The point is that the design of modern cities is not set up in such a way that ignores or adversely impacts women. There is nothing about a city that is set up in a way that puts down or puts women/people going out doing chores at a disadvantage. Nothing about public transport is negative for any reason other than costs and usages. These "cities designed for women" seem to be less designed for women and more designed for having better funded and designed things in general.
Sure, I'll grant that no one has consciously designed cities to ignore or adversely impact women. However conscious choice isn't a requirement in order for potential discrimination to occur. Since these women were able to suggest improvements to the transportation system it is easy to extrapolate that the transportation system was sub-optimal for their use beforehand. Therefore, one could factually state that, since the system was not optimal, the women were indeed "at a disadvantage" of some sort, although the magnitude of this disadvantage is not determined. Like I said, I'm sure no one designed a city or any other public space with the intent of leaving out women, repressing women, causing women more discomfort, etc. Lack of conscious causal behavior does not guarantee a fair impact. If I gotta break the link down for you: if something you do impacts a group of people in an adverse manner, even if it's not intentional, it's still happening and it's still bad and, depending on the class of persons, can constitute racism, sexism, etc. This is not just my opinion. THIS IS YOUR COURT'S OPINION.
I am not stating conscious design. I am stating overall design. All systems can be improved. All regions can use work. The fact that a thing could be improved does not imply that that thing was ignored in the past. You could use the same logic to say that men are disadvantaged by the fact that traffic exists on the five 0 clock commute. The city just doesn't care enough to put money into fixing the problems! There is no part of modern city design that is disadvantaging women. You have given no serious examples of such a thing. The story in the OP hardly gives any examples of such a thing. The only concrete example there is of the park. And even then, the contrast between the two parks sound like an issue of the park previously not being developed or added to, rather than the park being designed initially in a way that benefits men.