Europe Itinerary... First timer
 

What do you guys think of my tentative itinerary for my first time Europe trip??? Can't change arrival or departure ticket, anything else is flexible....

Any tips, suggestions are appreciated!!

June 27----Arrive in Amsterdam
June 28----Amsterdam
June 29----Amsterdam
June 30----Leave to Paris- (flight duration 1:15 hours, leave late in the evening)
July 1---- Paris
July 2---- Paris
July 3---- Paris ….Leave to Venice---train overnight Thello sleeper train
July 4 ---- arrive at 6am, spend day in Venice
July 5---- Train to Rome 4 hours (5am-9am)
July 6 ----Rome
July 7----Rome
July 8----Rome
July 9----Leave to Barcelona (Flight duration: 1:30 hours, leave in the morning)
July10---Barcelona
July 11---Barcelona
July 12--- Leave for Madrid (Train duration 2:30 hours)
July 13---Madrid
July 14--- Flight to Boston

I'm sorry to say this but the classic mistake of the first time visitor to europe is to try to go to too many places in too little time (6 major tourist cities in 15 days) - because:

1) They underestimate how long it takes to get form one place to another; a 1:15 hour plane ride will take at least 5 hours and a 4 hour train ride will take at least 6 hours

2) They underestimate how long it takes to see major sights and travel around within each city

It appears that you have fallen into both traps. If it were me I would change your tickets (if you can do for a small fee) and return from Rome rather then Madrid. OR, eliminate Italy and go from Paris straight to Spain.

I'm not sure on how you decided on this itinerary - but I would go back and look at each city, make a list of the must sees there and - using the MIchelin green guide which rates sights and tells you how long it takes to see each one) and then determine how you will do that in the very limited hours you have in each city. Also have a look to see which days the various museums and sights are closed - different for each one.

If you only want to see 2 or 3 sights in each city you can do that with the idea of going back to the places you want to see in more depth - but what you have is a VERY rushed race through incredible cities - with really no time to relax, watch the (new, different) world go by and feel the culture of each place.

I'm guessing from your post that you are a relatively young solo traveller. If my guess is wrong and you will be a group of 2 or mare and/ or are beyond the youthful backpacker stage of life, this is definitely too many cities in too little time. But even if you are solo and spry, this is still a very aggressive itinerary.

There is a fast train between Amsterdam and Paris city centers, that will likely be much more convenient than trekking to and from the airport in both cities.

I'm struck by the lack of sleep you will have for the Venice/ Rome portion of the trip. I don't know how much sleep you'll actually get on a sleeper train, or how much you will enjoy one groggy day in Venice (not much will be open at 6 am), or how happy you will be to awake before 4 am to catch a train at 5.

Is nightlife of any kind an interest of yours? If so, you basically have no time for it in any city, because you will need to be up early each morning.

Strongly consider eliminating at least one and probably two cities from this itinerary in order to actually experience and enjoy the places you do visit. You will love Europe. Have fun!

I really don't see any problem with this itinerary. It's not true that Lina hasn't considered the travel time, it's right there in the itinerary. I've often wondered if some forum members have an automatic response they send out whenever they see an itinerary with multiple cities.

The plan covers eighteen days and has six cities, two of which are just stopover points for one day. There are three and a half days in Amsterdam, three full days in Paris, one full day in Venice, four full days in Rome, two and a half days in Barcelona, and a full day in Madrid.

I might be inclined to add a day in Paris, perhaps taking it from Amsterdam. However, that depends on your interests, and whether you're considering any day trips. It would help if you would tell us a bit more about yourself.

The first problem is the "late night" flight to Paris. Flight may be 1:15 but you need to get to the airport, check in 2 hr before the flight and then get to central Paris from that airport. Did you factor in all that time (and money, not insignificant) when choosing flight over train? Also how late - how to you plan to get from the airport to your hotel in Paris - does that mode of transportation run at that time? What if the flight is late?

The one day in Venice and one in Madrid are the problems. Looks like you are stuck with Madrid. Much as I love Venice I might skip that and fly from Paris to Rome. Or otherwise I guess I'd steal a night from Rome and add it to Venice.

The idea of skipping Italy all together on this trip and spending more time in the other three countries is probably best but it's so hard to 'skip' Italy.

IMHO, you will be doing a lot of sightseeing through a window of some public conveyance. Too many places, too many changes...I was exhausted after reading the itinerary. All of the changes take time to checkout, transit to train station or airport, find your lodging in a strange city, check-in, and on and on.

You could add a day to Paris by dropping Venice. The Italians have a saying, Il dolci fare niente," the sweetness of doing nothing. Part of the European lifestyle is to take it easy. Sitting at a table in a cafe watching the world go by is a legitimate vacation activity. Avoiding a marathon at a dead run is a more cogent traveling strategy.

Buon viaggio,

Could not agree more with the advice given above. You are spending way too much time traveling and way to little experiencing your destinations. Since you are stuck with Amsterdam and Madrid as arrival and departure cities, I would consider eliminating Italy from your trip this time. Or, include Italy and fly directly from Rome to Madrid the day before your flight to Boston. I'd also skip Venice - one day isn't worth the effort. If you eliminate Venice, Barcelona and Madrid (except for your flight home), you can give the rest of your itinerary the time it merits.

Take the train from Amsterdam to Paris.

This trip is fast paced, sure, but I agree with bvlenci that this is a mostly reasonable itinerary and would be enjoyable. I don't think the OP has to eliminate three places to get maximum enjoyment, but crossing off one place might help.

lina, what are your major interests? What cities or countries are you looking forward to visiting the most? Do you like art museums, or want opportunities to strike into the countryside? Tell us more about what you are into, and that could help tune your itinerary a bit.

For example, if you really love art and sculpture and are planning many museum visits in addition to experiencing these cities, I might recommend cutting Barcelona and adding time to Madrid: Barcelona has fantastic open air art and architecture, but Madrid has the three world class art museums that can't be missed if you're an art lover. I'd also consider shifting from Venice to Florence if you particularly are interested in Renaissance art.

Great start, and whatever you decide, it will be a nice first trip to Europe!

I agree that you might want to look into a train to Paris instead of a flight. However, Schiphol airport is fairly convenient to Amsterdam, and a late arrival in Paris wouldn't be a problem because that day is devoted to Amsterdam rather than Paris.

Yes train from Amsterdam to Paris will be as quick or quicker than flying and much cheaper if you book far far in advance at www.thalys.com - as low as 39 euros - what I booked last year in high season of August. For a good look at European trains and overnight trains (which are not for light sleepers if you want to sleep on the sleeper train!) check these info-laden sites: www.seat61.com - good for discounted tickets like Thalys and in Italy and Barcelona to Madrid, etc; www.ricksteves.com and www.budgeteuropetravel.com.

I'm guessing that art isn't a major interest, because Florence isn't on the itinerary.

I also disagree that one full day in Venice isn't worth the effort. Venice is one of the two places to which you can get a direct overnight train from Paris. Going directly to Rome wouldn't save any effort at all, unless you flew, which would take more time out of the day in Paris than the overnight train would. Also, Venice is a place that it would be worth quite a bit of effort to see it only for an hour. In one day, you wouldn't have time to visit museums and churches, but, as I've already said, I suspect that's not the purpose of this trip.

Sitting at a café watching the world go by is a great way to spend a holiday if you're the type of person who enjoys that kind of thing, but it's not everyone's preferred style of traveling. It's not mine, for example. And the "dolce far' niente" is also not my style. I've never spent more than half an hour sitting at a café. Well, once I sat on the terrace of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel, watching the sun set, and hoping the waiter didn't come around to take another drink order. That probably took more than half an hour.

I myself am a big museum person, and I would want more time in a city like Rome or Paris for that reason. However, I don't presume to think everyone has my interests. I could easily spend a week in Paris and run my husband ragged, rather than "fare niente". He insists on a post-prandial nap, and tries to keep me to one museum a day, and we compromise.

I've taken the overnight train from Paris to Milan (which is the other place it goes), and it's no Orient Express. I took it precisely because it left me more time on the ground for what had to be a very brief trip from home (in Italy). You can save a lot of money by traveling in a couchette car, which is what I did, and if you're a woman, you can request to be put in a car with only other women. You can also save a lot of money by buying the tickets more than a month in advance. Bring your own food and beverages on board, rather than relying on the awful and unreliable food service on the train. When I took the train, there was no potable water on board at all, so I used my bottle of water even to brush my teeth. Some people advise avoiding this train like the plague, but I would say that as long as your expectations are low, and if you can sleep on moving trains, it's a good way to save time and money. You leave Paris in the evening, and you're in Italy in the morning, giving you a full day in both places.

Why stop at 6 cities? You could spend a day in Amsterdam, then move towards Paris for a day, then spend a day in Paris, then head southwest towards Italy, hitting one city a day all along its length, then move west along the southern end of France hitting a city a day until you get into Spain . . .

Or you could shorten this up a bit. Forget the number of cities. You are in Four Countries in a total of 18 days. 7 of those days will involve significant travel. That leaves you a more accurate 11 days of visiting 6 cities. By your profile you look young, but even young minds can have memory overload. You should bring an excellent camera and take thousands of pictures, chronologically, so that you can compare your receipts and cc bills with your pictures to try to document some aspect of what you did, as you will have no independent memory of it. This is as busy of a schedule as I've seen.

I'd cut it to three cities, starting in Amsterdam as you indicate for a couple of days, train to Paris, for 5-6 days, then on to Spain to finish, assuming that your flights can't be changed. If you're dead set on seeing this much, I don't see how anyone else can really help your itinerary, other than to say you are grossly underestimating the travel time. FYI, the 1:15 flight time is exactly that, gate to gate time. If you have not considered getting to, waiting in ticket and security lines at the airport, and then getting to your hotel, I'd add 2 hours to each end of each trip. I am also assuming that you are backpacking, or do you have plans for your luggage in your 10 hours in Venice.

You have received good advice. I'm a fan of a fast itinerary because it is a rush! However, many things can also go wrong with so many variables. Also, you will get weary. Think of all the walking you'll do every day for each of those days. Consider a vacation from your vacation.

Regarding gate to gate, this also can be true of train travel (in that the station may be across town).

If you do this (and even if you don't), plan each city geographically so you don't waste too much time criss-crossing the city to different sights.

Come on Persuader, you haven't been following many travel forums if this is the busiest schedule you've seen. Here's one, for example, that's much busier and I've seen others that were even busier than that, but I can't find them now.

http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...in-a-month.cfm

I don't consider three days in a city to be overload. There are two cities in this schedule with one day only, but they're cities that are primarily waypoints. All the others have either three or four days.

"What do you guys think of my tentative itinerary for my first time Europe trip???

That's easy. It sucks.

As most above have indicated you are planning to do to much moving in too little time. This is typical for first time travellers to Europe. The first mistake they actually make is to think they are gong to visit 'Europe'. Using that word indicates a way of thinking about it. Europe is not a country.

Home appears to be near Boston. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying you plan to visit N. America. That's Mexico, the USA and Canada all combined. In 16 DAYS (you don't count arrival and departure days, they're a write off).

If someone told you they planned to visit Mexico City, Puerto Vallarta, San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto and Boston in 16 days, would you say to them that that was a good idea?

Or would you suggest they pick one country and even just one part of one country (east vs. west for example)in order to waste less time moving and at least get a little feel for one area.

There is as much to see and do in any one country in Europe as there is in the entire USA lina. You cannot 'visit Europe' in 16 days. You can only visit a few places within Europe. In travel as in many things, less is more. Move less, see and do more.

I am someone who always tells people to slow down, but this is presumably a young person traveling solo, and it is hardly so bad as to be told "it sucks." That is just ridiculous!
We regularly see people trying to do the downright impossible, or trying to plan a trip like this with kids in tow, but this is a perfectly reasonable itinerary for someone wanting to get a taste of several major European cities.

Actually, a lot of your itinerary at the beginning is good. Where it goes wrong is the day in Venice after a night train and one day in Madrid at the end.

I do not know if left luggage is even open at that time of the morning in Venice. I am afraid your day will be exhausting and you will not get the joy from Venice that it can be.

It is a shame to go to Madrid and not have time to see things nearby like Toledo or Segovia. Madrid would have been better paired with other cities like Seville. OTOH, the Madrid area will be burning hot in Mid July (Rome and Venice, also), so perhaps just as well you have less time there.

There is one other thing I would not like, and that is your whole trip is focused on only cities, but they are all interesting, and you may go back someday and visit smaller places.

You might look and see if a train from Amsterdam to Paris would be better than flying. Take into consideration the time it takes to get to the airport, time to go through security, and again cost and time to get into Paris. Trains from city center to city center can be a lot less stressful, and, in the end, faster.

You need to make a couple of changes, but without knowing your interests and what you want from this trip, I can't tell you what would be best for you. Are you wanting to see art and architecture, culture, pubs and cafes, history, ruins? If you share a bit about yourself, people can make suggestions that will be more appropriate for you, personally.

What is neat about such an itinerary is how easy it is now. I had a couple four country trips back in the day, packing 4 different "starter" currencies as well as traveler's checks.

Sojourn, your comparison is ridiculous. The distance from the beginning, Amsterdam, to the end, Madrid, is considerably less than just the distance from Vancouver to San Francisco.

Lina hasn't been back since asking her question, either scared off by the criticism, or disgusted at all the sarcasm and put-down.

Notice that in the link I posted above, 23rd February at 6:44 PM, there was an itinerary that was seriously overly ambitious, and yet several of us managed to help the poster pare it down without denigrating her. This particular itinerary is nowhere near as ambitious as that. It's exactly the kind of trip that lots of young people traveling alone take on, and they all seem to enjoy themselves.

>>It's not true that Lina hasn't considered the travel time, it's right there in the itinerary. <<

But it does seem lina is only factoring in the actual flight and/or train times. That 1:15 flight from A'dam to Paris would actually eat up about half a day what w/ checking out, train to the airport, flight, train into Paris, checking in. At least 5 hours in transit.

But I don't think the itinerary is terrible . . I do think there is too little time in Paris, Venice and either of the cities in Spain. So I'd cut one simply to reduce all the travel time and dashing about.

"If someone told you they planned to visit Mexico City, Puerto Vallarta, San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto and Boston in 16 days, would you say to them that that was a good idea?"

Now I'm not good at geography, but something about this analogy seems just a little bit off. :)

Seriously.

7 countries in one month. 6 countries in 18 days. The latter is significantly more packed.

OP may want to do something like this. May end up doing something like this. It may give her some thoughts on future travel and how she wants to do it. Or maybe she does not expect to ever be back in Europe.

A lot of issues for the OP. I'd compare going to a buffet and eating 6 plates similar to this trip. Sure, I CAN do it, but if I came asking for advice with descriptions of what I would fill each of my six plates with, I'd expect some comments about eating WAY too much. So long as no one said hey fatso, quit eating so much, (and no one here has approached that tone, IMO) then all's fair.

Thank you everyone for your time and replies. I did get a little intimidated by all the negatives, but I do appreciate the honesty.
I guess I would like to see as many places as I can, because I am not sure when I'll be able to take a trip like this in my entire life. My company is sending me to a conference in Stockholm and paying for my ticket. I will be in Stockholm until June 27. and this is when my trip starts.
I don't really enjoy museums or art that much. I am actually looking for more of a cultural experience.

Let's shorten Sojourn example up. Here's a trip in just the US that is roughly the same mileage between cities:

Start in Sanfransico for a couple of days
Then train or fly to LA for 4 days.
From LA, take a train to Hurley New Mexico for the day, and that night, travel on in to Albuquerque.
Spend a few more days there.
Then head out of Albuquerque and travel to Kansas City for a day or so, then travel to Chicago, where you'll be departing from.

Mostly one language here in the US, no less than three on this trip in Europe.

I can't think of a way to nicely, and effectively identify how bad I think this first draft itinerary is.

OP posted last night at nearly 7 pm. I suspect she may be back this evening to tell us all to kiss off, or to ask some more details.

I will take the train from Amsterdam to Paris instead of a flight.
Also, I am backpacking!!!
I only decided to stay one day in Venice, because a friend told me a day is more than enough in Venice. I guess she didn't find much to do there.

apersuader65 I will never be rude to tell people to kiss off when I know I'm getting real advice. I've been working all day, couldn't reply earlier. But look above your comment, I just replied.

bvlenci thank you for not scaring me off! :-)

>>because a friend told me a day is more than enough in Venice. I guess she didn't find much to do there.<<

That is sad that your friend couldn't find anything to do in Venice. It isn't a place you can see in a day. Now, you <i>can</i> see the general St Mark's Square/Basilica/Doges Palace area and maybe ride a vaporetto or two but that is about it. I'd think 3 days at minimum would be needed to see just the basics.

Your friend must be bored easily . . . .

Glad you have the opportunity for this trip and that you are doing it. You will have some great memories.

There are a few people who actually do not care for Venice, but many consider it one of the most beautiful places in the world and return again and again. I have been seven times, and hope to go again some day.

Summer heat can be a problem for some, but another is going for only a day and rushing around trying to see a few highlights without experiencing the culture and seeing local life, without experiencing any of the surrounding lagoons and islands, and without getting any understanding of the importance of Venice as a center of world art and trade, and how it was built.

There are places where a quick pass gives you a sense of the place. IMHO, Venice is not one of them.

Venice is not a place to rush. It is not to see things. It is a place to sense and feel. It is a place to breath and absorb. It is romantic, mysterious, etherial, wet. It is like a mirage because once you leave, it is hard to believe it was real.

I fear your one day, especially as planned, will not give you any of that.

You could:
June 30, take very early train from Amsterdam to Paris
(takes a half day from Amsterdam and gives it to Paris)

July 3, take an early flight from Paris to Venice (Takes day from Paris (but you gained part of it back from Amsterdam), and gives extra afternoon and next day as a whole day in Venice.

OTOH, if it does not sound at all appealing to you, and you think that you and your friend think alike, consider skipping Venice altogether.

I'm confused - wouldn;t a "cultural" experience include a lot of time in museums and looking at local art and architecture history?

We had another poster not too long ago who who defined "culture" as beer.

So I guess it depends on what you mean by "culture". To me a lot of it is at least a small understanding of how the locals live their lives and differences in habit - eating times, sitting in a cafe watching the world go by for an hour or so, less work and more relaxed than a lot of places in the US.

As for seeing Venice in a day - of course you can see a couple of things. But not have any real knowledge of Venice.

Like people who come to NYC, stay in Times Square - and think they know about NY.

Hi Lina,

Good to see that you are reading the advice here and taking it in stride. I'm glad you will be taking the train to Paris... much cheaper and easier. Which is a helpful reminder for the rest of your trip. (1)The more you move, the more money you will spend. So if budget is at all a consideration, limiting the number of stops will help stretch that budget. And (2) keep in mind that airports are typically located about an hour or so outside the city center in most larger cities. Plus you need to arrive 1-2 hours before departure. So you always need to add 3-4 hours of "travel" time onto the flight time.

I think an easy way to modify your trip would be to drop Barcelona. You could then allocate those days to Paris, Venice, and/or Madrid, flying directly to Madrid from Rome. But that's just what I would do. Perhaps Barcelona is particularly important to you for some reason?

You might also find it helpful to get a guidebook to determine the sights and activities that you'd find enjoyable in each city. You might find, for example, there are five days worth of stuff you'd like to do in Amsterdam, or only in two in Rome, or whatever. It's important that you plan what will be personally most enjoyable to YOU, not what the rest of us might think. And you also might find the Lonely Planet Thorntree forum helpful to you, since that tends to draw more of the backpacker crowd.

The planning is half the fun of a trip like this. Enjoy!

I think you are smart to take the train from Amsterdam to Paris. It really takes a minimum of 4-5 hours for even the shortest flight (including getting to/from the airport, security and flight itself). So if the train ride between two places is 4 hours or less I always take the train. That is the case with Amsterdam and Paris. It is not the case with Paris and Venice.

I think the idea of taking a half day from Amsterdam and going to Paris earlier, but then flying early in the day that you go to Venice makes sense. Venice is best early and late in the day when the day trippers are gone. If your friend was there for one day, mid day, and just went along the main tourist route (train station to Rialto to San Marco) then I understand why she didn't like it. You need to walk around in the early morning hours, in the evening when the day trippers (especially including the cruise shippers) are not there, and also to get off the main route and just let yourself get lost for a few hours. I would also switch your train to Rome for slightly later in the day. That way you can enjoy another morning in Venice - plus you can't check into a Rome hotel that early anyway. And you still have over three days in Rome.

And even though if I had to choose Madrid or Barcelona I'd pick Barcelona - in your case you have to go to Madrid for the flight so I'd skip Barcelona in this case, add the days to Madrid and use them to do day trips to Toledo and Segovia. Both are easy day trips from one base in Madrid and both are so worth while. Plus you don't have many smaller towns in your itinerary so this would give you that (they aren't small villages, but compared to the larger cities they are quite small). You could even do another day trip to Cordoba. You'd see three great places in Spain and still have time to see a little of Madrid which is enough if you aren't going to the museums.

Another suggestion is to have your hotel or hostel's reserved ahead of time. You won't have much time to wander around looking for where you want to stay. I do think you need to pick up a good guide book or two and start learning a bit more about your destinations. You may find one or two have more for you (and may want to stay longer). Better to find that out now.

"I guess I would like to see as many places as I can, because I am not sure when I'll be able to take a trip like this in my entire life."

The common phrase used lina is 'to see as much as possible'. You have actually used the word 'many'. Obviously, they are not synonymous.

If you want to see many then a 'list ticking' itinerary will indeed achieve that. The only question is how much will you see? You could visit a different city every day but obviously you wouldn't see anywhere in any depth at all. You certainly would not have enough time to 'experience local culture'.

If you want to see as 'much' as possible, then you need to think about what much means. It does not mean 'many'. The way to see as much as possible is to spend your time IN places, not in BETWEEN places. People comment on travel time because the reality is that every time you move you more or less lose most of a day. That time is better spent IN a place. In travel as in many things, less is more. The less you move the more you see and do.

So the idea is to try and achieve some kind of balance between a desire to see 86 places of interest to you and the limited amount of time you have. Most people start out by coming up with a list of places. Then they try to fit that list into the time available. That invariably results in trying to cover too much in too little time.

You would do better to start the opposite way. Decide first how many places your time will allow you to visit and then come up with a list of places limited to that number.

To do that you can use the Rule of 3s which in terms of travel says, 'never spend less than 3 full days/4 nights in a place unless it is just an overnight stop between A and B.'

Note the 'less than', it is a minimum. Most people would say that places like Paris, London, Rome,etc. need more than 3 full days. Also note the '4 nights' this allows for a travel day between places.

There are places where anyone might find they are ready to leave after a day. That's fine, if you're ready, leave and add the days on elsewhere. But don't plan 1 day stops. If you want to add a day trip to somewhere then you can but add another day and night in the base location, do not take the day trip out of the 3 days in X.

Arrival and departure days are always a write off. You have to count them but they're lost time. So for an average 2 week trip for example you end up with only 12 days/nights available to actually spend IN places. That means you should not be planning on visiting more than 3 places.

So using that rule of thumb, it's clear that your 16 available days is enough for 4 places. You won't get any real depth in any of them but you will get a reasonble amount of a taste. One lick of an ice cream cone doesn't really tell you anything. If you can't eat the whole thing, you need at least a few licks to tell if you like it. That's what 3 full days gets you.

Regarding, when you will have another chance to come back, that is yet another common thought. It is however entirely illogical. You are as likely to visit many times in your life as you are to never visit again. You have no way of knowing one way or the other so why would you ASSUME the negative rather than the positive? It is as easy to think, 'I'll get another chance to see more' as it is to think, 'I'll never get another chance.'

I can justify the day in Venice because that's one of the two Italian cities to which you can get a direct overnight train from Paris. (The other is Milan.) And as long as one is in Venice, it would be a shame not to spend at least a few hours there. I really don't agree that you can't enjoy Venice in a short time. Just the first sight of the Grand Canal would justify a long detour.

The advice to skip Barcelona and stay in Madrid to make day trips to Segovia and Toledo doesn't make any sense. If trying to see too many places in too little time is the problem with this trip, why would you suggest dropping a place where she wants to spend three days, to replace it with two more cities? If there's no point in spending one day in Venice, what's the point of a day trip to Segovia or Toledo?

Sojourner, Lina <b>is</b> planning to visit just four places: Amsterdam, Paris, Rome, and Barcelona. To that she's added Madrid, where she's spending her final night to catch a flight home, and Venice, where she's not even spending a night, just passing through, but wants to spend a day there since she'll be there anyway on her trip from Paris.

By the way, the left-luggage facility at Santa Lucia station in Venice opens at 6 AM.

About ten years ago one of my sisters came to visit me with her husband and a son. We spent several days in Rome, and then the rest of their short vacation at our home in Le Marche. She had always wanted to see Venice, but they really couldn't spend more than ten days in Italy. She asked if it would be possible to go there for the day. Literally, it's possible, but it's a long trip by train. However, I told her I'd go with them for the day, if they didn't mind leaving early, returning late, and eating on the train.

I packed us some lunches to eat an early lunch on the train and we left not much later than the crack of dawn. When we got to Venice, we took a vaporetto to San Marco, but we didn't go into the Basilica. We also didn't go to the Rialto Bridge, or take a gondola ride. The only place we actually visited was the Ca' Rezzonico (which I highly recommend). We crossed the Canale Grande on a traghetto. We wandered around the little calli off the tourist track. For about half an hour we watched a family moving house, loading their furniture onto a goods gondola. We sat in a small square eating gelato and watching a festa di laurea (graduation party).

We didn't eat any meals in a restaurant in Venice, other than the gelato. Before catching the train home, we bought some panini near the station and ate them on the way home.

This was my sister's first trip to Europe, and she and her family really loved Venice. Even though it was a very brief visit, I think they did appreciate the atmosphere of the place, partly because we avoided as much as possible the tourist hordes.

A few years later, my sister became disabled and will probably not be coming to Europe again. Do you think she regrets her seven hours in Venice? Those of us who travel frequently have to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who literally doesn't know if this will be the only trip to Europe in a lifetime. Let's hope it's not Lina's only trip to Europe, but I would not discourage her from seeing all the things she's been dying to see.

I'm with bvlenci. This is fast-paced but not impossible.

Lina, you could of course drop Italy altogether and spend more time in France and Spain but on a first trip, you don't know what you are going to like, so why not see a little bit of each of these beautiful places?

Have a great trip!

Part of the problem of moving frequently is the time spent checking in and out of hotels. She is going to be spending one night in Madrid anyway, so eliminating Barcelona and extending Madrid eliminates one hotel. It also eliminates the train ride from Barcelona to Madrid since she could fly there from Rome as easily as flying to Barcelona from Rome. So that was the main reasoning behind the suggestion. I don't find day trips as tiring as moving locations altogether. Plus Segovia and Toledo are smaller than the other cities she will be visiting so I though it might be nice for her to experience that slice of Europe.