Price Index
(2012=100): January 2019 | Philippine Statistics
Authority", ​Psa.gov.ph,​ 2019. [Online]. Available:
http://www.psa.gov.ph/statistics/survey/price/summ
ary-inflation-report-consumer-price-index-2012100-
january-2019?fbclid=IwAR1z8w_014yVaD0z5b0Ef
xmJnEi-Go4-P3x7w_QyPfESd3CiyORt1oVeSKo.
[10]​Bisnow.com​, 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/other/autom
ated-parking-systems-are-cost-effective-versatile-an
d-space-saving-79167.
[11]C. Munn, “Past Hoboken: Automated Parking
Facilities Enter Hopeful New Era”. 2014. [Online].
Available:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140712152914/http://
www.npapark.org/pdfs/article_sample.pdf.
[12]​Pocketsense.com,​ 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://pocketsense.com/can-negative-taxable-incom
e-12087858.html.