My family and I are taking our first European vacation this summer and are deciding on London, Paris or both. Need opinions on whether two cities is too much for a 10 day trip. I'm leaning torwards Paris but since it is our first family trip to Europe is London less stressful.

I would suggest

o fly into London, spend 5 days
o Eurostar to Paris, spend 5 days
o fly home

(If you do it in the opposite direction, the UK TaxMan grabs $80 from each traveler.)

London is a good place to start anyway, because you don't have to deal with culture shock and another language simultaneously.

I agree with Robespierre, I think for your first trip it would be perfect to split the time between both cities. You can see a fair amount in 5 days and both cities have so much to offer.

Another vote for two cities. The only thing that might make London less stressful is the language. Paris is a smaller, more relaxed city than London, and has the advantage of having cars drive on the right, so you aren't looking the wrong way every time you cross the street. It is also less expensive than London.

I really enjoy vacations that compare and contrast two different cultures, languages, types of food.

I'm usually in the less/slower is better camp - but w/ 10 days you certainly can visit both. Especially if you mean 10 days in Europe not counting travel.

But if 10 days is the <u>total</u> time, you actually only have 8 days &quot;on the ground&quot; for sightseeing. One day/night is spent getting to Europe and one day is spent flying home.

If we're taking a vote, here's another yay for splitting the time between the two.

Yet another vote for doing both. You will have just enough time to see the highlights of both cities.

I agree. Five days is an ideal amount of time for kinds to spend exploring a single city. You can do a really good tour of each in a ten day trip.

Agree with janisj. Go for both unless the 10 days includes travel to/from Europe.

I'm going to throw out an option, especially if your 10 days includes travel time. Do one city, or the other, and include one side trip of 3 days or so. For example, you could do 4-5 days in London, take a train to York (great for families, imo) and rent a car and see some of Yorkshire. There are plenty of other areas in England where you could also spend 3 days or so before returning to London for your return flight (or fly home out of an airport, such as Manchester, if it's closer). I'm certain that you could do something similar from with Paris + surrounding areas.

And by the way, I do not recommend starting out bright and early to cross to the continent.

Finish your last full day in London, and take the latest Eurostar of the day. You'll get to Paris at bedtime, ready to hit the ground after breakfast upon the morrow.

Yes, split it!

Assuming you have 10 days actually on the ground agree to split. Do London first to minimize culture shock and get over jet lag. Then train to Paris. Do open jaws ticket into London and out of Paris.

With 5 days in each place you can even do 1 mini outside trip (perhaps Windsor and Versailles) at each (can be done in a half day with an early start).

Thanks for all the input, its really nice of you all. We are planning on 10 days &quot;on the ground&quot; and from your input we've decided to do both, London first. One other question if one reads down this far, to keep the cost managable we've booked hotels a few miles from downtown but within 2-3 minutes of a subway station. any downsides to subway travewl in either city?

woodyca: &quot;<i>any downsides to subway travewl in either city?</i> No the Tube/Underground (London) and Metro (Paris) are a great way to get around.

That being said -- &quot;<i>we've booked hotels a few miles from downtown but within 2-3 minutes of a subway station. </i>&quot; -- might or might not be a good idea. Tell us which hotels you have booked. &quot;a few miles&quot; could be anything from the edge of the center to waaaaaay out in the burbs and very inconvenient

There are budget hotels right in the very center of both cities w/o the hassle of long tube/metro rides to get back and forth

&quot;...the Tube/Underground (London) and Metro (Paris) are a great way to get around.&quot;

<b>If you don't attempt it during rush hour.</b> Both systems are right at peak capacity during commuting hours, and it's worth your life to try to squeeze into a car on some lines.

There is nothing wrong with staying 10-15 minutes from the city center. The lodging values are better the further out you get, and the distances to sights are (within a few percent) the same as if you stay downtown. Example: Notre Dame is 19 minutes from &Eacute;cole Militaire in the VIIe, or 25 minutes from Antony, outside the city near Orly airport. (Source: www.ratp.fr)

The OP didn't say 10 or 15 mins - he said &quot;a few miles&quot;. That is why I asked WHERE they had booked. A few miles could mean 30 or 45 mins each way - or it could mean Earl's Court and practically in the center of things.

There is no way to say if they are booked into a good/convenient location w/o knowing where it is.

I agree. &quot;10-15 minutes&quot; isn't the same as &quot;a few miles.&quot; The former is usually acceptable; the latter may or may not be.

But I don't imagine that anyone with cost constraints would seriously consider riding a train for 60-90 minutes every day, as you suggest &quot;a few miles&quot; implies. The commuting costs would dilute any savings on hotels. Lodging prices fall off very quickly within a few minutes of the city centers, so there's no point in riding for more than 15 minutes or so each way if cost optmization is the goal.

For 'first' visits I'd stay closer to the centre if possible. Even travelling 10-15mins each way to reach the centre mounts up in terms of time and cost for a family. Going back to your room for a rest is also less convenient.
I'd just set a budget (whatever you're paying for the out of centre hotels) and find something as cheap in the centre. Or balance the cost by eating more cheaply or whatever.

Compromise on something other than location for a first visit and venture further out when you know where you're going.

Robespierre - you just like arguing to hear your own voice. We <u>have no idea</u> where woodyca booked. So until he posts back the entire discussion is silly. I have seen B&amp;Bs and hotels in far SE London (in Kent really) say they are &quot;just a few miles from the west end - and they are as the crow flies . . . .

So, woddy - tell us which hotels you booked in London and Paris? Then we can really help. Until then it is just a lot of blather . . . . .