New book maps Londoners' relationship status

Who would live in a place like this? Image: κύριαsity on Flickr, used under creative commons.

Later this week, Penguin is publishing London: The Information Capital: a compendium of more than 100 maps, graphics and other data visualisations, concerning the workings of Britain's capital. They’ve very kindly sent us a preview.

One of the more striking series of graphics the book contains is “Relationship Status”: a series of maps showing how the single/married/other tend to congregate in particular bits of the city. From that we learnt that the third of Londoners who are single are heavily concentrated in the inner city.

This, we suspect, is a function of age. Single Londoners are overwhelmingly likely to be young, and consequently are more willing to share a house with half a dozen strangers in exchange for proximity to cool stuff. The co-habiting demographic is slightly older, and so ends up slightly further out, in areas where they can afford slightly more space:

Smug marrieds are relatively rare in inner London, but tend to dominate the suburbs.

As do London's presumably-not quite-as-smug widowed community.

But age breaks down as an explanation when you look at the distribution of those Londoners classified as “separated”, who seem to cluster in the western half of the Lea Valley around Tottenham. We suspect that relatively cheap housing is a factor here:

Similarly, the faintly baffling “married but living apart” demographic gathers both in down-at-heel areas like Upton Park and Wembley, but also ultra-rich Kensington. Answers on a postcard, please.

Finally, in the name of completeness, here's a final map showing the distribution of London's divorcees.

London: The Information Capital by James Cheshire and Oliver Uberti is published by Particular Books on 30 October.



Sadiq Khan and Grant Shapps clash over free bus travel for under 18s

A London bus at Victoria station. Image: Getty.

The latest front in the row between Transport for London (TfL) and national government over how to fund the capital’s transport system: free bus travel for the under 18s.

Two weeks ago, you’ll recall, TfL came perilously close to running out of money and was forced to ask for a bail out. The government agreed, but offered less money, and with more strings attached, than the agency wanted. At present, there are a range of fare discounts – some up to 100% – available to children depending on their age and which service they’re using, provided they have the right Oyster card. One of the government’s strings, the mayor’s office says, was to end all free TfL travel for the under 18s, Oyster or no Oyster.

The Department for Transport’s line on all this is that this is about maximising capacity. Many working-age people need to use buses to get to their jobs: they’re more likely to be able to do that, while also social distancing, if those buses aren’t already full of teenagers riding for free. (DfT cited the same motivation for banning the use of the Freedom Pass, which provides free travel for the retired, at peak times.)

But in an open letter to transport secretary Grant Shapps, the mayor, Sadiq Khan, wrote that TfL believed that 30% of children who currently received free travel had a statutory entitlement to it, because they attend schools more than a certain distance from their homes. If TfL doesn’t fund this travel, London’s boroughs must, which apart from loading costs onto local government means replacing an administrative system that already exists with one that doesn’t. 

Some Labour staffers also smell Tory ideological objections to free things for young people at work. To quote Khan’s letter:

“It is abundantly clear that losing free travel would hit the poorest Londoners hardest at a time when finances are stretched more than ever... I want to make sure that families who might not have a choice but to use public transport are not further disadvantaged.”

London’s deputy mayor for transport, Heidi Alexander, is set to meet government officials next week to discuss all this. In the mean time, you can read Khan’s letter here.

UPDATE: The original version of this piece noted that the full agreement between the mayor and DfT remained mysteriously unpublished. Shortly after this story went live, the agreement appeared. Here it is.

Jonn Elledge was founding editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.