Blog
From innovation to everyday practice: Why it's time to rethink pavement engineering
It's a question that sits at the heart of ADEPT's recent Live Labs 2 report, which explores how local highway authorities can reduce costs, save time and cut carbon by challenging established practices and embracing innovation.
The programme has brought together local authorities, industry partners and researchers to test new approaches to some of the sector's most persistent challenges. But for me, one of its most important messages isn't about any single technology or intervention.
It's about the need to change how we think
And that's a message that extends well beyond the specific highways projects examined by Live Labs 2. When we talk about innovation in infrastructure, it's easy to focus on new materials, technologies or construction methods.
Of course, these all have an important role to play. But innovation can also come from questioning the decisions we make before construction even begins.
Do we really need that depth of construction? Have we accurately assessed the loading requirements? Are we specifying materials and pavement structures based on the actual demands of the site, or relying on a familiar detail that has been carried from one project to the next?
These might sound like relatively small questions, but the answers can have significant consequences for material consumption, excavation requirements, transport movements, construction time and embodied carbon.
In my work with Marshalls Design & Engineering (MaDE), I see how early technical input can identify opportunities that might otherwise be overlooked.
For paved streets, footways and public spaces, an intelligently engineered pavement design can deliver the required performance without unnecessary construction depth or material use.
It's not about cutting corners or compromising standards. It's about making sure every element of a pavement is there for a reason.
The importance of challenging conventional thinking
One of the strongest themes running through Live Labs 2 is that established ways of working can become barriers to improvement.
That's something I recognise in pavement engineering.
Specifications are understandably developed to manage risk, ensure consistency and deliver reliable performance. But there is a danger that applying standard solutions without considering the specific conditions of a project can lead to overengineering.
Pavement design needs to respond to how a space will actually be used, the loads it will experience, its ground conditions and the performance required over its lifetime.
A pedestrianised town square, for example, has very different requirements from an area regularly accessed by heavy vehicles. Even within the same public realm scheme, loading conditions can vary considerably.
Taking the time to understand those differences creates opportunities to optimise designs while maintaining the necessary structural integrity and long-term durability.
The challenge is to move away from asking, 'What do we normally specify?' and towards asking, 'What does this particular project actually need?'
Carbon, cost and time shouldn't be separate conversations
Another important lesson from Live Labs 2 is that reducing carbon doesn't automatically mean increasing costs.
In pavement engineering, these objectives can often work together.
If we can reduce unnecessary construction depth, we may also be able to reduce the volume of materials required, the amount of excavation, the number of vehicle movements and the time spent on site.
That has implications for both embodied carbon and project economics.
We saw this in our work on the Princess Royal Theatre project in Port Talbot, where an engineered approach achieved a 220mm reduction in construction depth, saving approximately 60 tonnes of carbon and almost £500,000 in construction costs.
At Allhallows in Bedford, pavement design optimisation contributed to £120,000 in savings, a 33% reduction in embodied carbon and a 33% reduction in on-site labour time.
These are different types of projects from those examined through Live Labs 2, and the results shouldn't be treated as direct comparisons. But they demonstrate an important shared principle: better-informed engineering decisions can deliver several benefits simultaneously.
We shouldn't have to choose between financial efficiency, environmental performance and high-quality public spaces when good design can help us achieve all three.
Evidence gives us the confidence to do things differently
Of course, challenging established approaches is easier said than done.
Engineers, designers and local authorities are responsible for creating infrastructure that must perform safely and reliably for many years. It's entirely reasonable that they want confidence in any proposed alternative.
That's why evidence is so important. Live Labs 2 places considerable emphasis on measurement, robust data, knowledge sharing and demonstrating performance. Without that evidence, even promising innovations can struggle to gain acceptance.
The same principle applies to pavement engineering. We need to be able to explain why a particular design is appropriate, demonstrate that it meets the relevant requirements and show the benefits of taking a different approach.
That means combining sound engineering principles with accurate assessments, relevant standards and real-world project experience. It also means being open about the assumptions behind our calculations and the limitations of any claimed savings.
If we want the industry to move beyond familiar specifications, we need to give decision-makers the technical confidence to do so.
Bringing pavement engineers into discussions alongside landscape architects, designers, contractors and local authority teams at the outset allows us to consider structural performance, buildability, aesthetics, cost and carbon together.
It also helps protect the original design intent.
Value engineering shouldn't mean stripping quality out of a scheme. It should mean applying expertise to achieve the intended outcome in the most efficient and effective way.
For me, that's one of the clearest ways to turn the collaborative mindset promoted by Live Labs 2 into everyday practice. The report's emphasis on sharing knowledge, challenging procurement practices, involving the right people and scaling proven approaches is particularly relevant.
In the context of public realm design, we already have opportunities to apply better engineering thinking today. We don't necessarily need to wait for the next breakthrough material or technology.
We can start by reviewing specifications more critically, involving specialists earlier, considering whole-life performance and measuring the benefits of design decisions more consistently.
We can also do more to share what we've learned, including examples where a different engineering approach has improved outcomes. Live Labs 2 provides an important reminder that meaningful progress often begins with a willingness to question established assumptions.
For those of us involved in designing and delivering paved streets, footways and public spaces, the opportunity is to apply that same curiosity and discipline to the decisions we make every day.
Are we using the right materials? Are we designing for the actual conditions? Have we considered the whole-life implications? Could a different approach reduce cost, carbon or construction time without compromising performance?
And, perhaps most importantly, have we asked those questions early enough to make a difference?
That's a mindset I believe the whole industry can benefit from.
Written By
Mark King
Mark has been a valued part of the Marshalls team since 2015, and currently heads up the pavement engineering team. Within this role, Mark has supported some of the company’s largest-scale projects, including the Birmingham Midlands Metro Alliance and the redevelopment of York central.
