Best and Worst Cities to Live in the World

Economist Intelligence Unit

Which locations around the world provide the best or the worst living conditions?

A report has been published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, EIU Report 2012 (by the Economist). The rating is calculated by a liveability score of 140 cities, reached through category weights. The categories are stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure.

Most Liveable Cities in the World - Top 10

1. Melbourne - Australia
2. Vienna - Austria
3. Vancouver  - Canada
4. Toronto - Canada
5. Calgary - Canada
6. Adelaide - Australia
7. Sydney - Australia
8. Helsinki - Finland
9. Perth - Australia
10. Auckland - New Zealand

The general conditions required for a location to be awarded a high liveability score continue to be well reflected in Australian and Canadian cities.

Global business centres such as New York, London, Paris and Tokyo have overstretched infrastructure and all suffer from higher levels of crime, congestion and public transport problems than would be deemed "comfortable".

Civil unrest such as the Arab Spring, civil war in Libya, unrest in Greece and London had impacts on the score, with downward revisions to Athens, London, Amman (Muscat), Bandar Seri Begawan (Brunei), Douala (Cameroon) and Tripoli (Libya).

Worst Cities to Live in the World 

131. Abidjan - Côte d’Ivoire Abidjan
132 Tehran - Iran
133. Douala - Cameroon
134. Tripoli - Libya
135. Karachi - Pakistan
136. Algiers - Algeria
137. Harare - Zimbabwe
138. Lagos - Nigeria
139. Port Moresby - PNG
140. Dhaka - Bangladesh

Conflict is responsible for many of the lowest scores. Africa (North and Sub-Saharan) and Asia account for all the cities with lowest scores, with violence, whether through crime, civil insurgency, terrorism or war, playing a strong role. Dhaka in Bangladesh is the least liveable city, unchanged from last year, 2011. However the survey does not include locations such as Kabul in Afghanistan and Baghdad in Iraq.

Source:
Economist Intelligence Unit

Short flights are never short

You've booked a short break and the flight is only two hours to your destination, but calculating the travel time always results in more time than you originally expected from end to end.

Calculating travel time for a short flight always involves more than just the flight time, you have to factor travel time as well. What you think is a short 2 hour flight, actually takes up to 6 hours to get from a to b. Consider getting to the airport, security and waiting for the departure flight and suddenly a short trip doesn't seem so short at all.

When you add the return journey this easily equals up to 12 hours total travel time for a short haul flight, not including preparation time such as packing.

What you actually get in a 72 hour short break equals just (72-18-12=42 hours) 14 hours per day in your destination.