The Charger Fits. Can the Driver Use the Bay?
A charging unit can fit on a drawing while the act of charging does not. The driver still has to leave the vehicle, reach the controls, retrieve the connector, carry it to the inlet and return it. Each step occupies space beyond the equipment footprint. For architects retrofitting car parks, the useful question is therefore not simply where the charger fits, but whether its position supports that complete sequence.
This is a critical reading of published evidence and a proposed architectural application. ArchUp has not tested a charging installation or established a universally optimal bay layout.
A failure that an equipment count cannot explain
Rempel, Cullen, Bryan and Cezar tested 655 charging ports at 182 public fast-charging stations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Their published study classified a port as functional after two minutes of charging: 73.3% passed; at 3.2%, the cable could not reach the vehicle inlet. These are field observations, not current global failure rates. [1]
The spatial implication is narrower than a general claim about unreliable technology: an installed connector does not establish a usable connection. Equally, a cable that reaches does not establish that the person using it can move freely. The proposed architectural assessment must examine both conditions.
Three geometries have to work together
The U.S. Access Board’s technical guidance connects charger orientation, access aisles and varying vehicle inlet locations, and warns against obstructing circulation with bollards, wheel stops or cable slack. This is jurisdiction-specific guidance, not a universal code. [2] Designability adds a human-factors concern: heavy or stiff cables can be difficult to manipulate, particularly in confined spaces. [3]
ArchUp proposes reviewing three overlapping drawings: the vehicle and its open doors; the person’s route and operating position; and the cable in use and at rest. A plan showing only the first can conceal a conflict in the other two. These layers should be checked with the actual equipment specification and representative vehicles, rather than a generic charging symbol.
| Detail | Question for the coordinated layout | Proposed verification |
|---|---|---|
| Charger position | Can someone approach and operate the controls after the car is parked? | Mark the operating position at full scale with the vehicle present. |
| Protective bollards | Does the protection arrangement leave a usable approach and route? | Review the complete protection layout with the access consultant; do not remove protection to pass a test. |
| Cable path | Can the connector reach the intended inlet without blocking the route? | Test the installed cable, its support mechanism and its stored position. |
| Parking orientation | Does solving inlet reach make the driver’s exit more difficult? | Check permitted forward and reverse parking arrangements separately. |
| Neighbouring bay | Does the solution depend on the next space being empty? | Repeat the sequence with adjacent spaces occupied. |
This table is an ArchUp design-review proposal, not a set of measured findings or a substitute for applicable access, electrical and vehicle-impact requirements.
Why a longer cable is not a complete answer
A design option can solve one problem while leaving another untested. A longer cable may improve reach, yet the designer still needs to establish where the extra length goes and how the user handles it. Conversely, moving the charger closer to the vehicle may shorten the handling distance while narrowing an approach. Neither modification should be accepted from a plan alone.
In a basement retrofit, this may require comparing alternative equipment positions before fixing the service route. In a new car park, the same review can happen before bay markings and protection details become separate packages. These are proposed coordination decisions; the cited study does not demonstrate their cost, effectiveness or prevalence.
What the evidence does not establish
The field test’s brief charging criterion cannot establish full-session performance or long-term uptime. It also does not supply a wheelchair-accessibility success rate or prove that a particular architectural detail caused every failure. ArchUp therefore uses the finding to define a question for local testing, not to certify a layout.
The figures above come from the published article, rather than the earlier preprint. A publisher notice issued in December 2025 concerns administrative placement in a special section; it does not report revised experimental results. [4] This review uses the publisher’s verified abstract for the numerical findings; detailed claims beyond the accessible evidence have been excluded.
A practical acceptance record
ArchUp proposes a supervised, full-scale review before handover, involving the operator, designer and people with varied mobility and reach requirements. Record the vehicle, inlet location, parking direction, charger model and cable arrangement. Observe the full sequence from leaving the car to restoring the connector, including access to the onward pedestrian route.
Record failed steps separately: electrical initiation, physical reach, handling difficulty, obstruction or dependence on assistance. Test ordinary occupied-bay conditions and document combinations that remain unsupported. Electrical commissioning remains a specialist task. This proposed review supplements it by making the spatial assumptions visible; it is not a validated testing standard.
✦ ArchUp Editorial Insight
Pressure to deliver charging capacity becomes an architectural problem when project acceptance records the equipment more clearly than the activity it must support. If a brief counts installed ports and verifies electrical operation without defining the user sequence, the contractor can complete an identifiable scope while the boundary between charger, vehicle and pedestrian route remains unresolved. This is a conditional procurement mechanism, not evidence about the contracts behind the surveyed stations. It extends the distinction between buying equipment and accepting its performance in an occupied space: the missing deliverable is coordination at the point of use. ArchUp proposes assigning one party responsibility for a witnessed bay-level acceptance record, with the operator retaining the tested vehicle and access assumptions after handover. Under that arrangement, a later bollard relocation or equipment replacement would trigger review of the same record rather than an isolated component check. The spatial consequence is specific: circulation, cable movement and equipment protection become part of the accepted installation. Whether this reduces failed charging attempts remains a hypothesis requiring comparison, but it makes the responsibility for testing those interfaces explicit.
Prepared by ArchUp Research Lab. The editorial image is awaiting preparation by the art direction team.
References
- David Rempel, Carleen Cullen, Mary Matteson Bryan and Gustavo Vianna Cezar. “Reliability of Open Public Electric Vehicle Direct Current Fast Chargers.” Human Factors, 2024; first published online 2023.
- U.S. Access Board. “Design Recommendations for Accessible Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.” Technical assistance, 2022.
- Designability. “Cables.” Accessible Public EV Charging design guidance, undated.
- Sage / Human Factors. “Publication Notice for the Special Section ‘Renewable and Sustainable Energy Systems’.” Human Factors, 2025.
