Best Order and Method of Travel for this Itenerary
 

My wife and I have started to narrow down our 3 week Europe trip but I wanted to get some advice to either pull it off or narrow it down further and could use some help.

If these were the places you were going to go for 3 weeks, what order would you do it (starting point is the USA) and how would you travel between each place?

Florence
Amsterdam
Paris
Southern France (Bordeaux maybe)
Barcelona
London
Edinburgh
Dublin

1. I would not visit 8 locations in 21 days. You'll only have 2 days in each place (there is travel time between locations that you must account for) and most of the cities on your list are major. Narrow down your choices.

2. Look at a map of Europe. It will soon become apparent how things should be grouped. For instance. You would put Dublin, Edinburgh, and London together since they are close to each other. You would not travel from Florence to Dublin to Barcelona, etc.

3. Where you start depends on airfare from your home. Once you have a reasonable itinerary, check prices for airfare. Fly into one city and home from another so you don't spend time and money backtracking.

4. How you travel between destinations depends on what the destinations are and how far apart they are. Take a train between London and Paris or Amsterdam and Paris. I would fly to Barcelona and Florence.

Train site for schedules:
http://www.bahn.de/i/view/USA/en/index.shtml

What time of year are you going?

With three weeks I would pick 4 places tops. You will spend close to one full day each time you move between locations since none of these are especially close together.

Plan to fly into one city and home from another: Open Jaw. Saves backtracking.

You might want to try: Paris, Amsterdam, Edinburgh and London, or visa versa. This will give you four days in each city with four days for traveling between locations.

seven large to massive cities and one rural area in 3 weeks will mean you spend lots of time and money just on transport. If you truly mean 21 days you will use one day getting to Europe, one day recovering from jet lag, one day flying home and easily 4.5 days in transit between places.

So a grand total of 13.5 days give or take actually seeing/doing . . . or less than 2 days per . . .

HUGE waste IMO.

It is possible to eight places but not these kind of distant locations. For example,
Rome, Florence, Siena, Pisa, Lucca, Bologna, Padua, Venice is possible because many can be done as a short day trip from other places. If you insist on distant locations, you would have to trim the number of destinations. You have seven transfers with shortest one around five hours and longer transfers taking all day. Count number of full days you have. If you have, say 21 days including the flight days, take 2 days away for flying in and out and another 7 days for transfers. What do you have left? 21-2-7 = 12 full days in 8 cities!

Great advice above.

Seven countries is probably too many in three weeks. If you have 21 days total, subtract 1 day for departure from USA and 1 for arrival and 1 for departure day. Subtract another for each day you'll be in transit from one place to the next, so another 7 days. Subtract another day if you're not returning home from your last destination. That leaves you 10 days for 8 destinations. Or one or two nights in each. Two nights in any one location gives you only one full day there.

Add up the cost of getting from one place to the next.

Unless cost is no issue and you'd be satisfied with a glimpse of each of those places and some photos, and a look around for future reference, you might want to cut your list down by half. Otherwise, you'll spend more time packing and unpacking, traveling, checking into and out of hotels, than seeing and doing.

You might want to choose a cluster - Florence, Southern France, Barcelona or London, Edinburgh, Dublin plus maybe Amsterdam, or Paris, Southern France, Barcelona. Any of those are more than I'd attempt in three weeks. I prefer to go on somewhat relaxing vacation rather than a forced march.

If you're traveling in summer, planning to hit the "top spots", crowds and the weather may quickly diminish your energy and enthusiasm.

Too many places for 3 weeks. The cluster idea makes sense - cut down travel time between places and spend it in sight seeing (e.g. Paris, Amsterdam, London, Edinburgh or Paris and southern France to Barcelona). Time of year will also make a difference - summer, for example, can mean big queues at top attractions.

Sorry - in 21 days (and is this 21 days on the ground or does it include the day you arrive and leave so your rally have 19?) I would do no more than 5 places - and that is quite rushed.

Assuming you are actually on the ground 19 full days - with 8 destinations you need to allow 6 days for travel (your destinations are not close by and large) leaving you 13 days for 8 places - or 1.5 days per place.

In 1.5 days you can see a little in smaller places (Dublin, Amsterdam) but for some places - London, southern France - you need at LEAST 3 places (4 nights) each.

So don't worry about getting from one to another. Worry about how to cut at least 3 destinations first.

Also time of year will make a difference (weather, length of days, size of tourist crowds).

Florence
Amsterdam
Paris
Southern France (Bordeaux maybe)
Barcelona
London
Edinburgh
Dublin>

Yes ambitious for 21 days for sure but:

maybe land in Ireland, work way over to London
Take Eurostar train to Amsterdam via Lille or Brussels (www.eurostar.com)
Thalys train to Paris - www.thalys.com

Train to southern France - Bordeaux is not much - at least not like the fantastic Provence or French Riviera areas which offer much more for the average tourist and can easily be reached by train.

Fly out of Nice back home.

For train info checkout these IMO superb informative sites: www.budgeteuropetravel.com (download their free and superb online European Planning & Rail Guide - a great rail trip primer); www.ricksteves.comand www.seat61.com.

You may want to look at the France-Benelux Railpass, valid on trains in Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and France as you may be taking several trains.

Thank you for the suggestions. We are planning on going in mid-September into early October. We know that the itinerary listed has a lot, so we are still working on what we want to cut out. So below I listed a more specific, but extremely rough draft, of what we are thinking our schedule would look like. Please go easy on me if it’s awful, we haven’t even bought the tickets yet!

We have talked to family and friends who have been and they all felt that 2-3 days was all we would need in each city. We are both 27 and although we appreciate some of the tourist attractions, we are much more interested in the culture and going to local hot spots rather than all of the touristy stuff. Most likely we will have structured 50% of our team in each city with touristy locations and a rigid schedule and the other 50% will have very little planning so we can relax and enjoy the city as it presents itself.

So having provided that information and the list below, would you still maintain that it is just too much? If so, what would you cut and where would you expand your trip with those extra days?

Sep 19: Fly to Florence
Sep 20: Recover/Florence
Sep 21: Florence
Sep 22: Florence or nearby cities
Sep 23: Florence or nearby cities
Sep 24: Travel to Amsterdam/evening Amsterdam
Sep 25: Amsterdam
Sep 26: Amsterdam
Sep 27: travel to France/France (the reason these days are not as specific is that neither one of us cares for France that much, but since it is in between Barcelona and the UK it seems silly to not at least spend some time there, but we don’t mind at all if we don’t get to do very much)
Sep 28: France
Sep 29: France
Sep 30: Travel to Barcelona/evening Barcelona
Oct 1: Barcelona
Oct 2: Barcelona
Oct 3: Travel to Dublin/Dublin
Oct 4: Dublin (my wife has been here, feels 1 day is all that is needed)
Oct 5: AM Dublin/travel to Edinburgh
Oct 6: Edinburgh
Oct 7: Travel to London/evening London
Oct 8: London
Oct 9: London
Oct 10: London
Oct 11: Fly Home

I think it would help to explain "culture and local hot spot but not touristy stuff." I am envisioning some sort of party places frequented by people of your age. Does culture in your context mean the culture of your age group as opposed to culture of the regions you are visiting?

It would also help to explain "neither one of us cares for France that much." What is that you think France does not offer? What in France do you think you would not like?

Skip France - you said yourself you're not interested and it's simply in the way between Barcelona and the UK. Poor France.

Skip Dublin and Edinburgh they're simply flying visits - and you're not staying long enough.

Don't think you're not interested 100% in the tourist stuff. You are, and that's nothing to be ashamed of.

You're left with Tuscany/Amsterdam/Barcelona/London. Focus on those four.

You're 27 and will be back. If you're not there's always google street view, which is cheaper and more relaxing than simply bouncing about all over a continent.

Your logic is ridiculous. Visit France since it's "between" Barcelona and the UK? Come on. Jump on a plane and go where you want to.

European cities are not interchangeable. Florence is small, London is immense. Your Sept 19 is meaningless because it's your overnight flight. You don't care about France, and Dublin for a night or two is wasted time - just spend more time in Edinburgh.

Edinburgh > Dublin every day of the week and twice on Sundays. This is not close.

Do something more like this:

Sep 19: Fly to Florence
Sep 20: Recover/Florence
Sep 21: Florence
Sep 22: Day trip Siena (Siena > Pisa)
Sep 23: Florence
Sep 24: Travel to Amsterdam/evening Amsterdam
Sep 25: Amsterdam
Sep 26: Amsterdam
Sep 27: Amsterdam (go to Ajax or travel to PSV or AZ or Feyenoord soccer match)
Sep 28: Fly to Barcelona
Sep 29: Barcelona
Sep 30: Barcelona
Oct 1: Barcelona
Oct 2: Edinburgh
Oct 3: Edinburgh
Oct 4: Edinburgh
Oct 5: Day trip Stirling, etc
Oct 6: To London
Oct 7: London
Oct 8: London
Oct 9: London
Oct 10: London
Oct 11: Fly Home

We certainly are interested in some of the tourist attractions. What I mean is that, when we travel, we are much more interested in spending time in bars, at restaurants, parks, and generally doing what locals would do (to the extent you can when you aren’t from there). The culture to us is not necessarily the culture of our age group, but the culture of the region as well. Although the major attractions provide context, we won’t be disappointed if we don’t get to see every attraction in London because we instead wound up in a pub for 4 hours.

I shouldn’t say that neither one of us cares for France, that was a poor choice of words. Of the list, is the bottom priority location. I appreciate the comment that just because it’s in between doesn’t make sense. I figured that since it such a short train ride it would be worth it, but I’ll take that into consideration.

Also, can you help me understand this discrepancy.

When you look at travel agencies vacation packages (which we are not considering), you regularly see this kind of itinerary in a two week period. But when talking with other people, online and in person, the consensus is that this is too rushed.

Why the difference? Just because the agencies have it planed for you so you can go faster?

>>Why the difference? Just because the agencies have it planed for you so you can go faster?<<

Because your luggage is in the hallway by 7AM every morning, you are on the coach by 8AM and you sit all day long w/ 45 other (mostly elderly) strangers oohing and aching at the scenery flying by outside the windows w/ no chance to stop except at roadside shops/restaurants that have coach parks.

Then you "see" most of the attractions from the outside w/o venturing inside (often w/o even getting off the bus) and only "visit" (actually go inside) a few places

That is how they cover 19 places in 25 days . . .

BTW - your friends who think 2 or 3 days is plenty for London have either never been there or aren't interested in much of anything.

The people on these boards are for the most part experienced and independent travelers. If you take a tour you see the world according to the tour company. If you venture out by yourself, your trip is truly your trip.

We often see visitors want to do what locals do, that include going to work, cleaning the house, laundry and grocery shopping.

I suggest you do what you want, it just might be right for you.

Makes sense. I wasn't aware that they fly through them.

It appears the constructiveness of this post has ended since the judgements are now flying. Have to love forums. Thanks for the help all.

People are offering their experience and honest opinions. I think you are seeking reinforcement rather than alternatives.

Whoever said 2 or 3 days is enough for big cities like London is not interested in absorbing the local culture. Or even ticking off the majority of the touristic highlights. I would assume these people went on a package tour, were bused past the local monuments, and told they'd seen the best of that city, on to the next.

I too like to absorb some of the local culture when traveling but you can't do that in two days. Be sure to stay in a centrally located hotel, one with lots of local charm, not a chain hotel, and one too small for tour groups. Go to the restaurants the locals like, not the ones with English menus. We like to go to farmers' markets and even supermarkets. And washing clothes in a laundromat means meeting the locals.

If Dublin is only worth one day, maybe skip it. Go some other time when you can see something of the Irish countryside. Edinburgh is out of the way too for such a short visit. It deserves more time. As does the Scottish countryside.

Is there a particular reason you're flying into Florence? It's not the easiest Italian airport to get to. Flying into Pisa, which has more international flights, and training to Florence makes more sense. I assume you're basing in Florence because you want to see something of the Tuscan countryside. Is that true?

Once you decide exactly where you want to base for each stop on your itinerary, we can help you order the stops in a way to minimize time spent in transit.

>>It appears the constructiveness of this post has ended<<


"Man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest"

from The Boxer by Paul Simon

Stu Dudley

Absolutely not. We will re-work this and drop at least one if not two or three places from the trip based on the comments. Many of these comments have been helpful and that experience is why I posted.

But I wouldn’t call this constructive.
“Your logic is ridiculous”
“your friends who think 2 or 3 days is plenty for London have either never been or…” They have been, why question me ok that?

You were one of those that was constructive, the reply was to the poster above you.

You left off the rest of my quote >>or they aren't interested in much. . .<<

So cherry pick all you want, but we actually ARE trying to help you.

I'm not saying everyone needs to spend weeks in London, but one simply cannot see even 5% of the major sites let alone 'absorbing tne culture' in a couple of days.

So shoot the messengers, and do what you want. . .

Listen to the advice above, except for the soccer match on September 27th. In the Netherlands top football is played on Sunday normally. I don't know if the fixture list has been announced yet, but there are some matches you really wouldn't want to attend.

Flying into Florence is just part of that rough draft. You are correct we want to see the country areas, we will fly into wherever makes sense. Thanks Mimar.

I don't know how many times I have to say that this has been helpful in order to stop getting posts saying I'm not listening but maybe this last one will do the trick.

Based on your latest itinerary from 9:46 this morning:

It sounds like you're more interested in strolling the cities, looking at the buildings, listening to buskers in squares, and visiting some smaller places where locals might congregate. That's my impression when you say "local culture."

You can easily travel to Pisa, Lucca, and Siena from Florence. You can also take local tours (via minivan) to smaller towns where the public transportation is not as good as to those towns, above. You could book a private guide to take you to small towns/vineyards outside of Florence.

One church in Florence that fascinates me is Santo Spirito. It's not one that many tourists stop at but it is one where you can see black garbed widows kneeling in prayer (very Italian). It's also a beautiful church in its simplicity. Something like this might interest you. I'm sure there are other areas in Florence where you find the same thing. You need to leave the centro storico and explore outlying areas.

I would skip France since it's low on your list and focus on Barcelona and that area. Barcelona is fairly spread out but is a good city to walk around. I went last year for the first time and had 8 days there so could see some areas that tourists miss when they only have a couple of days.

One thing I did was the Pedralbas Monastery on the outskirts of Barcelona. It's reached via metro and then a commuter train line. There were few people about and the monastery was delightful. There's a small courtyard where you can sit just outside the monastery and a courtyard inside. I went on a weekday but I would think that on a weekend it would have locals strolling the area since it was a residential area.

Off the Ramblas (on the right side walking down the hill) is the Antic Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau - only open in the mornings. Lots of local people sitting in the courtyard. Also on this side of the Ramblas are restaurants that cater to locals with the staff not speaking English but very helpful. Delicious food and inexpensive. It's all on display so you just have to point to what you want.

You could also explore the University area and the old hospital there (different hospital) which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Again, there were only 3 of us on the tour.

It will be off season so you could visit some of the small seaside towns on the Costa Brava with few tourists as it will no longer be sea bathing weather. I'm sure there's local transportation up the coast.

Some people like cooking classes where you go to markets, buy the ingredients, and then cook and eat. You get some interaction with local people.

I remember reading a travel article about home hosted lunches/dinners (I think it was in Italy) - google this and see if you come up with anything.

I've take some tours where we go to a person's house and they cook typical meals and we had a few hours to chat with them about their life. A very memorable meal was outside Dubrovnik where everything served (salad, main course, dessert, and wine) was from their land and it was all delicious. They took us inside their smoke house where they cured or smoked proscuitto. They had lots of them hanging from the beams. It was interesting to meet a self-sustaining family.

Hope this gives you some ideas for your trip.

Great thoughts Adrienne thanks. I think we are pretty well settled on cutting France and will likely stick with the rest to get a good first time whirlwind tour to help us go back and spend more time in the places we liked in the future.

You should have seen the original itinerary that also had the alps and a day at Oktoberfest.

And more may get cut as we plan the trip as we get closer. For now my main concern is the inbound/outbound flights.

Your logic on France is ridiculous and I stand by that. Evidently you did too because "I think we are pretty well settled on cutting France."

I also gave you a day-by-day itinerary that meets your professed needs. If that isn't constructive, you must have a different meaning for the term.

This isn't validation station. We aren't here to pitch to you and tell you what's great about your plans because we're not getting a cut (except perhaps some of the rail fetishists). And cold water helps sharpen the thinking.

All that said, absolutely none of us are trying to influence you to make a bad choice. Instead, we're trying to help you make better ones. It seems as if you're on your way to doing so.

P.S. - check your flights on the multi-city option for whatever website you use.

E.g., [USA] to Florence on 9-19; London to [USA] on Oct. 11.

Mairsile, I think you have touched on the problems with these boards at times, that your idea of the ideal vacation may not be much like someone else's. We are all different and that includes vacations, so you need to do what would thrill your socks off. It would seem from your initial itinerary that you wanted a whirlwind tour of key European spots--that getting a taste for various areas is what you are looking for. If that is the case, then go for it because it is your vacation, not ours.

That said, you did ask for these folks' opinions and they have offered, perhaps a bit harsher than should have been but let's all retract the claws and move forward. :)

I am taking my older teen daughters to Ireland for two weeks this summer. Initially I wanted to do London, Scotland and Ireland and quickly realized that I had bitten off more than I could chew in four weeks. So I honed the trip to Ireland. We were going to jet around the entire island. Until I realized that we would be seeing nothing but touristy spots and those for a few moments before moving on. Here and day, there a day and two at the next.

There is no local flavor in that. So we have chopped our once ambitious trip to three regions in Ireland--County Mayo, County Clare and the south, Counties Kerry and Cork--and I am so glad that I did. Now we can see the sites and get to know the area on a deeper level than a few hours would have afforded.

But, that is our ideal vacation, few places and longer stays. You need to determine what is best for you and the wife. If it is a survey of much of Western Europe, go for it.

>>your idea of the ideal vacation may not be much like someone else's. <<

True - but I'm guessing that this is the OPs first trip to Europe. And they are young. We're just trying to keep them from making the same mistakes we all made on our first couple of trips to Europe decades ago. He has very little "basis" to judge how much time & effort it takes to get from one location to the other, and also how much "stuff" there is to do & see in each spot. Does he know that shops are usually closed in many European cities on Sundays (and sometimes Monday morning too)? Different than in the US. How about the 2-3 hr lunches in France, Italy, etc when the shops close and some of the smaller cities can sometimes feel deserted. Museums are often closed one day a week.

On our first trip to Europe in 1978, we rolled into Amsterdam by train around 8PM at night. Spent the next day/night there - and then off by train to Cologne for 1/2 day and one night. Then rented a car, drove for a while, and spent 2 nights in the Mosel, 1 on the Rhine, 1 night elsewhere, arrived someplace else at 10PM after driving all day seeing nothing. Then finally to Lucerne around noon - just when they closed up all the shops & would not re-open them until Monday. We were quite bored in Lucerne with all the shops closed. At that point, my mother & sister were worn out and decided to "bail out" on us & go home. We continued with our 1 & 2 nighters in different locations. When we got home - we remembered and enjoyed very little of our trip. Two years later, we went back to Europe - started in Amsterdam and spent 4 nights there, 3 on the Mosel, 3 on the Rhine, etc. Same itinerary - but more time in each location. Since 1999, we've typically spend 2 weeks in one spot before moving on.

It's like parents passing on knowledge/experience to our children.

Stu Dudley

<It's like parents passing on knowledge/experience to our children.>

And some children will not take the advice, and do what they want, and that is okay too. We are just trying to impart our wisdom to new travelers: learn from our mistakes.

Our first trip to Europe we spent three months with the average time in each place 5-7 days. Our last six week trip had mostly 4-5 day stays with a few 3 day stays and a couple 2 day stays. I really regret those couple 2-3 day stays. Just too rushed. I learned my mistake and will never travel like that again.

BigRuss,

You gave me good advice. In fact, you saying to fly where I want and not base it on what is nearby was the deciding factor to not visit France. France wasn’t on the top of our list, although we would love to go there someday, but it remained since you could take a quick train from Barcelona to Paris and then Paris to London. Otherwise the only change from your suggestion is to keep Dublin in place of a day of soccer. We are definitely going for a multi city trip, probably into Italy and out of London, or vice versa, or something like that.

StuDudley and Krejaton,

You nailed it. It is my first trip, although my wife studied abroad in Seville and that included a week of travel to a few places during a semester break. I do have very little basis to judge the time it takes between trips, which is why I assume it will sap ½ to ¾ of a day. The advice here has been great and very helpful. I can say that we are generally fast travelers, at least when it comes to the United States. I know that the comparison here is weak at best but for example, I’ve been to New York City, Chicago, and was raised in Los Angeles. Knowing what those cities offer, we would both be perfectly happen with 2-3 fully days in each city.

To be clear, I’m not taking that logic and applying it onto Europe to say 2-3 days in each city will be perfect. But I assume that most people who suggest spending longer time in each European city, would also suggest to a traveler spending more time in those domestic cities. So as you said Krejaton, I’m trying to adjust for what others would consider “their vacation” vs “ours” and reduce suggested durations proportionally.

And what a difference the suggestions are from person to person. My brother was just in Amsterdam for two weeks and felt that the city could be taken in over 2 full days (3 nights). I'm enjoying taking all of your opinions and advice and consolidating it into what we decide to do.

I have read several postings from so called fast travelers from the U.S. While one can frame this as personal taste, one can also look this from the difference in where the destinations are distributed. In the U.S., especially in the West, the destinations are sparsely located. One has to travel a lot just to get to the next closest destination. This is not the case in Europe. Many points of interest are concentrated in close vicinity. Compared to the U.S. one only needs to travel a fraction of distance to experience differences in culture in Europe. My home city is about three times the size of Florence, but I can’t think of recommending more than one and a half days worth of things to do. I would recommend people to be fast travelers here. However, the same amount of time in a city one-third the size, Florence, would just give time to see the facade. You get different recommendation based on personal taste as well as what they interpret as your goals especially in presence of differences in taxonomy.

We don't need to know why you France is not only your list, nor we want to convince you to visit. However, if care to share to the forum, you might find out the reason you are keep France off your list might also exist in even stronger ways at other locations you are leaving on your list.

But although NYC, Chicago and LosAngeles are different - they are all in the US and have the same culture.

You will be moving from country to country (different language, different culture, different rules and types of transport, differnt meal times, shop opening and days things are open and closed) every 2 days or so. It will take most of your time there just to get oriented.

I once took (a big mistake) a brief trip to Paris with a colleague who had never been to europe before - and she was really astonished that EVERYTHING was different. Everyone spoke French. The Metro did not work the same way the subway does. Rules of greetings and politeness were totally different. Menus were all in French (after the first day she wanted to go only to tourist places with everything in English - oy! was that trip a pain!).

I'm not suggesting your reaction will be like that - but having everything different every couple of days does slow you down - and I don;t think you have allowed for that.

As for comparing it to a tour - people on tours really don;t get any feeling at all for the local culture. They just ride around on buses all day - with usually one sight per day (and a couple of "shopping" opportunities) and really get to know the other people on the tour. Early starts every morning, hotels at the end of hell and gone, group buffet meals that are americanized versions of local food - and very little contact with locals or local culture - or even the most major tourist sights.

"But although NYC, Chicago and LosAngeles are different - they are all in the US and have the same culture." Really ???

<<I assume that most people who suggest spending longer time in each European city, would also suggest to a traveler spending more time in those domestic cities.>>

I'm late to this party, but I disagree with this. I'm fine with 2-3 days in LA, NYC, or Chicago, but could spend months on end in any number of European cities. And it's not because I've had numerous opportunities to spend time in NY, Chicago, and LA - I've had far more opportunities to spend time in European cities, say, Paris (well over 100 visits) or Rome or Berlin or Amsterdam or Prague, or....and it's precisely because there's not much new for me to learn about the cultures of NY or LA or Chicago, but there is an endless number of things for me to learn about the culture in any European city, town, or village.