Because of our experiences with American cities and our reliance on cars, it is easy to underestimate the
ease of European cities (how much you can see and do with little stress) and also underestimate how much time driving will take outside cities. IMHO, all the driving around in Provence is going to feel more hectic than your time in the cities where you will either walk or take easy public transportation. It may feel even more hectic if you change hotels every day: Packing up, driving, parking, checking into new hotel, then getting into car and driving again. For such a short time, it is likely better to stay in as few places as absolutely possible and just hop in the car and go each day. Unless you want to really race around, Arles will easily take 3/4 to one day (gives your husband some ruins plus the Roman arena, and of course, the Van Gogh stuff. Great market days if you are there then. Lots of walking); les Baux is a good 1/2 day with walking from parking area (seems like ruins); Pont du Gard and Uzes, at least 3/4 of a day, including travel to get there; Avignon, 1/2 day, depending on what you tour, etc.

IME, to give you an idea, comparing visiting Chicago with visiting Paris or London is like comparing running a race with taking a walk.
Everything you want to do is wonderful, just like all other places in Europe: Spain, Italy, The Netherlands. Don’t try to do so much that things become a blur.

Another IMHO, flying is stressful and time consuming: getting to the airport, security, waiting to board, arriving in new place and getting transportation to new town. Trains for the most part take you city center to city center. They are still travel and take time, but usually more relaxing that flights. To know what is best for you means checking flights and transportation versus trains from London to Paris or to MRX, etc.

I completely agree with Stu as to what you have time for in that area of Provence. This is the problem of adding Provence to both London and Paris. You have too many things to see and do so you either run yourselves into the ground or you have to be selective as to what you can accomplish in your time frame and be satisfied by it.
Also remember that bad weather can happen and if so likely will slow you down more in the country than the cities

From Google
"The Calanques National Parkis open from October 1st to May 31st unless it is closed exceptionally. From June 1st to September 30th, access to the massif is regulated by a Prefectoral decree due to high fire risks."

Stu Dudley

Your 4.5 days each in three sites during a 15 night vacation is not practical. I measure it as 4 days in London with at least one of those being jetlagged. Then the greater part of one day getting to Provence. 4 days in Provence, at least half of each day in a car. Then the greater part of one day getting to Paris. Etc.

You seem to be assuming that travel between sites is the time listed for the transfer. You will need to get to the travel mode, leaving extra time not to miss the train or plane. How long will it take to get up in the morning, eat, pack, check out, get to the transfer mode, get to the next hotel and check in, and eat a meal or two during that day. This is even more tedious than it sounds.

Perhaps you should pretend to be a movie director. Scene one: Wake up, get breakfast. Scene two: Pack and check out. Scene three: Get to the station or airport. Scene four: wait. Scene five etc. etc. Attach times for each scene, imagining actually doing the activity. Can you rent a car instantaneously? Can you find a hotel, check in, and eat lunch in no time flat? You will find that you may want to revise your movie.

It is frustrating to find that your idealized trip is not as feasible as you thought. You came here for advice, and that advice will always be not to try what you you have outlined. Learn from our collective experience.

But do not despair. Two out of three is not bad. Do the left out site on your next trip.

There always is a next trip.

""There always is a next trip.""

AJ
That may be true for the "couple". But not always true for the 2 late-teen daughters. The daughters might be tied up with school, marriage, children, work (no vacation for new employees), lost interest, no $$$, and many other reasons.

On our first trip, my mom & sister went along. Mom was dead 2 years later and sis was a flight attendant and really did not want to fly anywhere - except when she was working. And she had little $$$ (flying was free for her - of course).

Stu Dudley

Picky Picky, Stu. The next trip is always what Mrs. P and I discuss. It is a dream as real as the OP's original plan. But if the two teens can't go with their parents on their next trip, they can always wait 20 years and take their teenage kids to that third place they had always wanted to visit.

There always is a next trip.

Neecy, I can relate to a first-timer's desire to see numerous places. All of us can recall early trips that involved ambitious itineraries.
But maybe prioritize one all-important objective: that your family enjoys this trip no matter how pared-down your plans become.

To that end, it makes sense to minimize the chances of things going off the rails with too many individual visits across countries.
Maybe better to consider choosing a select few places in one appealing region.

Provence is perfect for that, say one or two bases with the option of nearby daytrips.
Good luck.
I am done. the end

Are you or your girls Jane Austen fans? If so, and if you decide on only London and Paris, you could do a one night trip to Bath. It is truly a fabulous, very, very small city, with fine, beautiful architecture, incredible history, the Jane Austen connection, the amazing Roman baths and a lovely river.

I didn't think Bath was very, very small. There are over 100,000 people living there.

It also has the Royal Crescent.

Stu Dudley

I think the OP is going to feel a lot of pressure to visit the 'iconic' monuments of Paris and London (according to the OP), which means lots of crowds and lines to get in places. For me, that's the worst of Europe, so at least get a break in by going to the countryside.

Agree!!

Stu Dudley

Stu, you are right about population, but I was thinking in comparison with cities like London and Paris, the center is small enough to walk everywhere easily, plus major things are super close together. The Roman Baths, just beside Bath Abbey, practically beside the Pump Room, a couple of blocks from the river, etc.

The OP can, rather than escaping the city, decide to simply be realistic about sights within each city. Everything can’t be of equal importance. There is no law that they “must” see any particular sights.

We love Bath. I have a huge poster of the Royal Crescent on my basement staircase wall. When we were in London during "Open London" several years ago, we had plans to visit Bath - again. But a trip to Paddington station, the 1 1/4 hr train ride, visit, train back to Paddington, and then to our apt in Nottington Hill - would consume most of one entire day. We were in London for 2 1/2 weeks. The OP is going to be there for 4-5 days. Perhaps not worth the wasted transit time.

Kew Gardens was worth the trip - if one likes gardens & conservatories. Our home in San Mateo, Ca has a conservatory at the back of our house, and we have several pictures of the Kew conservatory in the kitchen. Some when it was empty when my wife was in London on business, and they were doing restoration on it.
https://www.google.com/search?client...gardens+london

Stu Dudley

All very good, thoughtful advice. Yes travel always takes longer than I anticipate. And I want squeeze in as much as possible, because we can relax on a FL beach anytime, gotta see all we can, we can sleep when we're home. I think its partly my sticker shock of the trip. And fear of the unknown--what if is this our only chance, especially as a family. My baby's graduating the week before the trip.

I'm still not 100% sure, but for planning purposes, going to assume all 3 places. Have my family help me pick out our top sites, and ask you all to help me pare it down to a realistic list. Then decide from there. Because yes, in my mind, we're gonna do it ALL :)

Thanks again for all the help. I'll be back shortly for more help!!!

Just a tip: rule out things you have back home: McDonald's, shopping, beaches, mountains, etc. You're going for a once-in-a-lifetime (possibly) experience

Tomboy, actually, I do want to go to McDonalds in Paris, to just see how different it is and to order a Le Big Mac.:). But yes, Ill try to skip restaurants and retail shopping we can do here. It's funny that you mention beaches, because the first thing I want to do when we get to Marsaille is see the beach. It's bugging me not to build in time to. I've seen the Atlantic countless times, but I feel like i have to see the Med, even to just do a detour for a quick look.

Well, I can't understand ANY need for a Grand-Mac (:)), but I can understand the interest in the beach. We drove to a little town south of Arles (was it Sainte Marie de la Mer?) just to see the Mediterranean. Turned out to be sort of a nothing-burger--gravel beach. (unlike the pure sand beaches of Lake Michigan). There was a ~55ish old woman wearing the bottom of a 2-piece swim suit, who had more folds than a blanket factory. Turned out to be a waste of time. The water itself looked like Lake Michigan, or the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the caribbean, or...................

The beach at Cassis is quite nice. I've participated in this forum since 2004, and other forums before that back to about 1995. I have never encountered anyone espousing a beach in Marseille. The port - yes, but not the beach. There could be one there, but it might be disappointing. We stayed in Marseille for several days this June.

I've lived on, or within 45 mins the Pacific Coast in Calif all my life (I'm old).

Stu Dudley

Take the magnificent Route des Cretes to get to Cassis.

https://www.google.com/search?q=rout...t=gws-wiz-serp

Stu Dudley

While any place will probably be interesting to you, and the harbor is quite lovely, Marseille should probably not be high on the list and is out of your way from the airport. MRS serves Avignon, Aix and Marseille. It is NW of Marseille. While not far in miles, by car, it will take about 1/2 an hour to get from the airport to the city center. You will probably be going in the other direction, towards St Remy or Avignon. If you are going to visit anyplace out of your way, make it Aix, which is super charming. Neither are convenient for sightseeing in Provence.