Rebecca Fuller, Assistant Director at the Urban Transport Group (and my manager), recently wrote this brilliant piece about how transport planning has historically been built around the ‘default man’. Meaning that the considerations of many have been ignored including women, those with complicated journey patterns, disabled people, those who travel encumbered – the list goes on.  

Now that the dust has settled from Comprehensive Spending Review, it’s becoming easier to see through the smoke and mirrors and work out what actually happened. The question people often ask is ‘is it new money?’. And ‘is it more money?’. All depends on what you are comparing it with. Which previous year’s actual spend are you looking at and which projections of which spending review are your starting point?

There is little doubt that – consciously or not – our transport networks have traditionally been designed for men, by men. Specifically, men who are white, able-bodied, unencumbered by children or other loads, men who are simply trying to commute into work and back again, otherwise known as the ‘default male’. The needs of women, parents and children – or indeed anyone outside that template – are all too often given scant consideration, if they are considered at all. 

It felt like the fallow Covid period has reinvigorated party conferences as institutions that before felt like they were in a slow decline. But as the equivalent of Glastonbury for the party faithful they were far busier and buzzier than I was expecting.

Here are five key takeaways, based on an initial run through, of what the Transport Decarbonisation Plan means for urban transport.