There is packing and unpacking and checking in and out. Twenty minutes if you have one pair of underwear and a rusty razor, the elevator comes quickly, and there is no front of you at the front desk.

Walking, cabbing, busing, or twerking to and from the bus station or train station twice. Add 30 seconds per pot hole,

Buying a ticket and waiting time for the bus or train. Scoop homeless person up so there is room to wait.

The actual train or bus ride. Rarely it is the highlight of my trips. And you are assuming it arrives on time and that the duration is less than 2 hours.

Flying of course, adds at least two more hours.

Tomorrow. Shampoo. Rinse. Repeat.

European potholes are elegant. I consider them doorways to history.

(42) This is about where the real fun usually begins - pertinent posts have more or less covered the subject at hand, sandralist has contributed the usual insults, misunderstandings have been cleared up for the most part, latecomers will add some more although may not have read all that preceded so it can get a bit repetitious. I usually like this part best. Good one, colduphere! And true!

European potholes are elegant. I consider them doorways to history.

Which is not much different than a stairway to heaven.

One thing I always think about is that young folks on a budget who want to wander around Europe may not understand how expensive it is to change venues every day or so. The train fares, the hotel fees...it all adds up.

<It seems to take people an awfully long time to pack their suitcases around here. Packing suitcases and checking out of hotels should not take longer than 20 minutes.>

Exactly and the journey is part of the trip to us.

From moment I woke up this morning to moment I went out of it took me 16 min.

Including packing, loo, shower (shampoo I am not bald)
No breakfast

Mvg.

You showered in the loo? Well no wonder.

Ha, MmePerdu. Love it. So true. It's like people getting loose and loopy around 0100 when you've been hanging around together all evening.

I'm going to chime in and appreciate julies original comment, without needing to read every riposte.

First time to city: run around like crazy person till I drop. 5th or 6 th time to place: choose a few things to do and spend more time enjoying the culture. With good planning I can get alot in in a few days -- I've had 2 5-6 day trips to Switzerland. One was 2 nights Luzerne, one night Lugano, 2 nights Interlaken and one night Zurich. Another was a base in Montreux with day trips to Vevey, Gruyeres, Gstaad, Zermatt and then last night in Geneva. The train rides were relaxing and we did not feel rushed. But we weren't checking off sites either - just enjoying the scenery and the villages... I guess I do have a hard time just relaxing, sitting in a cafe if I'm in a place with alot to see. I have this timetable in my head. But as I get older, and go back to familiar places, I want to change that MO.

I occasionally give slow-down advice, but:
a. It's usually in response to someone's question of something like, "So, what do you thing of my proposed itinerary?"
b. I add, "That's just my take, but it's your time and your money so do what you think is best."

I get it that some people seem quite adamant about giving that advice even when they're not asked for it. I always figure the recipient is free to ignore it. I especially get a chuckle when someone says, "I'm planning on visiting sites A, B, and C in Milan. Any other sites I should visit when there?" And the response is: "Don't go to Milan."

Sometimes, how you say things matters as much as the substance of what you are saying. This board, while having lots of good advice, also has very poor manners. Still, if you can wade through the occasional rudeness, you can benefit from the experience of others.

I went on one of those whirlwind package tours (7 countries in 19 days on a bus) when I was 18, so when folks ask about those kinds of trips, I will share with them that I don't find that kind of trip to be the best way to see Europe. I've had that experience, and I think sharing that with folks asking pertinent itinerary questions, and who haven't had that experience, is a good thing. But, one has to be careful not to get too dogmatic about matters of personal preference. There are some folks who truly like stay in a new location every night, so while I might give my opinion, I recognize that they are free to ignore it.

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Very interesting perspectives from the 'regulars' who generously share experiences / opinions on this forum.

How ironic that those who have shouted me down in the past for recommending coach tours are now saying it's actually okay to blitzkrieg Europe. Make up your minds, hey?
Some people just don't have the time to dig in to Pienza for a month and 'live like a local'. Some don't want to. Some are fearful of DIY travel and prefer the security of a bus tour - and some of these bus tours spend just one night in a destination. Oh the horror. The disdainful attitudes are really quite mystifying when you consider not everyone has the time or the money or even the inclination to 'slow travel'.

"Make up your minds, hey?"

They have. Some slow trav posters are waiting for this thread to disappear. Be forgotten. Some haven't shown up at all.

It's a tactic. Rope a dope. Wait for us to leave and then hit the new posters with the slow trav advice again.

We must not be fooled. Stay alert. We may have to work in shifts.

Hurrah for julies!

No trip that consists of nothing but one-night stays is going to be fun. And when I see people say they want to go to Madrid, London, Berlin, Rome, and Athens, of course I cringe.

But with a rational travel plan that minimizes time on trains and plains, a two night stay in a major city is just fine. Not for every city, but sometimes.

The first time I saw Rome it was one a one-week trip to Italy where we flew into Rome and flew out of Venice. We spent two nights in Rome, so we really only had one day of sightseeing. We saw the Vatican, Sistine Chapel, Coliseum, Spanish Steps, and the Pantheon. Now I'm sorry, but these are the major sights of Rome, and they can be seen in a day. Does the city deserve more? Sure. But if pressed for time, spending a full day in Rome in moving along is a great idea, especially since Rome is not a particularly pleasant place to visit.

The important thing to remember and avoid is travel time. I wouldn't advise a long trip just to spend two nights in Rome. But if visiting a number of cities in the area, better to spend two nights in Rome than none at all.

I've been to Europe a lot, say 20 or 25 times, and I rarely spend more than four or five nights in one place. I simply don't enjoy it if I do.

What a great example of perfectly legitimate differences between travelers! FHurdle said, “We saw the Vatican, Sistine Chapel, Coliseum, Spanish Steps, and the Pantheon. Now I'm sorry, but these are the major sights of Rome, and they can be seen in a day…. [If] visiting a number of cities in the area, better to spend two nights in Rome than none at all …. Rome is not a particularly pleasant place to visit..”

Well, that’s not MY list of “the major” sights of Rome, I’m not convinced that a 2-night stay is better than nothing, and I found Rome a very pleasant, dynamic, and interesting place to visit!

➢ My list of Rome’s “major” sites would also include the Borghese, the Forum, the Capitoline Museums and Piazza del Campidoglio, San Pietro in Vincoli, the Quattro Fontane with its Borromini and Bernini chapels, the Piazza Navona, Trastevere, and any number of other sites. And even if I agreed with the offered list, I should note that it took me nearly 8 hours to see the Vatican Museums at what I considered a breakneck speed. ;-)

➢ I’m glad that FHurdle was able to see what s/he considered the “major” sites in one day. I’m glad I had time (about 5 days) to see what I considered the “major” sites, along with a few sites that I considered secondary (like the Spanish Steps).

➢ Since it is likely to be easier to get to Rome’s international airport from just about anywhere than it is to get to just about anywhere else near Rome, I’m not sure that I agree that it’s better to give Rome a token visit, if it means shortchanging a place that you will otherwise be visiting (or near someplace you will be visiting) that isn’t so easy to reach.

Again, to each his/her own – what works for one traveler, at one time, might not work at all for someone else at another time. And really, isn’t it a good thing that we all travel for different reasons, with different interests, at different paces, and with different conclusions about how “pleasant” a visit is? I certainly think so!

@ colduphere: "We may have to work in shifts." -- I don't mind working in PJs or sweats, but honestly, I'm not going to scan Fodor's in a shift -- no way, no how -- and I, at least, am a woman who actually does, occasionally, wear a shift! I can't imagine that many of the men who are likely to be involved are willing to wear shifts... but I could be wrong! Maybe you could ease up on the dress code idea?

I'm lost now.

Is the consensus that none of us should give any kind of advice whatsoever on the grounds that somebody won't agree with it?

Kja , it is a good one ! (What is a shift as a garment ?)

PJ : porte-jarretelles ?