Go Back  Fodor's Travel Talk Forums > Destinations > Canada
Reload this Page >

Travel to Montmorency Falls

Search

Travel to Montmorency Falls

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 8th, 2009, 11:37 AM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Travel to Montmorency Falls

I am travelling with a party of 8 people and would love to see Montmorency Falls. I am arriving by Cruise and will not have a vehicle. Also, do you know if there are people/guides when you get off the boat who drive to the Falls? Any help would be much appreciated.
ariellesparks is offline  
Old Jul 8th, 2009, 11:50 AM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We used this company when we were in QC last Fall. We enjoyed the tour very much. It seems there is a full day which includes the Falls and a half-day which includes the Falls. We left from the Frontenac but it looks like one of the pick-up spots is the Museum of Civilization which is next to the cruise ship pier.
http://www.partner.viator.com/en/176.../QUEBEC%20CITY
I booked online before arrival in QC (our bus was full).
Bette is offline  
Old Jul 8th, 2009, 03:46 PM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I imagine most bus tours are the same. We took this 4½ hour one with Old Quebec Tours:
http://www.toursvieuxquebec.com/inde...rfait2&lang=en
It can be booked in the small office at the top of the funicular or at the tourist office a few steps away (across from the Chateau Frontenac). As mentioned above, we were picked up in front of the Museum of Civilization. Now that I've seen how close the falls are to town - only about 15 minutes away - I would rent a car next time. The bridge to Ile d'Orleans is just across from the falls.

I hope you have enough time to wander around the city. It's a great place.
April is offline  
Old Jul 10th, 2009, 08:32 PM
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The falls are indeed spectacular. Although the volume of water is not as great as Niagra, the height of the falls is greater.

There is a pedestrian bridge that crosses the river and allows you to look down on the falls from up above. If you do not fear heights, it is a beautiful view. Looking straight down on the falls from directly above the sheer drop was for me fascinating.

People who have a problem with heights should stay away from the bridge and enjoy the falls from other vantage points of which there are several.
bob_brown is offline  
Old Jul 11th, 2009, 01:33 AM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't have a fear of heights but found being over the falls somewhat creepy, mainly for the oh-so-smooth water flow before it goes crashing over the edge. Quite an interesting vantage point!

I'm curious about something that has nothing to do with the falls, Bob. On Ile d'Orleans is a sign that describes the Laurentians as massive mountains. All I could see from Quebec City were low hills. Do they become massive somewhere else, or do they mean massive in terms of area?
April is offline  
Old Jul 12th, 2009, 06:55 PM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi April. The Laurentians are massive in relative terms.
For that region of the world, they are big. I think the term embraces more the area covered than it does any Alp like grandeur. These are some of the most ancient mountains around and have been ground down by erosion for millions of years.

The highest elevations reached by the Laurentians are, according to a couple of sources, are less than 4,000 feet above sea level. The listed highest point is Mont Blanchard at 3825 feet. (I had to peek to recover that figure.)

The terrain is rugged in places and the leaves present a colorful show in late September.

Geologically I have read where the Laurentians are the same as the Adirondacks in New York.
bob_brown is offline  
Old Jul 12th, 2009, 07:10 PM
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks, Bob. I was looking around for something that resembled the Rockies.
April is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2009, 06:54 AM
  #8  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regarding the description of the Laurentians as "massive" I think that there could be an inexact translation from French. The Laurentians are often described as the Laurentian Massif (Massif des Laurentides), which means a compact group of mountain heights. "Massif" in French also means "massive" in the English sense of the word.

I'm not sure that I would described the Laurentians as compact, as they stretch from the Ottawa River in the west to the Charlevoix area in the east. Although they are not high (highest peak is less than 4,000 ft), they are among the oldest in the world, and were once much higher. They are part of the same formation as the Adirondacks.
laverendrye is offline  
Old Jul 17th, 2009, 12:48 PM
  #9  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For some reason, I missed Bob Brown's useful comments and repeated some of the information he had already given.
laverendrye is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
lana704
United States
5
Jul 14th, 2013 07:35 PM
nj05047
United States
21
Jun 5th, 2010 07:53 AM
huey123
United States
7
Jul 6th, 2007 04:59 AM
aneckc
United States
10
May 5th, 2007 07:10 AM
earlxx
United States
21
Oct 11th, 2004 09:23 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -