stbmom

Hi! I am 19 and will be traveling with a friend around eastern Europe this summer. We have a very limited amount of time to work with and would like to make the most of our trip. We have three and a half days that could be spent between Paris and London. Do you think that it is worth it to do both just to get a taste of each city, or would it be better to do one over the other- and if so, which would you suggest for young people? Any tips would be incredibly helpful, thanks so much!

Nikki

I would just pick one that you are the most excited about visiting and go there. Both are wonderful cities, and you will get a much better taste in three days than in one at either of them.

Travel_Nerd

Jow long is your trip in it's entirety? Remember that your flight to Europe and flight home from Europe sucks up a day. (For example, your trip may be a total of 7 days, but truly only 5 days of sightseeing).

Are you coming from Eastern Europe to London/Paris or are you arriving to Europe to either London/Paris and then onto Eastern Europe?

Where in Eastern Europe are you traveling? This may impact how you get to/from London/Paris. Also, where you're going in Eastern Europe--you may want to spend all of your time there.

Also, knowing yours and your friend's interests will help direct you. Maybe consider researching both cities to see if something at either one appeals to your more than the other.

stbmom

@travel_nerd that is in the middle of our trip, but we are pretty inflexible with that number of days. We will be already in eastern Europe, flying from Florence to either London or Paris, so that is not much travel time lost, and this time does not impede on the travel for the next segment of our trip, either. This being said, we will have a full three and a half days to work with for sightseeing. Thanks!

nytraveler

Well Florence is not eastern europe. If you are there why fly from Florence?

And with 3.5 days you barely have time to see any of London OR Paris - definitely this is way too little time for both cities.

Kathie

As others have said, you barely have time for one of those two cities. How many nights will you have in the city? If you have 4 nights, you have just three days, if you have there nights, that is just two full days. Each time you change locations, you eat up much of a day (you have to figure from when yo0u check out of your lodgings in one place until you are checked in in the next place). Changing locations takes more time than just however long your flight or train ride is.

While a flights always sound shorter, you have transport to and from the airport (typically at least an hour each way) plus wait time at the airport - at least an hour. Trains tend to run form city center to city center, so you may save on taxi fares as well as time by taking the train.

kerouac

Choose one or the other -- don't try to do both on this trip. There will be other trips.

Unboundly

The others are right, you'll a much more pleasant experience if you decide on one of them - the flights and transfers will be time-consuming enough - and that is if all goes well.

Try to figure out which of the two (London/Paris) you'll have a better chance of seeing in the future, and go from there. No matter which one you chose, you'll have to make some tough choices about what to include in your short stay.

Oh, and when you do plan your activities, take into account the time you'll be spending in queues - the most popular attractions might eat up a lot of it.

Good luck!

Travel_Nerd

Can you give us your entire itinerary? I'm having a hard time figure out all that you're doing, especially when you mention Eastern Europe and Florence in the same sentence.

How long is your entire trip and where all that you're going? You may find that Paris and London won't be worth it, which is why I asked previously.

Yes pick one or the other, but it may depend on where you're spending your time for the entire trip. I think having that detail would help us give you suggestions on whether either city (or neither) would be best benefit for your itinerary.

KTtravel

I would choose one or the other and not try to do both. Both cities are certainly worth visiting so you should save one for another trip. I would likely make my choice based on which one will be less time consuming for your to arrive and depart from.

Bitter

Paris.

denisea

Paris, Paris, Paris.

user

In my point,I suggest go for Paris trip.It is queen city.There are so many plenty of excited places which you have to visit.Most holiday places are there which are so amazing.

AisleSeat

What are you looking for? Obviously you won't find big Ben in Paris or the Eiffel Tower in London. Go with your interests and make a promise to yourself to plan another trip one of these days.

sugarmaple

I look at the centre of paris as being Ile de la cite and ile St louis, with everything radiating right and left of the seine. You can walk to most of the main sites you might want to see, with short jaunts on the Metro.

London, OTOH, is widely spread out, with way more time on the underground or buses.

All other things being equal, I'd rather be in a more concentrated centre where it's easy to walk most places.

Besides, I just love Paris more than London!

Surfergirl

If this part of the trip is in July, then Paris. If this part of the trip is in August, then London.

dotheboyshall

Rather depends on where in "Eastern Europe" you are before and afterwards as which is "better" depends on the transport links.