Charlotte Parrish was the winner of the 2026 Allan Prize for the best essay in the Student category. Here, you can read her winning essay. Find out more about the competition here.

Introduction

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence, data analytics and digital connectivity are ushering in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, described as “the technological transformation society is undergoing in the 21st Century” (HM Government, 2019; Kenett & Coleman, 2021; Ross & Maynard, 2021). This technological transformation is fundamentally reshaping how people experience and interact with the built environment, influencing the design and function of cities and mobility systems (Ross & Maynard, 2021). While the Third Industrial Revolution introduced the concept of the ‘smart city’, planners must now respond to new spatial and societal challenges such as the “mass exodus from physical office space” catalysed by the global COVID-19 pandemic (ibid., p.160). Simultaneously, planning systems and infrastructure networks are undergoing rapid digitalisation, particularly within transport planning, where emerging technologies are transforming how mobility systems are designed, managed and experienced.

This essay uses transport planning as a lens to assess whether the digitalisation of planning processes is truly transforming planning practice. Transport networks are closely intertwined with spatial planning because they shape urban form, influence accessibility, and affect how different populations experience the city (RTPI, 2021). Additionally, the Transport Planning Society has emphasised the need for spatial and transport planning to operate in close coordination (TPS, 2022). By examining artificial intelligence, geographic information systems (GIS), and integrated ticketing, this essay evaluates both the opportunities and barriers of digitalisation and critically assesses the extent to which these technologies enhance or constrain the development of more inclusive, safe and sustainable planning practices. This essay argues that while digital tools such as AI, GIS and integrated ticketing offer substantial opportunities to enhance safety, accessibility and sustainability in transport planning, their transformative potential is contingent on governance, institutional capacity, and active management of social and technical limitations. Thus, the digitalisation of planning should be understood as an enabler, rather than a solution, for the transformation of planning practice.

Artificial Intelligence for Safety of Marginalised Users

Firstly, artificial intelligence (AI) offers significant potential to enhance safety within transport systems, particularly for marginalised groups whose feelings of safety are often linked to their identity, including women, racialised minorities, older adults, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQI+ community (London Travel Watch, 2022). AI-enabled systems such as smart CCTV can detect unsafe situations in real time and alert authorities, while predictive algorithms can analyse historical data to identify crime hotspots and inform proactive interventions (Zdravković et al., 2025). For example, Transport for London tested 11 predictive algorithms at Willesden Green Tube Station between 2022 and 2023, generating over 44,000 alerts for frontline staff (Burgess, 2024). These applications demonstrate how AI can process large volumes of data rapidly, enabling more responsive and targeted safety measures than traditional approaches.

AI’s capabilities are particularly relevant in addressing government priorities, such as reducing violence against women and girls, as predictive tools allow planners to consider diverse travel patterns beyond conventional commuting models (Ison & Matthewson, 2023). By improving perceptions of safety, AI-enabled systems can also encourage greater use of public transport, contributing to more sustainable travel behaviours (Patil et al., 2024). Moslem et al (2023) found that enhancements in public transport quality can significantly influence mode shift from private vehicles to public transit, highlighting the link between perceived safety, service quality, and sustainable mobility.

However, the adoption of AI is not without barriers. High implementation costs, technical complexity, and the need for institutional capacity often concentrate AI use within larger organisations such as Transport for London, limiting scalability and raising concerns about unequal geographical outcomes (Selten & Klievink, 2024). Ethical issues around surveillance, privacy, bias, and accountability further complicate deployment, meaning that AI’s benefits are contingent on robust governance frameworks and do not automatically translate into equitable outcomes (Batool, Zowghi and Bano, 2024). Moreover, digital safety tools alone are insufficient to address the lived experiences of marginalised users. A 2026 YouGov poll revealed that 7 in 10 women have altered their travel routes to avoid walking in the dark during winter months and would feel safer if key environmental issues were addressed (CIHT, 2026). In response, Active Travel England has issued guidance on improved lighting, visibility, and clearly defined walking routes to enhance safety for women and girls (ibid., 2026). While these recommendations provide a starting point, broader planning policies, including the National Planning Policy Framework, must explicitly recognise how women’s and girls’ experiences differ when navigating public spaces. AI should therefore be viewed as a complementary tool rather than a standalone solution in creating inclusive, safe, and equitable transport systems.

Enhancing Traffic Safety and Sustainability through GIS

Geographic information systems play a central role in digital transport planning by enabling the spatial analysis and visualisation of mobility patterns and safety risks. GIS allows planners to identify accident hotspots using historical collision data and to implement targeted interventions such as traffic calming measures or infrastructure redesign (Alam & Tabassum, 2023). When combined with machine learning, GIS can also support predictive analysis by incorporating variables such as weather conditions, road geometry and traffic flows (Agoylo, 2024; Deressa et al., 2025). The potential benefits of these tools are substantial, particularly given that road traffic accidents account for millions of deaths and injuries globally each year (Endashaw et al, 2025). Predictive analytics enables planners to anticipate risks and act proactively, which represents a significant shift from reactive approaches.

Beyond safety, GIS is increasingly applied to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to sustainable transport outcomes. By analysing real-time traffic conditions, GIS supports optimised traffic signal timings, dynamic routing, and network redesign, which minimise stop-and-go driving, a major source of fuel waste and CO₂ emissions (Alshayeb et al., 2022; Kwak, Park, & Lee, 2012). GIS also informs multimodal planning by mapping opportunities for public transit, cycling, and pedestrian networks, thereby decreasing reliance on private vehicles and promoting low-carbon mobility. A notable UK example is Transport for London (TfL), which uses ArcGIS-based tools, including Surface Playbook and the City Planner Tool, to guide interventions such as School Streets, which restrict traffic near schools at times when children are most at risk of exposure to harmful emissions (Esri, 2024). In addition, TfL has begun construction of more than 100 km of new or upgraded cycle lanes. These initiatives collectively reduce vehicle emissions, improve air quality, and support the Mayor of London’s vision for sustainable, healthy streets (TfL, 2026).

Despite this, the reliability of GIS-based interventions is heavily dependent on data quality and availability (Gocmen & Ventura, 2010). Uneven data coverage, methodological inconsistencies and limited real-time datasets can reduce the accuracy of predictions and lead to suboptimal outcomes (ibid, 2025). Furthermore, transport networks are dynamic, and data must be continuously updated to remain relevant, which requires sustained investment and organisational capacity (Trung Hieu & Le, 2026). This creates a clear trade-off: while GIS enhances the precision and effectiveness of planning decisions, its impact is constrained by practical limitations related to data management and institutional capability. Consequently, planners must critically evaluate the quality and applicability of data rather than assuming that digital tools will automatically produce better outcomes.

Integrated Technologies for Safer, Sustainable and Accessible Mobility

Integrated ticketing systems represent another key opportunity associated with digitalisation, as they simplify multimodal travel and improve accessibility. By allowing passengers to use a single payment method across different transport modes, these systems reduce complexity and improve efficiency (The Planner, 2026). They can also support inclusivity by enabling automatic fare adjustments for groups such as older adults, students and people with disabilities (Park & Chowdhury, 2022; Iseki & Taylor, 2009). For individuals with physical, sensory or cognitive impairments, integrated ticketing reduces cognitive and physical barriers associated with navigating complex systems, complementing infrastructure improvements and encouraging greater confidence in public transport use (Feeley et al., 2015; Mackett, 2017; Mwaka et al., 2024). In this sense, digitalisation can enhance accessibility and sustainability by making public transport more attractive and user friendly.

However, these benefits are not universally experienced. Increasing reliance on digital systems risks excluding individuals who lack access to smartphones, digital payment methods or sufficient digital literacy (Boland, 2022; OECD, 2025). This creates a tension between efficiency and inclusivity, as systems designed to streamline travel may inadvertently marginalise vulnerable populations. As a result, the success of integrated ticketing depends on hybrid approaches that maintain accessible physical alternatives while leveraging digital innovations (Durand et al., 2023). This highlights that digitalisation can only transform planning practice when inclusivity is actively prioritised.

While digital exclusion highlights user level inequalities, the effectiveness of integrated ticketing is also shaped by governance and interoperability challenges. In the UK, the development of smart ticketing has been supported by the Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation (ITSO), which develops standards to ensure compatibility between operators and regions (Rumbles, 2018). In practice, ITSO enables cards such as the National Concessionary Bus Pass in England, allowing eligible older people to travel for free on local buses (DfT, 2024). However, there is not yet a fully unified system allowing a single payment method across all operators and modes, reflecting fragmentation outside hubs like London (Turner & Wilson, 2010; ITS, 2024).

Beyond ticketing, digital data standards also enhance accessibility and safety. The Bus Open Data Service (BODS) provides information on stop locations, accessibility, seating and lighting, which can be integrated into journey planning apps and real time travel information. By reducing uncertainty and waiting times at stops, particularly in poorly lit or isolated locations, BODS supported tools can improve safety and comfort for vulnerable users (DfT, 2020; Ison & Matthewson, 2023). However, the benefits of both ITSO and BODS depend on governance arrangements, including local authority administration, operator participation and coordination across devolved schemes (UK Government, 2023; Turner & Wilson, 2010). Therefore, while technical systems enable interoperability and information provision, institutional structures ultimately determine whether digitalisation delivers safer and more inclusive mobility, reinforcing that its impact depends on social and institutional context.

Conclusion

Digitalisation is reshaping transport planning by introducing tools that enhance safety, accessibility, and sustainability, offering new ways to address long-standing planning challenges. Artificial intelligence enables real-time monitoring and predictive interventions, allowing authorities to respond proactively to safety risks, particularly for marginalised groups such as women, racialised minorities, older adults, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQI+ community. Geographic information systems facilitate spatial analysis of mobility patterns, accident hotspots, and environmental impacts, supporting targeted interventions and sustainable infrastructure planning. Integrated ticketing systems simplify multimodal travel, improve accessibility, and generate valuable data for demand management. When deployed together, these tools allow planners to adopt more evidence-based, responsive, and inclusive approaches that extend beyond traditional, reactive planning paradigms.

However, the benefits of digitalisation are contingent on governance, resources, and equitable implementation. High financial and technical requirements can concentrate digital capabilities in larger organisations, limiting smaller authorities’ adoption. Data quality, institutional capacity, and coordination across jurisdictions further influence how effectively digital systems support planning goals. Moreover, digital tools alone cannot address environmental and social conditions that affect user experiences; measures such as improved lighting, clearly defined walking routes, and inclusive planning policies remain essential to ensure meaningful improvements in safety and accessibility.

Framed within the broader context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, these developments demonstrate how technological transformation is reshaping planning practice, offering new opportunities while creating complex trade-offs. Digitalisation should therefore be understood as an enabler rather than a solution in itself. Its transformative potential depends on how planners integrate technological, institutional, and social considerations to foster safer, more accessible, and sustainable urban mobility. By carefully managing these trade-offs, digital tools can contribute to more equitable and forward-looking planning practice, enhancing both the effectiveness and inclusivity of transport systems.

---

Bibliography

• Agoylo, S., 2024. GIS-Based Traffic Accident Hotspot Prediction Using Machine Learning.12(3) pp. 1-6. doi: 10.22541/au.173347433.37543456/v1.
• Alam, M.S. and Tabassum, N.J. (2023). Spatial pattern identification and crash severity analysis of road traffic crash hot spots in Ohio. Heliyon, [online] 9(5), p.e16303. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16303
• Baker, M., Hincks, S. and Sherriff, G. (2010). Getting Involved in Plan Making: Participation and Stakeholder Involvement in Local and Regional Spatial Strategies in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(4), pp.574–594. doi: https://doi.org/10.1068/c0972
• Basha Fayissa Deressa, Kidanemariam Alula Habtegiogis, Destaw Kifile Endashaw, Baqer Muhammad Al-Ramadan and Al-Ahmadi, H.M. (2025). A Systematic Review of GIS-Driven Road Traffic Accident Evaluation. Vehicles, 7(4), pp.161–161. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/vehicles7040161
• Batool, A., Zowghi, D. and Bano, M. (2024). Responsible AI Governance: A Systematic Literature Review. Semantic Scholar, [online] 5. doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2401.10896
• Benevolo, C., Dameri, R.P. and D’Auria, B. (2015). Smart Mobility in Smart City. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, 11, pp.13–28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23784-8_2
• Boland, P. et al. (2022) ‘A ‘planning revolution’ or an ‘attack on planning’ in England: digitization, digitalization, and democratization’, International Planning Studies, 27(2), pp. 155–172. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2021.1979942
• Burgess, M. (2024). London Underground Is Testing Real-Time AI Surveillance Tools to Spot Crime. [online] Wired. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/london-underground-ai-surveillance-documents
• CIHT (2026). Streets to be safer for women and girls following new guidance from Active Travel England CIHT. [online] Ciht.org.uk. Available at: https://www.ciht.org.uk/news/streets-to-be-safer-for-women-and-girls-following-new-guidance-from-active-travel-england/ [Accessed 20 Mar. 2026].
• Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2019). Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulation-for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/regulation-for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution
• Department for Transport (2020). Bus open data policy. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bus-open-data-service? [Accessed 27 Mar. 2026].
• Durand, A., Toon Zijlstra, Hamersma, M., Arjen ‘t Hoen, Niels van Oort, Hoogendoorn, S. and Sascha Hoogendoorn-Lanser (2023). Fostering an inclusive public transport system in the digital era: An interdisciplinary approach. Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives, 22, pp.100968–100968. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100968
• Endashaw, D.K., Habtegiorgis, K.A., Al-Ramadan, B.M. et al. A systematic review on GIS-based road traffic accidents analysis and road safety audit. Comput.Urban Sci. 5, 53 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43762-025-00221-w
• ESRI (2024). Transport for London – Healthy Cities – Climate Change Stories | Esri UK. [online] Esriuk.com. Available at: https://www.esriuk.com/en-gb/about/climate-change/customer-stories/transport-for-london.
• Feeley, C., Devajyoti, D., Lubin, A., and McGackin, M., (2015). Detour to the Right Place: A Study with Recommendations for Addressing the Transportation Needs and Barriers of Adults on the Autism Spectrum in New Jersey. Available at: https://vtc.rutgers.edu/publication/detour-to-the-right-place/
• Göçmen, Z.A. and Ventura, S.J. (2010). Barriers to GIS Use in Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), pp.172–183. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360903585060
• Gov.uk (2020). Bus open data policy. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/bus-open-data-service
• Iseki, Hiroyuki, Taylor, Brian. (2009). Not All Transfers Are Created Equal: Towards a Framework Relating Transfer Connectivity to Travel Behaviour. Transport Reviews, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 777-800. Available at: https://www.worldtransitresearch.info/research/2347/
• Ison, J. and Matthewson, G. (2023). More than a Dot point: Connecting Primary Prevention of Violence against Women and Public Transport. Journal of Transport and Health, 30, pp.101591–101591. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2023.101591
• ITS (2024). Smart Ticketing Industry Roundtable. [online] Available at: https://www.its-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Smart-Ticketing-Roundtable-Meeting-Summary.pdf [Accessed 26 Mar. 2026].
• Jevinger, Å., Zhao, C., Persson, J.A. et al. Artificial intelligence for improving public transport: a mapping study. Public Transport 16, 99–158 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-023-00334-7
• Kenett, R. and Coleman, S. (2021b). Data and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Significance, 18(3), pp.8–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1740-9713.01523
• Kolotouchkina, O., González, L.R. and Warda Belabas (2024). Smart Cities, Digital Inequalities, and the Challenge of Inclusion. Smart Cities, [online] 7(6), pp.3355–3370. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7060130
• Kitchin, R. (2014). The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & Their Consequences. SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473909472
• Kwak, J., Park, B. and Lee, J. (2012). Evaluating the impacts of urban corridor traffic signal optimization on vehicle emissions and fuel consumption. Transportation Planning and Technology, 35(2), pp.145–160. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2011.651877
• Lindblom, C.E. (1959). The Science of ‘Muddling Through’. Public Administration Review, 19(2), pp.79–88. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/973677
• London Travel Watch (2022). PERSONAL SECURITY ON LONDON’S TRANSPORT NETWORK Recommendations for safer travel. [online] Available at: https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Personal-security-on-Londons-Transport-network.pdf
• Mackett, R. (2017). Building Confidence -Improving travel for people with mental impairments. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82ba3bed915d74e6237541/report-on-mental-impairments_final.pdf.
• Moslem, S., Stević, Ž., Tanackov, I. and Pilla, F. (2023). Sustainable development solutions of public transportation:An integrated IMF SWARA and Fuzzy Bonferroni operator. Sustainable Cities and Society, 93, p.104530. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104530
• Mwaka, C.R., Best, K.L., Cunningham, C., Gagnon, M. and Routhier, F. (2024). Barriers and facilitators of public transport use among people with disabilities: a scoping review. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, [online] 4(4). doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2023.1336514
• OECD (2025). Supporting informed and safe use of digital payments through digital financial literacy: Full Report. [online] OECD. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/supporting-informed-and-safe-use-of-digital-payments-through-digital-financial-literacy_21de47d1-en/full-report.html
• Park, J. and Chowdhury, S. (2022). Investigating the needs of people with disabilities to ride public transport routes involving transfers. Journal of Public Transportation, 24, p.100010. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubtr.2022.100010
• Patil, D.S., Bailey, A., George, S. et al.(2024). Perceptions of safety during everyday travel shaping older adults’ mobility in Bengaluru, India. BMC Public Health 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19455-0
• Ross, P. and Maynard, K. (2021b). Towards a 4th industrial revolution. Intelligent Buildings International, [online] 13(3), pp.159–161. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2021.1873625
• Royal Town Planning Institute (2020). Net Zero Transport: the role of spatial planning and place-based solutions | The Royal Town Planning Institute. [online] Rtpi.org.uk. Available at: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/new-from-the-rtpi/net-zero-transport-the-role-of-spatial-planning-and-place-based-solutions/? [Accessed 20 Mar. 2026].
• Rumbles, A. (2018) A Critical Evaluation of ITSO Smart Ticketing policy, practice and outcomes. Thesis. University of Plymouth. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.24382/589
• Selten, F. and Klievink, B. (2024). Organizing public sector AI adoption: Navigating between separation and integration. Government Information Quarterly, [online] 41(1), p.101885. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101885
• Taylor, N. (1998). Urban planning theory since 1945. [online] Los Angeles, Calif. Sage. Available at: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/urban-planning-theory-since-1945/book208707
• The Planner (2026). Why integrated ticketing must be part of modern transport planning. [online] Available at: https://www.theplanner.co.uk/2026/01/22/why-integrated-ticketing-must-be-part-modern-transport-planning [Accessed 21 Mar. 2026].
• Transport For London (2026). TfL invests £94.8m with London boroughs to deliver safer, greener streets in 2026/27. [online] Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2026/march/tfl-invests-94-8m-with-london-boroughs-to-deliver-safer-greener-streets-in-202627#:~:text=Subject%20to%20confirmation%20of%20TfL’s,upgraded%20protected%20cycle%20routes%20built [Accessed 20 Mar. 2026].
• Transport Planning Society (2025). Transport Planners call for stronger integration of the spatial planning process with transport and infrastructure planning. [online] Tps.org.uk. Available at: https://tps.org.uk/news/transport-planners-call-for-stronger-integration [Accessed 20 Mar. 2026].
• Trung Hieu, H. and Le, K.G. (2026). GIS in transportation infrastructure: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of construction, management, and digital integration. All Earth, 38(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/27669645.2026.2637588
• Turner, M. and Wilson, R. (2010). Smart and integrated ticketing in the UK: Piecing together the jigsaw. Computer Law & Security Review, 26(2), pp.170–177. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2010.01.015
• Tyler, N. (2002). Accessibility and the bus system:From concepts to practice. London: Thomas Telford. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289700328_Accessibility_and_the_bus_system_Concepts_to_Practice
• UK Government (2023). Transport data strategy: innovation through data. [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transport-data-strategy-innovation-through-data
• Wu, K., Ding, J., Lin, J., Zheng, G., Sun, Y., Fang, J., Xu, T., Zhu, Y. and Gu, B. (2025). Big-data empowered traffic signal control could reduce urban carbon emission. Nature Communications, [online] 16(1), pp.1–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56701-4
• Zdravković, S., Dobrić, F., Injac, Z., Lukić-Vujadinović, V., Veličković, M., Bursać Vranješ, B. and Marinković, S. (2025). AI-Driven Safety Evaluation in Public Transport: A Case Study from Belgrade’s Closed Transit Systems. Sustainability, [online] 17(18), p.8283. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188283
• Zoonen, L. van (2016). Privacy concerns in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly, [online] 33(3), pp.472–480. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.06.004