things to do
Jul 24th, 2006 | 02:19 PM
#1
Original Poster
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
things to do
We are traveling to Montreal and Quebec for a few days with another couple.
I just read about these large waterfalls outside Quebec. Has anyone been there/done that? Is it filled with tourists or is it a great exeperience?
Also how would suggest splitting the time bwtn the 2 cities ?
thanks
I just read about these large waterfalls outside Quebec. Has anyone been there/done that? Is it filled with tourists or is it a great exeperience?
Also how would suggest splitting the time bwtn the 2 cities ?
thanks
Jul 24th, 2006 | 05:36 PM
#2
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
Gosh, your interest is sincere but I don't have enough info to give you my best response.
I don't know how many days total you have, so hard to say much about how to split the time.
if you have 5 days 3M/2Q, IF have 6 days 4/2, if you have 7 days then 4/3, if you have 8 days, 5/3
When driving from Montreal to QC, especially from Trois Rivieres on, I recommend getting off the big highway and driving on the smaller highway that runs nearer to the north shore of the river. I liked the gentle ways of small town life there, without really stopping, and if you don't enjoy it then the big highway is merely a stone's throw away.
To orient yourself to QC, a drive around the city is great. There are areas with very narrow streets and a distinct old style near the center of the downtown business district and then there is the walled city up on the bluff overlooking the river. Most of a day should/could be spent in the touristy walled city and nearby giant hotel.
As for Montreal, it is really FLAT and it is fun to drive/walk the larger streets and see all of the signs and people and shops. Old Montreal is worth studying up on in advance to see if anything there interests you.
Just the uniqueness-to-the-rest-of-North America of the french aspect of Quebec is entertainment enough to immerse yourselves in.
Maybe let the other couple dictate a considerable number of activities because I think you won't go wrong no matter how you spend your time.
good luck.
I don't know how many days total you have, so hard to say much about how to split the time.
if you have 5 days 3M/2Q, IF have 6 days 4/2, if you have 7 days then 4/3, if you have 8 days, 5/3
When driving from Montreal to QC, especially from Trois Rivieres on, I recommend getting off the big highway and driving on the smaller highway that runs nearer to the north shore of the river. I liked the gentle ways of small town life there, without really stopping, and if you don't enjoy it then the big highway is merely a stone's throw away.
To orient yourself to QC, a drive around the city is great. There are areas with very narrow streets and a distinct old style near the center of the downtown business district and then there is the walled city up on the bluff overlooking the river. Most of a day should/could be spent in the touristy walled city and nearby giant hotel.
As for Montreal, it is really FLAT and it is fun to drive/walk the larger streets and see all of the signs and people and shops. Old Montreal is worth studying up on in advance to see if anything there interests you.
Just the uniqueness-to-the-rest-of-North America of the french aspect of Quebec is entertainment enough to immerse yourselves in.
Maybe let the other couple dictate a considerable number of activities because I think you won't go wrong no matter how you spend your time.
good luck.
Jul 25th, 2006 | 05:13 AM
#3
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,748
Likes: 0
Montmorency Falls is just outside the city, and you can see it from the highway, so there are lots of tourists. It is not in a wilderness area, but it is very impressive. Old Quebec City is fairly small, and can be seen in 2-3 days. However, the surrounding countryside has more to see than Montreal's outskirts.
Jul 26th, 2006 | 06:20 PM
#6
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,794
Likes: 0
""Mount Royal (French: Mont Royal) (453023N, 733520W) is a mountain on the Island of Montreal, immediately north of downtown Montreal, Quebec, Canada, the city to which it gave its name.
The mountain is part of the Monteregian mountain chain situated between the Laurentians and the Appalachians. It gave its Latin name, Mons Regius, to the Monteregian chain.
Some tourist guidebooks, such as the famous Michelin Guide to Montreal, state that Mount Royal is an extinct volcano. In fact the mountain is not a volcano, although it may represent the roots of an ancient volcanic system; it is the remnant of an igneous intrusion that was emplaced in Cretaceous to Tertiary time. The magma intruded into the Earth's crust and crystallized into gabbro. Subsequently, the surrounding rock was eroded, leaving behind the resistant igneous rock that forms the mountain.
The mountain consists of three peaks: Colline de la Croix (or Mont Royal proper) at 223 metres (732 feet), Colline d'Outremont (or Mont Murray) at 211 metres (692 feet), and Colline de Westmount at 201 metres (659 feet) elevation above mean sea level. At this height, it might be otherwise considered a very tall hill, but it has always been called a mountain.""
That is from Wikipedia, and the bottom line says it all!
I live on a "hill" in a city with imposing summits around town of 456 feet and 520 feet.
We do happen to have a "mountain" towering to 14,000 feet clearly visible (on most sunny days) from either of these what you might call "peaks", and this mountain really IS an extinct volcano. There is an active volcano down the way a bit too, if you care.
Personally, I've decided that anything that has a city bus stop near the summit should not be described as a "mountain".
There are corn fields in Iowa at a much higher altitude than "Mont Royal" and most would agree that Iowa is flat.
The mountain is part of the Monteregian mountain chain situated between the Laurentians and the Appalachians. It gave its Latin name, Mons Regius, to the Monteregian chain.
Some tourist guidebooks, such as the famous Michelin Guide to Montreal, state that Mount Royal is an extinct volcano. In fact the mountain is not a volcano, although it may represent the roots of an ancient volcanic system; it is the remnant of an igneous intrusion that was emplaced in Cretaceous to Tertiary time. The magma intruded into the Earth's crust and crystallized into gabbro. Subsequently, the surrounding rock was eroded, leaving behind the resistant igneous rock that forms the mountain.
The mountain consists of three peaks: Colline de la Croix (or Mont Royal proper) at 223 metres (732 feet), Colline d'Outremont (or Mont Murray) at 211 metres (692 feet), and Colline de Westmount at 201 metres (659 feet) elevation above mean sea level. At this height, it might be otherwise considered a very tall hill, but it has always been called a mountain.""
That is from Wikipedia, and the bottom line says it all!
I live on a "hill" in a city with imposing summits around town of 456 feet and 520 feet.
We do happen to have a "mountain" towering to 14,000 feet clearly visible (on most sunny days) from either of these what you might call "peaks", and this mountain really IS an extinct volcano. There is an active volcano down the way a bit too, if you care.
Personally, I've decided that anything that has a city bus stop near the summit should not be described as a "mountain".
There are corn fields in Iowa at a much higher altitude than "Mont Royal" and most would agree that Iowa is flat.
