I now live almost exactly the same distance from Sydney as I used to live from London. When I worked in London my commute (to Hammersmith) took me no less than three hours each way (leaving very early in the morning to miss the worst of it) - assuming there wasn't an accident on the M4 or it was raining or they were doing roadworks. My commute into Sydney is a doddle by comparison

Capital post that

I've lived in Sydney for 19yrs and thankfully will reclaim a sense of living next year when we move back to UK. But I've never understood why people even begin to compare Sydney to London! London has what 11mil people? Sydney has 3.8mil people. You earn less money in Sydney, there is way less to do, it's less exciting, crime may be possibly lower in Sydney, but two thirds lower? I don't think so. We were burgled last week (garage only) and we live in a so called 'nice suburb' (Lane Cove).

Given Sydney is so much smaller in population, it shouldn't have anywhere near the amount of issues than it does. For that reason alone, Sydney as a city, and a display of forward thinking is an abject failure. Its focus on everything being in the one CBD and the mentality of it's inhabitants scuttling off each night to far flung suburban blandness, is its biggest weakness.

Sydney could be great, but it isn't. It could be world class, but it isn't (well it is a short term tourist destination, but even they get bored after a few days). The reason it isn't is it has aspirations to become a global 'player' but is ran with a corner shop mentality. Band aid after band aid solutions, constant 'tefloning' of blame for a rapidly increasing failure of infrastructure between state and fed govs means nothing gets done, and broken promise after broken promise from yet another set of politicians with anarchic ideas of progression and a penchant for corruption and nepotism.

I've never been to Manchester (made it to Warrinton once to see Radiohead ) but why aren't more comparisons done between Manchester and Sydney? Similar sizes aren't they?

For me, comparing Sydney to London is ludicrous, why not compare Canberra to London if we're comparing Capital cities? Sydney wants to be something it isn't, and all the posturing, self promotion and fireworks in the world won't change that. The only thing Sydney has in common with London is infrastructure and expense problems. But London has an excuse with a high population and high wages, which is balanced by a vibrant culture, (yes there are places you wouldn't go in London, but Sydney is hardly immune to that either is it?) and plenty to do for the resident (rather than tourist). Sydney has no excuse for it's failings, just reasons for them.

Tough decisions were made in London a few years ago re Congestion Charge, private vehicles, lorries etc. They weren't popular, but at least they were insightful and at least someone was thinking ahead. Sydney's mentality is completely reactive rather than proactive, and even then very bad decisions are made (Cross City Tunnel anyone?). Sydney wants to be a 'player' but it wants to have a quiet life as well and that ain't possible. You're a friend of public transport users or you're a friend of the motorist, you can't be both, but Sydney has had that mentality for years and is now paying for it.

Geographically Sydney is big, but it's mentality is small, it's impact on the world stage exaggerated, it's 'attractions' are tired and shabby, (rather than old and steeped in history), it's a city run and inhabited by suburbanites. It has disproportionate commuting times compared to it's population and in every measure against London, fails, miserably
Oh, except in one, the variety of international eateries in Sydney does put London to shame. But hey if that's all, forget about it. By a Thai cookbook