Hi and planning my trip to Italy next Fall and not sure if I should fly into Venice for 3 nights, then travel to Lake Como for 2 nights, then onto Siena for 2 nights, OR fly to Milan, stay in Lake Como for 2 nights then head to Venice for 3 nights, then onto Siena for 2 nights.... Will be traveling entirely by train.... Feedback greatly appreciated...

It sounds like you have only a week for this vacation. If that's true, I'd probably pick two locations at most,(Venice and Como) and do daytrips from those. I think you'll find in general that packing and unpacking for a two night stay is more trouble than it's worth.

I say this is rather ambitious to do all three of these destinations in only seven nights, and without a car. Perhaps you could re-think how you might be able to afford an additional night or two? By my count, this is about 14 hours train travel in 6 days (not sure how you envision returning home from Siena). Car will reduce that number only slightly, but at least you can go when you want, and not have to schlep your stuff from one train to another (every one of these routes requires a transfer in Milan or Florence).

Is this your first trip to Italy? How many are you? I think I would not enjoy this itinerary without a car.

Keep in mind that the first destination (roughly 36-48 hrs into the trip), any place you go, it will not be entirely possible to enjoy that place to the fullest - - due to sleep deprivation and time zone change (assuming a flight across an ocean to get TO Italy).

And I would end in Venice.

Best wishes,

Rex

Hi all and actually my trip will be a total of 16 days and have been to Italy before, but mainly to the major cities of Rome, Venice, and Florence.
Want this trip to be a little bit off the beaten path.... My husband and I are very energetic and tend to get a little restless if we stay in one place too long.... The reason why I only posted Venice/Lake Como/Siena (or Lake Como/Venice/Siena) is that's where I'm planning to start and will work my way down south. I'm just not sure if we should fly into Milan and start in Lake Como, then travel to Venice, or fly into Venice and go to Lake Como from Venice. Is it easier (and faster) to travel from Lake Como to Siena by train, or from Venice to Siena? Some airlines do not service Venice as frequently as Milan. Thanks!

Fly into Venice and then go to Lake Como. Three places is too many for 7 days. Use the train. A car is a liability in Venice and not needed at Lake Como.

So, is this the final 7 days, or the first 7 days? Where coming from to get to Italy? And where going to after Italy?

This makes a difference, but I still would have a car if I were you.

And/or substitute towns between Como and Venice for Siena. Examples: Verona, Trento, Bassano del Grappa, the loop around Garda including Sirmione, Bergamo, Monza and more.

rex-Yes, that will be the first 7 or 8 days: Venice, Lake Como, and Siena. My remaining 8 days will be spent in Sorrento/Amalfi Coast area and home from Rome.... We're pretty adventurous, but not sure if we want the hassle of renting a car. I've heard there is a shortage of adequate "signs" in Italy....

Energetic, restless, adventurous - I read this to mean that you should rent a car. Why worry over "signs"?

I think that the hike (on the beaten path, but gorgeous) connecting the five towns at Cinque Terre would make perfect sense for you guys...

I'll be the first to say forget the car. All you need it for is to get from point A to point B. We spent 5nights in Bellagio and never took our car out once after getting there. And you certainly won't use it in Venice. And for just one full day in Siena, you won't use it there either. So I say stick with the trains.

Sure others are right that a driving vacation (particularly the Tuscany part) could be wonderful, but it doesn't make sense to rent a car just to get between three cities and then pay to park it for all the other days you are paying for, but not using it.

Since it is not your first trip to Italy, I suspect you DO know how you like to travel and why you don't need a car. My personal preference for this trip would be to fly to Milan and relax at the lake, then go to Siena, and end up in Venice flying home from there, assuming this is your total stay.

Patrick must have been posting as you were.

Now that we know the big picture, I would fly into Milan, and stay one night there. Mialn can easily fill that first day. And you won't lose the magic of Bellagio to fatigue. Now two nights, or preferably three at the lake. About four hours by train to get to Venice. Perhaps only two nights there since you have been before.

Now head south. I stick with my recommendation that you get a car for this portion (perhaps picking up at Florence?) - - and of course, turn it in when you arrive in Rome.

Signs? Not a problem, in my opinion.

FLy into Milan, head immed to Como for 2 nights. We just stayed at www.varenna.com in June. Loved it! I'd take the bus from Malpensa to Como and the hydrofoil over. Relax for a few days, then Train to Venice for a few nights, stop in Verona maybe?
Train to Bologna for an overnight maybe to add another small town with good food? then Train through Florence to Siena. Or train directly from Venice to Florence and rent a car for a few days to explore Tuscany!
But to answer your exact question: Como, Venice, Siena.

Not to confuse the issue, but have you considered working from south to north in Italy, flying home from Milan? Amalfi Coast to Siena to Venice to Lake Como. Ending up at Lake Como, you're close to MXP and can easily make it to the airport by mid-morning for your flight. Ending on the Amalfi Coast, you'll have to haul all the way back to Rome for the flight home. Plus, spending the last 2 nights at the lake is such a tranquil ending to a trip.

Just my 2 cents, though.

From your original choices, I'd go Venice-Lake Como-Siena then south.