My husband and I are planning our first trip to Europe in October. We'll fly into Amsterdam and out of Paris and would like to use a combo of train and car rental for our 3 week trip. We are still in the process of planning but so far the plan is to train from Amsterdam to Germany and then to Austria and into Italy (Venice). From Venice maybe train to Rome and then rent the car upon leaving Rome. Drive to Florence and have the freedom to explore Tuscany by car. From Florence we would like to go to Cinque Terre. Train or drive? After leaving Cinque Terre we would be going to Nice where I'm guessing we would once again be better off with a car to explore the French countryside on the final leg to Paris. Does this itinerary sound doable? Is driving in Europe really stressful? Any/all advice is appreciated. <BR>Also we plan to travel light - one cary-on bag each. What kind of clothes and shoes are appropriate? Are tennis shoes OK or too "American touristy".

Wow, that's an exciting and potentially exhausting trip. Lot of ground to cover, even if you have three weeks. <BR> <BR>Let me give you a different approach. For example, last year my wife and I spent 7 days in Paris on one trip and on a separate trip 4 days in Florence and 6 days in Rome. <BR> <BR>I recognize that on your first trip you want to see, taste and smell it all, but you may be overdoing it a bit. <BR> <BR>I would suggest that in October the weather is still nice in Northern and Central Europe and you might want to consider the following: <BR> <BR>1. Arrive Amsterdam and spend three days there. It's not one of my favorites but it does have the Rijksmuseum, the Van Gogh museum and nearby Haarlem. <BR> <BR>2. Then take the train to Vienna, Austria for five days. Vienna is awesome, beuatiful like a large city park. <BR> <BR>3. Then train to Salzburg for a couple of days. This place is a must see. <BR>Then train to Florence for four days. Plenty of time to see Florence, the Uffizi, etc. Also gives you a day to go to San Gimiagnano or Sienna. <BR> <BR>5. Then train to Paris for the final week. Believe me you will love Paris and you can stay a month if you need to. <BR> <BR>I'm certainly not an expert, but I think if you do something like this trip, you won't be as tired, you will get to see Austria, Paris, Amsterdam and Florence. Save Rome or Vencie for another reason to come back. <BR> <BR>Hope this helps, <BR> <BR>Tom

I agree with Tom, but realize that not everyone likes to linger as much as I do. <BR> <BR>Two years ago we were in Florence for 4 days and spent one of them on a day trip to Sienna. On the same trip, we were in Venice for 4 days as well, and definitely were not bored! If you want to feel unrushed, and unexhausted, I'd pare down the itinerary. <BR> <BR>As far as dress, face it, we ARE tourists! I wear really good tennis shoes and alternated with leather walking shoes, and could not do the hours and miles of walking I want to without them. Bring one pair of basic, but still "walkable" low heels for nice dinners when you want to dress up a little. <BR> <BR>Have a wonderful time! I am very jealous of anyone who can get away for three weeks at a time.

There are two schools of thought for a European adventure: 1) see as much as possible, if only cursorily or 2) visit in depth, to get a real look and feel for the region(s). <BR>Pros of #1): you see a lot, which gives you info for what to see on a return visit (chant to yourself: I will come back; I will come back); you get to see just the highpoints, so no wasted time at the Vegetable Peeler Museum; it IS exciting and exhilarating to be bombarded with constant new sights, food, sounds, etc.; very cool photo album to show off at home. Cons: no chance to explore; never feel as if you've gotten a handle on anything; uprooting every night or so is stressful (and can strain a relationship); lot of money spent on transportation; if the museum is closed due to a burst pipe, you won't be able to see it tomorrow because that's when you're leaving; you are dependent upon public transportation to keep your schedule (if there's a one-day train strike, you are screwed). <BR>Pros to #2: a chance to explore and visit 'hidden treasures'; relaxing and less stressful to stay in one place for several days and do day trips from there; save money on transportation costs. Cons: you may get bored; you don't see a lot of the stuff that made you want to go to Europe in the first place; your photo album is not as exciting to your friends ("oh wow you didn't get to the Coliseum? Bummer....")

Hello Newbie, Why Amsterdam, why not <BR>Munich for this itinerary--it makes more <BR>sense. If you drop the extreme north and <BR>south ends of this trip you can do it <BR>well. Given 20 days to tour, I would <BR>pick no more than 8 destinations to <BR>actually stay---that will not be hard. <BR>Paris, Venice, and Florence all need <BR>3 days each to do any justice---that leaves about 11 days for 5 more. You get the idea?? I would drop Rome and <BR>Amsterdam and then it may be feasible. <BR>Holler if you need specifics.

I would definitely take the train for this itinerary. Train travel in Europe is relaxing, cost-efficient (especially if you get a railpass), and convenient. You can relax and look out the window and enjoy the scenery, eat lunch, etc. instead of looking at maps and road signs. You can also meet fellow travellers on the train instead of isolating yourselves in a vehicle. Also, you don't want to have to worry about where to park a car in any of Europe's major cities, and you're proposing hitting a lot of them. <BR> <BR>Try to spend at least three nights at each of your destinations because otherwise if you're packing up and moving on every other day you'll feel exhausted and will be spending so much time travelling from one destination to the next that you won't appreciate where you are. In three weeks I'd say you can do 6 destinations comfortably. The first place I would leave off of your itinerary is Nice. Worth a visit, but not a top priority. If you are intent on doing Germany and Austria on this trip (which I personally probably would not -- particularly Austria) then I would pick one place in each country and use it as a base for three nights. E.g. 3 nights Amsterdam (which I really enjoyed), 3 nights somewhere in Germany (maybe along the Rhine, which is so pretty, although personally for this trip I would probably leave this out and spend those extra three nights in Italy), 3 nights somewhere in Austria if you are intent on that (Vienna or Salzburg -- although realize that Austria is not politically correct at the moment but if you want to go there that's your business -- personally I would save this for another trip anyway and spend those extra 3 nights in Italy as well), 3-5 nights in each of 2 parts of Italy (I would choose 3 nights in Venice and 5 nights in Rome as the top 2 priorities -- but if you leave out Germany and Austria then you can also add 3 nights in Florence and 3 nights Cinque Terre or exploring Tuscany), and 5 nights in Paris at the end. Altogether that should add up to 21 nights. I would not recommend spending fewer than 5 days in Paris (same for Rome) -- these are major cities and have too much to see! <BR> <BR>If you type in the words "tennis shoes" and do a search you will find a bazillion old threads on that subject. I personally don't wear tennis shoes when I travel, but then again I only wear them for working out even when I'm home, so that's me. I just don't think they look nice. Invest in a good comfortable pair of black or brown walking shoes (bonus points if they're waterproof -- again, if you do a search there are lots of old threads recommending particular brands/styles) which are much more versatile than tennis shoes because you can wear them to dinner, into churches, etc. and not feel underdressed. (I personally like a black, low-heeled loafer style with crepe soles which go with everything from jeans to khakis to shorts to black slacks to black skirts; others prefer lace-ups for more support -- whatever works for you). Just make sure that your shoes are WELL broken in before you go or you'll get terrible blisters. You'll be doing a lot of walking. Wear one pair and bring one extra pair in case the others get waterlogged on a rainy day or something, or just to give your feet a break -- it also helps save the shoes in addition to your feet. And good for you for only bringing one carry-on apiece -- that's the way to go!

IF YOU GO TO ROME, do NOT drive...I repeat, DO NOT DRIVE as you will take your life in your hands...If you go to the French Riviera, work in Menton, a lovely village on the French/Itailian border, not far from Monte Carlo.

Newbie, <BR> <BR>I think the first trip to Europe should be like a Chinese meal: try a lot of different things in small amounts. Yours is an ambitious trip but, I think, very doable. I like Rick Steeve's 22-day itinerary in his 2-22 book. It's easily modified. If you agree to drop something, I think you might skip one of the Italian cities (but I have a hard time choosing one. Florence is my favorite, but Rome has some great sites and great photo ops. I think you can do Venice in a couple of days if you bite the bullet and breeze through some of the sites. The best advice I ever received is: don't go overthing you need to see EVERY museum and EVERY church and EVERY castle. Pick one or two that interest you (unless, of course, you are really an art or architectural nut.) I think Munich is worth a visit and I certainly like Rothenberg (although reviews of it are mixed on this board). Remember, too, that Rome is nuts this year because of Jubilee. I am having lots of trouble booking rooms for a late March trip there. Have fun. Don't worry about missing something. Remember, a coin in the fountain in Rome means you will return one-day: the best investment of a quarter I've ever made.

Hi! i just wanted to respond to a part of your inquiry. My wife and are travel by car only in Europe. I am aware of the pros and cons, but to us, we can reach small towns more easily if at all. Have an independance unavilable by train or but. I have to include these caveats however, If you are going to be going to a large city then if you haven't driven in heavy traffic it can be brutal. we have driven in Paris [would not recommend unless you drive in NYC], Budapest and several others. The roads are good. Get a good map and plan your route beforehand. The passenger can navigate, look for exits etc. while the other drives. Get a GOOD map. We have done it for years and enjoy driving and have had some interesting experiences especially in Eastern Europe. Remember the exit on the road map is the same as on the road so the language doesn't matter. alan

Thanks so much for all your advice, everyone. I think we will pare down the scope a bit, eliminate Rome we're thinking. We are still torn about using train exclusively or car or a combination-Eurail drive pass. Does anyone know if picking up and dropping off the car is stessful and a big time waster. We'd most likely use the car portion in one chunk-all in Italy. Venice to Florence to cinque Terre. We're currently taking Italian language classes and would like to test it out in some less metropolitan areas. As far as driving skills in the city go – we live and drive in a large midwestern city (MPLS). Traffic gets hectic but still not nearly as bad as the west coast. I've also driven in San Fransisco traffic and survived. Is traffic worse than downtown or I-680 in SF? Thanks again for all your comments. <BR>

We found the autostrada to be very managable but Italian drivers are the craziest in the world (except maybe Thailand). I'd recommend driving, though. It's a great way to see the countryside and Venice/Florence are fairly easy. Check out the great Italian truck stops on the interstate. You might think about parking on the edge of town in both cities (well, in Venice you don't have much of a choice). Bon Voyage!