Our planned trip to Italy for 2004 was delayed by illness until next year (September/October 2005), so we're back in the planning mode. After reading this board, it seems that a lot of people are against driving and in favor of using trains in Italy.

When we have visited other countries in Europe, we have always rented cars to get around and to see the countryside. We've always liked the freedom and flexibility of having a car. As planned, our trip to Italy will last about 4 weeks, which should give us enough time to see the major cities and the countryside. We'll likely be starting in Milan and ending in Rome.

What do you pros think of renting a car versus doing all our traveling by train or bus?

Trains are great in Italy and I highly recommend traveling by train. Renting a car is convenient in Italy, it's the PARKING that is the problem. It's expensive to park in the lots (if you can find them) and street parking is impossible. The Italians drive very defensively and there are many scooters and motorcycles on the road. If you feel comfortable driving a little crazy, go for it!

IMO, you can't beat seeing Tuscany by car. The thrill of driving the winding hills and being able to stop on a whim was wonderful. Once we got through that area, we ditched the car for the train.

It really depends on what you want to do. If the thrust of the trip will be cities, then the trains are a whole lot easier, less stressful, and probably even cheaper than trying to find your way in the cities, and parking once you get there.

I'd normally agree about a car being the best in Tuscany, but after cancelling our reserved car this summer for our week in Montepulciano (we cancelled after our "traumatic" car accident in Wales a couple weeks earlier) we were thrilled we didn't have a car. It forced us to get out and hike rather than whizzing by the scenery. Depending on where you are going, public transporatation can still work very well in most of the smaller towns as well as the cities. But having the car really remains a personal choice.

You can't visit the small perched villages, wonderful countryside, or out of the way abbeys thoroughly using a train - you'll need a car for these places. Trains are great for getting from big city to big city. My wife & I usually take two trips to Europe each year for 4-5 weeks each time (3 trips this year) and we do about 90% car & 10% train. For example, if you fly to Milan & visit there first, take a train to Venice. Then take a train to Florence. After visiting Flornece, rent a car & explore the Chianti region thoroughly. Then visit Siena - parking is not difficult - we've done it about 8 times. Then visit the lovely countryside south of Siena, and over to Umbria (Urbino, Gubbio, Perugia, Assisi, Todi, Orvieto). Then drive to Tivoli to see Hadrian's Villa & Villa d'Est. Then on to the Amalfi coast, Pompii, Capri, etc. Then dump the car in Sorrento, and take a train to Rome (you could actually dump the car as soon as you get to the Amalfi Coast & take the busses/boats to places along the coast.)

Stu Dudley
San Mateo (San Francisco), Ca

If the flexibility of the car is as important to you as it is to me (and I gather from your post that it is), I heartily recommend the car. There's nothing like being on a country road, seeing something particularly attractive, and being able to get out of the car to savor the moment. When I get to the bigger Italian cities I ditch the car for the reasons mentioned above.

This discussion reminds me that one of my favorite pictures wouldn't have been possible if I had been traveling by train: http://www.pbase.com/mike_buckley/image/27684591

Stu said it well. The real trick is to plan your trip so you get the car in the middle and see the art cites at either end. I have always driven in Italy, but it makes sense to not drive in the big cities at all.

I once saw a car take on a train in Italy. The train won. It was a case of mass beating mass at that specific velocity. I don't recommend anyone attempting to repeat this experiment as the international relations were strained already by that whole airplanes flying beneath tram cables incident.

Tom Brokaw
Tarpon Springs (Tampa), FL

If you are comfortable driving in other parts of europe there's no reason not to drive in Italy. It's not especailly difficult and there are a lot of areas where it is much more convenient.

Obviously you don;t want a car in the city centers - but that's why there are garages - just like here in the US (not sure why so many peple can;t seem to figure this out).

FYI - we have driven in Italy numerous times and never had any problems 1) figuring out where we were going, 2)being driven off the road by bandits or 3)finding someplace to park the car.

I suppose it depends on the people traveling. The wife and I have only taken trains, so I reckon that disqualifies us from the car perspective. We like trains for many reasons. Gives you a chance to relax. I like to study my books/literature for neat stuff to do, hotels, etc. in the forthcoming town. We've met great people with great suggestions on trains. Some of the best experiences we've ever had in Italy were due to recommendations from people we met on the train. There is no real stress or pressure unless you're late, or making a tight connection. Absolutely wouldn't consider a car in the big cities, Rome especially. Certainly there are advantages to a car, but for the wife and I, trains are a welcome change from the stress of driving, getting lost, trying to park, etc. Have a great trip

If you have enjoyed driving in other European countries, you have an excellent chance of enjoying driving in <i>almost</i> of Italy.

That said, the cost of rental <i>plus</i> <b>parking</b> (i.e., therefore not <i>using</i> it) within and around a city where it is not useful will make you want to turn it in.

Best wishes,

Rex

&quot;Obviously you don;t want a car in the city centers - but that's why there are garages - just like here in the US (not sure why so many peple can;t seem to figure this out).&quot;

I think most of us HAVE figured that out. But the issues include:
a)paying a daily rate for a car while it sits in a garage
b) trying to find the garage or even the street it is on when entering the city and fighting traffic
c)the cost of the garage itself, housing a car you're not driving every day
d) getting from the garage to your hotel with luggage -- since many hotels in many cities are virtually impossible to get to by car or do not have any place to stop and unload your luggage. There's something kind of silly about renting a car and then having to take a taxi to your hotel.

<i>There's something kind of silly about renting a car and then having to take a taxi to your hotel.</i>

It's definitely ironic but I don't think it's at all silly. Using that logic, it's silly to depart your home that has a kitchen to eat in a restaurant. Just as the restaurant meets certain needs of that particular moment that the kitchen doesn't, hiring a taxi and taxi driver meets certain needs better than renting a car. If the combination of a rental car and taxi meets a traveler's needs better than the combination of a train and a taxi, it would really be silly to buy the train ticket.

When I was a kid my parents used to rent a car on trips to Europe. Recently they've decided that all the hassle just wasn't worth it and now use public transportation and enjoy it much more (and have learned to pack very light as a result).

My fiance and I don't rent a car when we travel. It isolates you from the &quot;locals,&quot; adds stress (when you don't understand foreign road signs, traffic patterns, don't know where you're going, etc.) and is time consuming (like looking for a parking spot). I'm also not a fan of driving on twisty mountain roads with no guardrails...they tend to be very beautiful, but how much do you actually see if you are too busy trying not to end up in the Adriatic?

In Italy, we walk in the cities, and if we want to head out into the countryside, there are all kinds of ways of doing so (tours, etc.) that take the responsibility of driving off our shoulders.

We like the freedom of NOT having a car!

I agree with the others who say, in your case, you should do both. Definitly want a car to get the most out of Tuscany and Umbria. That area can be done without a car, but no where nearly as well. Driving in that area is a breeze and parking is not bad. In the major cities you do not want a car, driving is crazy and parking worse. But since you have four weeks you should have plenty of time to do both. Stu's proposed itinerary is what I would suggest.

Patrick -

Obviously it doesn;t make sense to rent a car for your whole trip if you will only be using it for a day or two. I asume anyone would be sensible enoug to rent the car when they leave their first city and drop it off when they arrive at their last city.

And it is usually cheaper to rent a car for the weekly rate then to rent several cars separately for 1 or 2 days at a time.

We have found the cost of garages to be minimal - usually no more then $15 or $20 a day - unlike here where you can easily pay $50 or more.

And, with good maps we've never had any trouble finding either our hotels (go there first and drop luggage) or the garages (we always pick one in advance we plan to use - but then ask the bellman or doorman at the hotel if they know of one closer). All it takes is a really good street map - and rarely - a little circling.

I know some of this may be difficult for people who are not used to driving in cities - vs mall/highway driving - but the OP said they are used to driving in europe and IMHO Italy isn;t really much different from France, Germany, Switz etc.

Well what you say makes sense if you are doing one of those whirlwind tours, a day or two in each city. But let's say you're going to be a week each in Venice, Rome, and Naples, with several days of driving and stopping between each. It hardly makes sense to pay something like $50 a day for a rental car plus $15 or $20 a day for parking for an entire week in each city. I'm not sure I understand this &quot;first city and last city&quot; business if you are doing a lengthier stay in each city. If you are suggesting that between each city you rent a car for a couple of days, then that makes some sense, but then of course, the comments about the garages in the cities means nothing, since you won't be using them.

In Rome we stay at Palazzo Olivia. There is no way to drive into the &quot;street&quot; where the apartments are. Nor is it possible to stop and unload on the nearest street -- far too busy, and no stopping allowed. Even our taxi driver got yelled at for stopping there and blocking traffic.

In Florence we circled four times to get to our hotel, the Hermitage, despite a good map and directions. There was construction and all traffic kept getting routed over a bridge we didn't want to take, so each circle became very involved. Finally we parked about three blocks away and got somebody from the hotel to come get the car and park it for us.
In Venice, obviously the car gets parked at the big garage on the edge of the &quot;city&quot; and you rely on public transport regardless. Arriving by train is just as easy, or actually much easier when the causeway is lined up bumper to bumper with cars as I've seen it numerous times.

What you say seems to make sense, but in my experience is is simply foolish to act as if driving in Italian cities and going right to the garage or hotel without complications is either &quot;stress-less&quot; or &quot;a piece of cake.&quot; I've done it often in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York -- but none of those are even remotely similar to Rome, Venice, Milan, Florence, or Naples.

To Patrick and nytraveler.

Here is a method for getting into a big city in the middle of your driving itinerary, when you want to retain your car, but don't want to drive into a big city and pay a garage fee while the car sits &amp; doesn't go anywhere.

Find a train station out in the &quot;boonies&quot; with good access to the &quot;big City&quot;. Park there (often free) and take the train into the city. We did this in March when we visited Florence while staying in San Quirico (near Pienza). We drove to Buonconvento, parked the car on the street next to all the other cars owned by people who lived in the town, and took the train to Florence &amp; back. We stopped at many other small villages that we could have used instead of Buonconvento. The train stopped in Siena too, so we could have used it for visiting this town also.

We have done the same thing when we stayed in the Roussillon area of France(near Perpignan), and we drove to Figures Spain, parked the car, &amp; took the train to Barcelona &amp; stayed for several days. While in Provence, we drove to Avignon, parked the car , and took the train to Lyon for several days. While in Alsace France, we drove to Colmar, parked the car &amp; took the train to Nancy for a day trip. On all of these trips, parking the car was free and safe.

Our friends who live part time in Tuscany, store their car in Chiusi. When they arrive in Rome, they take the train to Chiusi, pick up their car, &amp; drive to their home in San Quirico. Chiusi is directly on the Rome &amp; Venice fast train line. You could probably park the car near the Chiusi station (which is not actually in the town of Chiusi - it's a little south) and then take ther train to either Venice or Rome &amp; back. You could probably also park the car in Orvieto &amp; take the train to Rome.

We just recently did the car/train thing in Italy. REntal cars are expensive in Italy - high theft rates. Parking in cities is pricy. Trains are very cheap and very frequent in Italy. We rented a car in Milan and drove down the coast to Pisa - turned in the car there and took trains to other cities. If I were staying for a few days in Tuscany or in the lake region, a car would be convenient to get to little out of the ways places. And you meet and see a lot more interesting people on trains. K

Well, Stu beat me to it, but we've done the same thing he did - dropped the car at a train station a half-hour outside of Rome and Venice, locked it up, and left it (being extremely careful of course not to have anything tempting showing inside).