Finecheapboxofwine

We visited Rome last year and didn't use public transport except to and from the airport. We walked (strolled) everywhere and although it looked like the distances would be long they were completely doable. We walked from Campo di Fiore to Piazza di Popolo a couple of times and even to the Borghese park and back.
Now we're planning a trip to Paris. Will the walking experience be similar in ease? We plan to do most of the sightseeing and visits in Zone 1. I'm not opposed to using the public transport system at all but just want to get my head around the distances. Paris in my head seems more daunting in regards to traffic and it has been a while since I've been there and will be first time with our teenagers.
Thanks to those who can offer your experiences.

sparkchaser

When are you going?

Finecheapboxofwine

March!

StCirq

IMO, Rome is more daunting in terms of traffic, by far. Paris is a small city and entirely walkable. I typically walk 10+ miles a day there. On the other hand, the reason people may tend to walk more in Rome is that its public transportation infrastructure is meager by comparison to that of Paris.

tonfromleiden

As StCirq said: Paris is a compact city. To give you an idea: from the Arc de Triomphe to the Place de la Bastille is a leisurely 1h30 walk.

Blueeyedcod

I disagree with StCirq - Rome is easy walking as much of the historic centre is pedestrian only - traffic cuts through the middle (Via del Corso) and skirts the outside like a circle.
If you want to walk from St Peter's Basilica to the Trevi Fountain you can do it and cross only three major traffic thoroughfares with the rest being pleasantly walked,charming pedestrian streets.

On the other hand, Paris is not that compact. To walk from, say, Notre Dame to the Eiffel Tower would take a long time. The Paris metro moves you around so fast and with such efficiency you don't need to worry about walking.

Ackislander

I don't want to sound like Bill Clinton, but it depends on what you mean by "Rome" and what you mean by "Paris."

But if you mean the historic centers, most frequented by visitors, they are both easy. It is a very easy walk from Notre Dame to the Louvre and an easy walk from there to the Eiffel Tower. This part of Paris doesn't even have hills. But would you have the energy to visit Notre Dame, walk to the Louvre, see some part of the collection, walk to the Eiffel, go up and take photos, then walk, back to your hotel? I wouldn't.

I think one tends to tour both cities by neighborhood: Ile St Louis, Notre-Dame, Conciergerie, Ste Chapelle, Musee Cluny, Odeon, Jardin Luxembourg is a day in Paris. In Paris, you would take public transportation next day to another neighborhood or cluster, though you needn't.

From the Peripherique on one side of Paris to the Peripherique on other is about six miles. It is not a hard walk, easier if you pick a route that goes down hill! I haven't done it in one fell swoop because of Issues, but I probably could even in my decrepit state.

Jay_G

I see Paris described as a 'walkable' city a lot on the internet and I can't say I'm in total agreement. I think that many of our american cousins are used to having to drive around most major cities in the US, so in comparison, Paris is definitely 'walkable' but it's not always a completely pleasurable (for me in any case) experience.

I think that Paris is good for strolling about if you don't have anywhere in particular to be, but (as tonfromleiden mentions above), the distances between major sights can be long and walking them can start to feel like an enforced march, particularly with teenagers or children in tow.

I've found a stroll can quickly become a trudge along the "grand boulevards" in the centre and can start to suck the joy from the experience.

In comparison, an hour and a half walk in central London would pretty much get you from the London Eye to Hampstead Heath, and I'm fairly certain no-one anywhere would recommend walking it.

Paris is by all means 'walkable' but I'd suggest using public transport if you want to make the most of your time and not feel pretty exhausted at the end of every day.

I'd suggest taking public transport and getting off one or two stops earlier from your destination (whether it's on the bus or metro) so you still get the experience of 'walking' Paris, but it doesn't become a chore and possibly cloud your trip.

bvlenci

Out of curiosity, I just traced a "tourist perimeter" of both cities on Google maps, and calculated the walking distance. Surprisingly (to me) they're very similar in distance. I would have said Paris was considerably larger. Perhaps what's most familiar to us seems smaller.

Maybe someone would like to second guess my choices of perimeter. Did I leave out some major attraction? Did I include too much? Here are the rough boundaries in both cities.

Paris:

From Sacre Coeur to the Eiffel Tower, a bulge that goes just south of Montparnasse, just east of the Jardin des Plantes, to Place de la Bastille, and back to Sacre Coeur. 21 km

Rome:

From the National Etruscan Museum(Villa Giulia) to the Vatican, looping just west of Vatican City, through Trastevere, to Santa Maria in Comedin (Bocca della Verità), with a little detour to take in the Villa of the Knights of Malta, to the east of the Colosseum, to the Baths of Diocletian, to the Borghese Gallery, and back to the Villa Giulia. 18 km

ssander

If I understand the OP correctly, the issue is, "Is public transport necessary?"

In Rome, you can walk from a well-situated hotel to nearly all the major sights in less than 15-20 min.

In Paris, I don't think that is true. You really need to use the Metro and buses -- not necessarily because you can't walk from the Eiffel Tower to Notre Dame, but because you might want to make the trip faster given a limited time for your visit to the city.

Campo de' Fiori to P. Popolo is a little more than 20 minutes by foot. Eiffel Tower to Notre Dame is nearly an hour.

Of course, many folks love the walking through Paris for its own wonderful pleasures. I'm just guessing as to the OP's intentions as (I assume) a first-timer.

ssander

otherchelebi

I have walked both cities a number of times and can say that I enjoy walking in Rome much more because of the continuous change of environment and possible discovery of quaint architecture and life styles. Paris, to me, is all the same in terms of street plan and architecture and can get boring after some time, when you start feeling your tired muscles.

In either case, walking under drizzling or full rain may actually be easier in Paris than in Rome.

I also hate to travel under the ground when I am touristing and not rushing to meetings.

justineparis

I have been to both cities ( Rome twice, Paris many times) and I find Paris much more walkable. Since you found Rome walkable I think you will be pleased with Paris.

I can , and have, walked from Notre Dame to the Eiffel Tower. Not in pouring rain however.. so going in March puts you in a different position then me who usually visits May thru October.

I also think folks who pack their days may find walking less time efficient.. lets face it.. a 10 minute metro ride can be an hour walk.. but for us.. its when you walk you discover the hidden paris.. the little side streets, the cool door knocker, the street market you didn't know was on that day, the unique shop.. and the little café you just have to stop and have a drink at..

Finecheapboxofwine

Yes, justineparis and otherchelebi, those are exactly the reasons why I enjoy the walk in comparison to spending time underground on the metros.

I appreciate the advice here. Thanks bvienci for mapping out the distance and comparisons between Paris and Rome. Interesting! I haven't come that far on Google maps yet.

I got to thinking about the walking subject after I read a post by a person planning a Paris trip and whether to buy the carnet or Navigo for his family and how many tickets they would need. So I looked at the map of the inner periphery it looks close but I read somewhere that even by the Rue Cler the Eiffel Tower is a good 20 minute walk. And most of the replies above attest to the time and distance so the metro is good for getting us to the places we want to go and then can stroll after in order to make the most of our short stay in Paris.

Thanks!

sandralist

I hope you will take your teens for rides on both the Metro and the buses. They are quite a bit of fun.

Lexma90

When visiting Paris, including with our teens, we mostly walk except when it makes more sense to take the Metro. (How's that for a non-answer.)

We stay in the 6th arr., and usually walk to Laduree (a block or two away from our hotel), Notre Dame, the Louvre, Musee d'Orsay, Isle-St-Louis, Montparnasse areas. Take the metro to the Eiffel Tour, Arc de Triomphe, Montmartre, most other museums, and walk around in each of those areas.

MmePerdu

I find both cities perfectly walkable. In Paris I usually stay in the 18th, not central by most people's definition of it. One trip, the last day when I'd planned to shop for gifts, there was a transport strike. I had no choice but to walk, and did, all the way to the river shopping as I went, and back. I confess, in Rome I've never been underground, just an occasional bus, but otherwise walked, even when I stayed in Trastevere, also not central. So I'd call the 2 comparable for purposes of walking where you'll likely want to go.

bvlenci

When I go to Rome, I almost never buy a bus/metro pass of any kind; I just buy a bunch of single tickets and replenish them when I'm running short. I find that I walk nearly everywhere.

Christina

I seriously doubt if you will walk all over Paris as a tourist unless you are very limited in your interests. this isn't hypothetical, just get at a map and figure out the scale and real distances. Maps should have scales on them. Paris is not that small that you will want to walk all over it IMO. It's about 10 km north to south and 10 km east to west, for example. Sure, maybe you don't want to walk all that which is why it really depends what you intend to do.

If you really only stay in zone 1, yeah, you probably can walk everywhere.

sandralist

In addition to thinking that one has a limited experience of both Rome and Paris by staying within walking confines -- and I am a marathon walker, who considers a 40 minutes a decent walk, but both cities have sights beyond those limits -- I am surprised people are not more interested in the public transports in European cities. This is one of the things that has made these cities what they are and aren't in modern times in a rather profound way, and makes the experience of living in much of Europe very different from much of America.

I think you miss understanding something quite interesting about Paris, Napoli, Madrid, Madrid, Lisbon, Rome and of course Venice and London, by never experiencing its urban public transportation, including its underground.

It's possible because I lived in places like New York City and San Francisco that I am more used to the idea of using public transportation in major cities than people living in other American cities. But as I said above, the Paris metro is really a lot of fun, the look and operation of it is very distinctly Parisian, and taking buses in Paris can give you some exceptional views of the streetscape, and the dynamic life of Paris. (Likewise Rome.)

Some of the public transport in Europe and its stations are real showcases of art and architecture as well.

kerouac

Only the Eiffel Tower or Montmartre or Père Lachaise Cemetery can be considered challenging walks if you are staying in central Paris.

In any case, public transportation is a joy in Paris and even more so if you put the kids in charge of finding and plotting the itineraries. They navigate metro maps just as well as they navigate iPhones.