Hmmmm....As I was reading this thread, I must say it reminds me a bit of the discussions about Disneyworld - ie. when is the best time to go, where will you find the least crowds, etc. There is a thriving business in guidebooks about Disneyworld that give "touring plans" so that you can see all the sights with the least amount of waiting. Also included are "crowd counters" that give a view into the best time of year to go to Disneyworld to avoid those long lines. Perhaps I should get writing on something similar for Rome/Venice/Florence! At least the research would be great!

Did I really say "sights" as it relates to Disneyworld??? I should have said "attractions" a very different creature indeed!

Duty free

I have long discussions with my parents about this issue - they seem to spend most of thier life on 3000 people capacity boats being ferried round the world - seeing what the tour companies want them to see. I personally am against this form of travel but as Dad points out at their age (66) its a great and easy way to see the world. I keep telling him that I'd rather not see his huge monster of a boat cruising round the algoon in Venice etc etc whilst I'm trying to enjoy the view!

Italy does seem to suffer from the cruise boat rush more than other countries.

Markrosy, I'm with you. "Seeing the world" from a floating city is actually less appealing to me than seeing it via a box of dvds.

Some people want to travel 3000 miles and find their local restaurant when they arrive, or stay in a hotel room that feels American, or at least be greeted in English everywhere they go. The big cruise ships manage to combine all that in one package along with casinos, buffets and booze by the barrel.

RBN-do not think this matter is being overlooked by Italian Govt. officials both at the local and national level-as recently as this past week-Venice is seriously thinking, (along with the other art cities of Italy, but Venice is esp. vulnerable to an over-influx of tourists due to its fragile lagoon eco-system) to putting in a 'NUMBER CLOSED" "numero chiuso"-when the number of visitors gets to be a certain point-NO MORE TOURISTS ALLOWED. They are discussing what the "threshold compatibility"-number of tourists and capacity of Venice to deal with them and yet still carry on their daily lives-will be, and how that can be sustained, given Venice's near total dependence for survival on mass tourism.

They have to do something-Rome had something like a 10-15 percent increase over last year? 20 MILLION visitors (a bit less for Venice, for this past year?) The country and its resources simply can't handle it-and these cities aren't getting the resources from Rome to deal with it, because there are no additional resources.

I have come up with my own unique solution: Make everyone pass a type of cultural/language exam for Italy, and for Venice, with its special problems, more proficiency will need to be demonstrated. This exam will be downloaded on-line, and then emailed back to the appropriate govt. office. It will be renewable yearly-like a license!

That should cut down considerably on the tourist influx-on the other hand, Venice would have practically no one but their citizenry around.

The whole issue is very very diffcult to control - one answer is to treble the cost of air travel through envirnomental taxes but then only the rich travel

Perhaps the Italian govt can institute an entry fee like you pay coming into England by air. And use it to help preserve the national treasures: in this case, the cities themselves.

I've paid some pretty stiff municipal taxes at airports all over the US - some Florida cities, for instance, have no qualms about adding fees for visitors. Good for them, it helps the locals who have to put up with the crowds of tourists (gratned, some of them make their livings off those toursits)

Frankly, there's too much flying going on for the good of the environment and of the environments. Ditto the cruising, which is only beginning to come to terms with polluting practices. But it doesn't look to slow down unless responsible parties take the lead = and others follow.

This is why I go to Italy during off season! If you go in December (or February or March...) the weather is still okay but crowds aren't usually much of an issue. I personally would take a little rain or cloudiness to avoid the crowds.

Tracy

Boy, this talk of surcharges is tough. I'd like to go back to Europe this next year with my husband and kids, but if a surcharge or environmental tax were applied, depending on the cost, it may rule us out. Perhaps that's the desired effect - but I can guarantee that there will always be people richer than us who will be able to afford to go to Europe or travel within Europe. The idea that it could be taxed out of reach saddens me.

Markrosy-Geez-I am 55 and my husband is 63 and cruising would be the last way I would want to see Europe or any other place. Did your parents ever travel on their own-both the planning and executing it? I think that sometimes people think that it is so much easier to do what the cruise or tour people offer rather than hassle with what they would rather do. I quess the reason why I don't do cruises is that I KNOW that I will get the one yahoo at my dining table for the whole week that would drive me to cheap liquor-they always seem to find and latch onto me when I am working...

Tomas-the entry fee has been raised, voted on, and failed miserably-Venice was actually counting on it this year, US 5.00 surcharge per night for hotels, I believe-and a surcharge for the day-trippers of course, but the powerful hotel and tourism lobby in Italy shot it down, arguing that it would cause irreparable harm.

So that's out, for the time being.

When exactly IS spring break? Is it tied to Holy Week? This year Holy week starts on March 16 so its a bit early to celebrate spring!

Europeans also go on Spring Break but I'm not sure if it is simultaneous with the US....Would anyone know where to get these schedules?

I am trying to decide if I go to Italy in March (2 1/2 weeks including Holy Week) or the last week of May and the first two weeks of June.

Thoughts?

Spring break is tradionally a time in the US when all of the college kids have a week or two off and travel. People with smaller children also have off and traditionally head to someplace warm if you are from the Midwest or Northeast.It is usually in March for most of the Midwest schools and usually early April for the Northeast depending on where Easter is in the month. However, in the past years people have been going to Europe more than the usual trips to Florida or Mexico because costs were cheaper at that time of year to go to Europe and crowds used to be less.....However, not anymore!Now spring break is almost as bad as summer months with everyone and his brother heading overseas. I,personally would either go in May or try and even schedule your trip in February before the higher rates kick in.

juju, Girlspy's reference to a $5 surcharge is in the line of what I'm talking about. With Rome alone having 2 million visitors a year, an entry tax of only a couple of bucks would keep no one out, but could fund needed conservation of art, architecture and landscape.

I noticed years ago when visiting Ft Myers FL there was a fee of about $14 on my rental car bill for "airport access" of the car agency's shuttle bus! $14 per car rental! To be picked up at the airport and driven 10 minutes away.

As a traveler I don't wish to be stuck with all kinds of irrational fees (in NYC hotel bills have extra tax, as they do many places) but I'm willing to be part of the solution.

In that vein, 'damage assessment' should be done to really know which tourism issues are truly to blame.

At any rate, here as elsewhere, power and politics can really make a mess of things if the people don't get the facts and demand results.

Speaking for Venice only, the cruise ships seem to be the biggest problem. Unloading tens of thousands of passengers a day in season, who spend little money in the city itself, eat and drink on the ship, sleep on the ship, etc. Not to mention the damage those boats are doing to the lagoon. Those are the tourists who should be targeted with some kind of an entry fee, tax, whatever you want to call it. It wouldn't be fair, it would be wrong, and it sure wouldn't solve any problem, if they hit up the people who actually stay there, eat there and spend money there.

What does Venice get out of allowing the cruise ships to dock, and is it worth the trade off? At the least, there could be a per passenger, or by weight/size of ship, fee/tax to address some of the problems created by the mass influx.

Venice hotels are already expensive and that hasn't seemed to dent the crowds; would a euro per person per day tax on top really stop anyone?

But my understanding based on reading on this topic is that cruise ship visitors impact the city heavily but do not particularly buy much from the local businesses.

I just returned from Italy yesterday and I find this discussion interesting. Could it be that some of us are unintentional snobs. Consider this:

Some of you are attacking cruise ship customers as if they are automatically less sophisticated tourists. I did a Greek island cruise once and the cruise ship didn't make me dumber. Frankly, the cruise ship got me closer to the sites I wanted to see in more comfort than the DC10 (or whatever jet I flew) got me to the airport.

I'll grant that cruise ships dump larger concentrations of travelers at ports like Venice all at once. But 1 cruise ship equals 10 A330s or 100 buses and I'll bet that at least 100 buses deliver their passengers to Venice by mid morning each and every summer day.

Speaking of buses. . . The trip I just finished was a student trip that took us around Europe on a bus. I learned that Florence charges a tour bus somewhere around $700 US dollars per day for the right to enter the city. A fee is also charged by Venice and Rome - I didn't ask how much. I also know that there are airport fees for planes and port fees for boats. So I think the tax idea isn't working to keep tourists out.

And, if you make the tax higher, only the very rich could travel. I and my students are not in that category.

Having said all of this, I think that Venice is a sort of Disneyland these days. And I hate the crowds. I don't like the crowds at St. Peter's, the Colosseum, the Pantheon, or anywhere else, for that matter. But as a teacher who leads high school students whose lives are changed by their opportunity to travel, I don't know how to avoid it without making it impossible for certain classes to travel.

I don't have a solution but don't blame the cruisers. How about blaming the US, Japan and other countries for having a standard of living that allows for travel? How about blaming jet travel for making travel so convenient? Or how about blaming curiosity?

As for when spring break occurs, we were in Paris and Rome this year from March 15-24, and in both cities the spring break crowds were unbelievable! We stood in line for 1 1/2 hours, beginning at 9:30 PM, to see the Eiffel Tower. And our Seine cruise? It was horrible. We got there early and ended up not being able to see a thing due to the huge crowds of drunken youngsters standing everywhere on the boat. Even drunken adults got into the act, and the poor narrator for the cruise couldn't be heard. Attendants kept trying to quiet the crowds, but to no avail. Our teenage grandsons were pretty shocked, and we were embarrassed. And we drink! But this was ridiculous. We couldn't wait for the boys to see the gorgeous bridges, and they never saw a one. Just HORDES of spring break crowds everywhere. I admit I never even thought of this when planning our trip.

Now for the other side of the coin....ahem.

We've been to Paris 4 times and Italy 3 times, and we've booked a 12 night Med cruise next year for our 45th anniversary! I know, shame on us. But we look at each type of travel in a different way. Our land travels are "adventures", full of challenges, months of planning, great highs but sometimes exhausting lows. Cruising to us is "vacation", less stress, more relaxation, less cultural immersion but still some lovely, carefree days.

We enjoy both. I'm probably partial to the "land" trips, where we spend more time in one place and I get to plan more extensively, but I must admit that I also love the atmosphere of a cruise. We've never done a Med cruise, though, so I may change my mind.
Another reason for our cruise is, I want my brother to be able to see these places with us, but he's such a finicky eater (really a handicap to him, and something he's been unable to overcome) that a cruise where he can eat plain meat and potatoes every day is the only way for him. So we compromise.
I agree that I was appalled last week to see pictures of cruise ships sailing past St. Mark's in Venice, I thought the ships would be way out somewhere. That's just not right. And we'll be doing just that! So I agree with the posters that something needs to be done. I wouldn't mind having to trek further in Venice, and avoid "making waves" in the Grand Canal. Can we start a movement?

Yes, there are expensive port fees for cruise ships in Venice, just as there are rather expensive airport taxes at FCO and VCE (Rome-Venice) (if I'm not mistaken, FCO is a bit less than CDG (Paris). and the fees have gone up, but so have vaporetto fares and hotel room rates in all the major art cities in Italy.

But the issue really isn't snobbery-it's as I said, just this week in the Venice newspaper-what IS the "threshold of sustainability" in a fragile ecosystem like Venice, mobbed with ever more tourists every year?-Every week, I'm reading that the vaporettos are bursting at the seams, looking like refugee boats, residents can't enjoy their city, and if there are no residents, there is nothing but a Venice that is a living museum.

I never understand though people's reference to Venice as "Disneyland"- I couldn't find that less to be the case-you're in a limited amount of space that is crisscrossed by canals and bridges and too many crowds-that situation is unique, but not Disneyesque-you just notice it more because of its compact location- with the narrow calles, and obviously, one can't jump in a car and repair to the countryside as easily as all that.

But it does indeed look like there will be a "numero chiuso" in the future-Italy can't help it that everyone wants to come there first, and that China, with its vast numbers of people who now have the earning capacity to go on tours, are inundating Italy with their tour groups. It is the way of the world to want to travel,-but there is only so much that the ancient monuments and surrounding areas, not to mention the livability issues for the residents in the historical centers can take before it starts breaking down.

I didn't mean to sound argumentative and I do agree with you Girlspytravel. I wonder about sustainability and about our impact on these great gems - look at the way we are wearing out the steps and floor tiles in some of the buildings.

As for Disneyland reference, here's what I mean. Many arrive at these places as if they are on a sort of a track.

Venice: get off the boat, stand by the pillars near the Doge's palace, go through St. Mark's, see the Rialto, come back to St. Mark's and feed the pigeons, shop, go home.

Rome: Line up at the Vatican Museum before the lines are too long, walk through the long halls with the beautiful ceilings, maps and tapestries; see the Sistine Chapel, etc., etc.

There is a wonderful video on Italy done by by the Discovery Channel called "Italy Revealed." (Find it at the iTunes store). Towards the end of the show, the Italian narrator says that Italy must "look to the future." Italian cities should be "living places" rather than museum pieces. And I think Venice in particular is more and more a museum piece. It's less and less a "real" city. That's what I meant by "Disneyland."

As for the crowds? Maybe Venice will end up being like the bar/restaurant Yogi Berra described. He is supposed to have said about it: "Nobody goes there anymore - its too crowded."