ratman228

My wife and I will be making our first trip to Europe. We are planning on going for roughly 14-17 days. We have a friend in London so plan on beginning our trip there and spending 3 days, probably 2 nights. From there the plan was to travel via rail to Paris, spend 2 days, and then head to Milan. From Milan we thought we would visit the Lakes region and Bellagio for 2 days, head to Venice for 2 days, head to Florence for 2 days, and finish the trip in Rome.

Is this plan crazy or is it feasable? Are we trying to do way too much? We are thinking this may be the only time we have have the $$ to visit Europe and want to see as much as possible.

We would be taking trains and cabs did not plan on pre-booking any hotels either? We figured we would find a spot to rest our heads each night when we arrive in a new city? Is that a crazy idea as well?

How hard would be it be to rent a car while in Florence, explore the southern Tuscany region and then drive to Rome?

We plan on heading to Europe the last two weeks in June, into maybe the first week of July.

Thanks for the advice...it is much appreciated.

PalenQ

Well the consensus no doubt will be that you have about one day too less in London, Paris, Venice, Florence and Rome - factoring in travel time it takes a half day away from each - Bellagio is a total tourist trap in season - elbow to elbow during the day - anyway for lots of great train info check out these fantastic IMO sites - www.seat61.com; www.budgeteuropetravel.com and www.ricksteves.com. And the only railpass you would investigate IMO would the France-Italy railpass covering all trains in France and Italy you would be taking. For a first trip to Europe I would strongly consider paying extra for first class travel on trains - seats lots bigger, more empty seats to spread out in and easier IME to stow luggage - a much more relaxed trip - and if doing the railpass the first class price ain't that much more than the 2nd class fare for the pass.

BigRuss

Um, most of these questions answer themselves.

Presuming that this isn't just trolling . . .

<i>Is this plan crazy or is it feasable [sic]?</i>

It is crazy, it is possible, it is not feasible.

<i>Are we trying to do way too much?</i>

Of course you are and you know it.

<i>We would be taking trains and cabs did not plan on pre-booking any hotels either? [sic] We figured we would find a spot to rest our heads each night when we arrive in a new city? [sic] Is that a crazy idea as well?</i>

Well, not getting accommodations set in advance is just daft for your arrival city after a transatlantic (I'm guessing here) flight. It's also pretty dim for the other cities because you would be spending some of your very limited touring time on finding sleeping arrangements. And why in the h would you take cabs with any regularity if you're on a tight budget?

Given the way you're arranging this trip, if you're sub 40 years old, why not look for a Contiki tour (yeah, yeah, they say 18-35 only but they'll take your money if you don't look like a gramps or granny) that fits the bill?

azzure

You're kidding, right? This itinerary is WAY too busy. With 17 days, I'd do something like London, Paris, Venice, Florence and Rome, and spend a minimum of three days in each place. And I LIKE covering a lot of ground.

Also, you definitely will need to make hotel reservations in late June/early July. You don't want to waste half of your travel days trying to find accommodations.

bilboburgler

drop Bellagio unless it is critical and spread time amongst others. Late June and early July without rooms. Well I wouldn't, if I was going to towns in that time then ok but cities? No. Make a booking and get a good price.

ratman228

Thanks for the replies. I am not trolling. We took a 3 week road trip last summer, started in San Diego and headed to Seattle. Had no plans, just figured it out as we went and found hotels where we could find them. We enjoyed the adventure.

So I am seeing that this is not feasible in Europe. It seems one must book hotels in adance. Good to know.

We had not thought about a planned tour as we are visiting a friend in London, our first city, and will be staying in his flat. From there we would be on our own. In addition, I did not think a tour would be able to accomodate the many cities we planned on visiting.

Hmm...I guess I assumed since we hit so many cities on our West Coast (of the US) road trip, we could do the same in Europe.

ratman228

The insight on Bellagio is very valuable...thanks. Our reasoning for wanting to visit that area is that my wife's maiden name is Como and her great grandparents were from that region. I believe based on the feedback from others I may have to coax her into dropping this idea.

PalenQ

So I am seeing that this is not feasible in Europe. It seems one must book hotels in advance - no this is not true IME and I have done zillions of train trips without doing to so remain flexible - most train stations in cities like you mention have hotel booking windows that can easily secure a hotel upon arrival.

bardo1

<i>We are thinking this may be the only time we have have the $$ to visit Europe and want to see as much as possible. </i>

Then cut (way) back on the number of places.

The more time you spend checking in and out of hotels and traveling from city to to city, the LESS you are going to see.

To answer your specific questions:

Yes, that plan is crazy.

Yes, you're trying to do way too much.

Renting a car to explore Tuscany and then driving to Rome is reasonable - lot's of people do it. You could make it even easier by just do the driving part around Tuscany and taking a train to Rome.

I would start with a week in each of: London, Paris, and Rome You can do a day trip or trips from each. For other destinations, anything less than 3 nights you get diminishing returns for time and costs spent transferring from one hotel/city to another.

Obviously you'll need to pick carefully what you want to see most.

You simply don't have time for everything you first listed with only 14-17 days (meaning 15-18 nights total including your overnight flight to Europe, I assume).

tenthumbs

My mom, sister, daughter, niece and I spent 3 weeks in Europe with the same philosophy of wanting to see as much as possible. We saw a LOT.....and were exhausted. With your current itinerary, you are going to be spending a great deal of time getting from one place to another. My advice would be to prioritize which cities you want to see the most, and go from there.

annhig

Hi ratman,

well, i have done trips in france and Italy with my DH without booking, even in July, [even with our kids a few times off season] but that was by car and we have always booked our hotel for our first destination, and if we were going somewhere very popular like Rome or Paris.

but on your first trip, you do not want to waste time faffing around looking for accommodation, especially in July when you could get very hot and bothered!

if you are willing to forgo a few places and to stretch your time to 17 days, you have the makings of a great first trip. can I suggest the following:

day 1 - Fly into london. stay 4 nights - only gives you 3 days and you might lose at least one to jetlag.

Day 5 - eurostar to Paris - stay 4 nights.

Day 9 - fly to Venice [or if you are feeling very adventurous, get the train - there is an early morning through train which takes 9 hours and would get you to the centre of venice in time for supper!] stay 4 nights

Day 13 - train to Rome - stay 4 nights.

this gives you 4 great cities, all very different, and a decent amount of time in each so that you won't feel too rushed, and you might, just, remember what you've seen in each place.

trust me, do what you were considering first of all, and you won't remember a thing except a load of trains and airports.

bardo1

annhig, Well said - and a great compromise plan!

tenthumbs

annhig's itinerary is very reasonable. You'll be able to see some of the highlights of each city, plus have time to just sit in one of the cafes and drink it in. The few times we were able to do that on our whirlwind trip were the most memorable~and the most enjoyable.

nytraveler

IMHO you have way to many places to really see much f anyting. Remember you will have jet lag and some degree of culture shick. finding your way around will take a little time as wil locating your hotels. If you are going off season (jan'feb) you may go without reservations. Any other time I think that is a really bad idea unless 1)you don;t care where yuo stay and are willing to share baths in very simple hotels with no AC and stairs vs elevators outdie the city centers or 2) have unlimited budget - as in $600 to $800 per night. If you want moderate places at a decent price you definitely need to reserve in advance.

As for how many places to go - this is one of those situations in which less is more. IMHO a first-time visit to London, Paris or Rome should be at least 5 nights (4 days) - and that will take your whole trip. You can physically get to all of the places you want - but will have a day or less in many - and time to see perhaps one sight, eat dinner, sleep and then move on. Not my idea of a vacation.

AlessandraZoe

You are getting good advice.

I totally understand that you were basing your itinerary to your wonderful three-week road trip from San Diego to Seattle.

The problem is that you don't have a full three weeks this time, and you're already burning three of them in London--a place from which you can't drive to the rest of your planned stops. So not only do you have transport time to London and onwards eating up your time, you also have the itsey stuff--the hour you didn't count on picking up or returning your rental car, etc. Not having reservations is the least of your worries.

I do think Annhig's suggestion or either of Bardo's suggestions (split time evenly in London, Paris, Rome OR hop to Tuscany from London and drive down to Rome) are doable and very deserving of further exploration on your part.

And as we always say here--if you find $$ to go the first time, we guarantee you will find it for the next time. My living room couch was supposed to be recovered/replaced in 1998, the year I first visited Paris. Somehow, the holes in it in 2011 just don't bother me that much!!!!! Airfare!!

jent103

As everyone else has said, yes, WAY too much. I also agree with dropping Milan and Como/Bellagio first. I was in both those places in May and, while I definitely enjoyed myself, for a first trip, to me those have least of interest.

I also agree that you should probably drop at least one other city. Which one depends on what you're interested in (I'd never tell an art buff to drop Florence, for example).

I find that reading others' trip reports is a good way for me to gauge how much time I'll want to spend in a particular place, as well as get ideas on what to do. This is mine from my Italy trip (two weeks, spent in Rome, Venice, and Bellagio with one night in Milan) - it's a start. There are tons more here as well.

http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...s-to-italy.cfm

nspotz

I would hit the highlights of Italy (Rome, Florence, Venice) and then go to Paris. This way you really get a feel for Italy but can still do Paris as well.

Mimar

Another way to maximize your time is to buy open jaws plane tickets, into London, out of Rome -- or, not so efficiently, Paris. (Such tickets shouldn't cost any more than round-trip tickets. Look at the multi-city option on airline web sites.)

annhig's suggested itinerary is probably the best use of your time, minimizing the time spent in transit.

You will find that the more you research and the more people tell you "you have to go to such-and-such place; it's amazing," the more stops your itinerary will acquire. You have to exercise great will-power, put your itinerary on a diet, and cut down your number of stops. Or your trip will be a blur of trains and train stations. We all have to do this. After 20 or so trips to Europe, I still have to cut out destinations I regret missing.

thomo7

I'm only new to the Europe travel myself so my advice is limited, but we've been on the road for nearly 8 weeks and pre-booked the first 3 nights. That wasn't a great apt (IMHO) but was in a terrific location and gave us a chance to rest on arrival.
since then most accommodation has been checked out online/ found on the GPS/recommendations from here (the forum) or friends and called on our mobile (with our french SIM card)
Many mid priced chain hotels are easy to book eg Ibis, suite novotel and websites like eurocheapo.com have proven invaluable. I have to admit though, when you arrive in a town the last thing you want to do is walk around checking on availability and prices and that's even if you speak the language &/or read basic tariff information. Much easier to book at least a day or two before.

mamcalice

Looks like everyone is pretty much in agreement. Annhig's suggestion is pretty much what I would recommend even though my very favorite city in Italy is Florence. Do your research. Decide on a maximum of 4 places and spend no less than 3 days in each. If you have 17 days, spend 4 each in Paris and Rome.

I recall our first trip. We had hotel reservations a few places but none in others. The most boring part of any trip is trying to decide where to stay after you have reached a city. You lose time, you are tired and just want to drop your luggage and begin to see the sights. You end up spending more for hotels than you would if you had made reservations because you often "settle" just to get it out of the way. You can get lots of ideas on this board about hotels in your price range. You'll be happier.

Happy planning and come back with your questions. We love to answer them!