Heading to Italy in late Sept/Oct with my wife for 10-11 days. Our preliminary planned itinerary is fly to Milan, spend 2 days, drive to Venice, spend 2 days, drive to Florence, spend 2 days, drive to Rome, get rid of the rental car and spend 4 days then fly out.

Car: I've driven all through France (not Paris!) and Ireland (opposite side!) successfully. Thoughts on driving in Italy? I figure it is more flexible for the first part of our trip

Time: Thhoughts on itinerary? not enough or too much time in 1 place (I realize you could probably spend a month per city!)

Suggestions: Given flying into Milan and out of Rome, thoguhts on what we might add or not miss along the way?

Thanks!

A car is not only useless in major cities in Italy (especially Venice, where it's a joke), it's a big liability: terrible traffic, restricted traffic zones where you will get HUGE fines if you venture there, parking next to impossible.

Since you are just hitting the major cities, why a car? The train system is easy, cheap, and reliable.

And yes, too little time in too many places.

Thanks, StCirq! Was thinking the drives between cities might be nice, but the more I read, along with your thoughts are convincing me otherwise.

Train schedules here:

http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en?

Personally I'd skip Milan in favor of the other cities.

ditto to St Cirq's expertise on how much cars are becoming a liability in Italian cities - and you may pay a fortune to park them in some remote lot, like in Florence as they are just not useful in cities.

Now driving thru Tuscany and its hill towns has appeal and if you are doing that for a few days then driving between say Florence and Rome via a few days meandering thru Tuscany could be great but rent a car in that case for only a few days.

Great sites for Italian trains - www.trenitalia.com - if you know exactly when you will take train then you can nab some online discounts by booking online but way in advance as those cheaper tickets are limited in numbers and can sell out way before the train - but even just buying tickets as you go along will not break the bank and be cheaper by far than car once you factor in petrol costs, autostrada predatory tolls and exorbitant parking fees - and you will always IME of training in Italy for decades be able to get on trains without problem - do not worry about that - zillions of trains going everywhere.

Other sites with lots of great info on Italian trains IMO - www.seat61.com; www.ricksteves.com and www.budgeteuropetravel.com. And you are not traveling enough to think about any railpass.

Everyone will tell you that you are trying to make too many stops in only 10-11 days, BUT I will tell you that driving in Italy is a breeze. It's like driving around France (minus Paris).

Your car will sit unused while you are in Venice. For us, that wasn't a problem as we were in the midst of a 21 day driving trip. But I'm wondering if it might work out better for you if you spent one night in Milan, pretty much recovering from jet-lag and getting a quick look-see, then take the train to Venice for 2 nights. Pick up your car and drive to somewhere in Tuscany for 3 nights from which you can day-trip by bus into Florence for one day to see the must-sees, and enjoy the rest of your time in Tuscany. Drive to Orvieto to return your car (and maybe spend the night?) and then train into Rome for your last 3 nights. I expect the train fares point-to-point will cost less for 2 people than the per diem for the car. You'll have to play with the options to see which work best.

We were in Italy last fall from Sept 8 - Oct 6 and the weather was fabulous (although we started in Rome and it was VERY hot). I think you will enjoy your trip a great deal.

I would probably stay in Milan just long enought to see "The Last Supper" (PS- This requires getting tickets in advance) and then leave more time for the other cities...or spend a night in a small, romantic tuscan town like Sienna

We did a driving tour of Umbria a while back and can tell you that Orvietto is the most charming town in the region.

PFG

Everyone who has been to Italy will suggest that you go where they went; it's just a given. Try to go where you want to go.

If at all possible, I would cut to one day in Milan, and add it to Venice or Florence.

Driving in Italy may be considered a breeze, but parking is quite often not a breeze, and trains are. Unless you are specifically seeking countryside, I see no reason for a car.

Those above who suggested you not have a car are among the most experienced travelers on this board. They know what they're talking about.

So I like the plan of flying to Milan, spending the night, on to Venice for 2/3 nights, on to Florence by train for 2/3 nights (you can always take the very easy bus from Florence to Siena, another important Tuscan city, for a day trip if you would like to see it; try to avoid visiting in the middle of the day when shops and some sights are closed) and then train on to Rome.

The savings in gas and car rental will allow you to up your hotel/food/wine budget as you see fit. Your trip will be hassle free, avoiding Italian car rental offices and Italian petrol stations (and prices).

The trains take you from city center to city center, maximizing your time in each place.

If you decide to stick with your original plan, the only change I would suggest is no car.

Finally, Orvieto is nice, but after many trips to Italy, and many visits to Umbria, I just don't get the huge amount of love shown by Fodorites for Orvieto. Maybe it's because it's convenient.

You wouldn't really have two days in each city because it will be a half day travel from Milan to Venice and a half day from Venice to Florence and about 1/3 day Florence to Rome (what with checking in and out of hotels, etc.

So, unless you are going to see the Last Supper, skip Milan, go straight to Venice, and add a day each to Venice and to Florence. If you haven't already purchased tickets or need to use FF, it would be even better to fly into Venice.

Take train to Venice from Milan. It is much easier and the train station in Venice is right on the Grand Canal. Train Venice to Florence - you are also going city center to city center, so no time wasted, no parking, no traffic.

Then if you want to drive in the Tuscany countryside, rent a car. If you want only a day trip to some smaller Tuscan towns (Siena, Lucca, etc.), train or bus is also fine. You could also hire a driver for a one day tour in Tuscany to visit a winery, etc.

I would certainly recommend a stop in Orvieto if it happens to fit in your plans, but I also don't get all the hoopla over it, except for maybe the cathedral. It's a very nice town - there are lots of very nice towns.

I do think fondly of it from time to time, though, as I practically got mowed down by Andrea Bocelli on the main street there once

i know that I am banging a drum that some others disagree with, but with only 10-11 days [which is 9-10 nights] [do those 10-11 days include travelling to and from Italy, BTW?] you are trying to fit in too much.

for starters why Milan? yes the last supper is a major work, but italy is jam packed full of major works, and to go there just to see one of them makes no sense in a 10 day itinerary. so if that's why you are going there, I wouldn't.

so I would fly into Venice, spend 3 nights there, then EITHER pick up a car and tour Tuscany OR get the train to Florence [3-4 nights] followed by 3 nights in Rome.

remember, every time you move from one place to another, you will lose at least 1/2 a day. and if you are staying in just cities, you will not need a car. in fact, you definitely don't want one.

I agree with annhig: if you can fly into Venice, do.

I agree, annhig, and said so in my first post. I'd fly directly to Venice, too, and just skip Milan.

And I personally would opt for 3-4 days in the Tuscan countryside with maybe a daytrip into Florence, but I got the sense the OP was intent on planning a city-to-city trip.

sorry I missed your first post, St. cirq.

i like to mix things up a bit, hence the idea to do a bit of touring in between Venice and Rome, rather than stay in florence. IME, unless you are a real art buff, it quickly becomes difficult to remember what building/paiting/sculpture you saw where, and shortly after that, you cease to care anyway.

much better to vary the things you do on holiday, and give your brain a chance to recover.

that explains a lot - I have dwelt far too long in Florence, a city I find fascinating even though I rarely go into any museum or church there.

that explains a lot >>

about you or me, Pal?

i like florence, but not THAT much.

me ann - not you! Sorry for implication otherwise!

Sorry for implication otherwise!>>

lol pal, just teasing.

Agree with starting in Venice. I did not really care much for Milan, but Venice is exquisite!