You all seem kinder here than other boards - - so even though this won't be a very slow trip thought I would ask for suggestions here.
We are a family of 6 (ages 14 - 70 including me, my sister - her 2 kids, her hubby and our mom) We know we're flying into Milan on June 1 and have 2 nights reserved there and flying out of Rome on June 14, we have 3 nights there - - My mom (70) will have her heart broken if she doesn't see Venice - - we weren't planning on doing Venice - - but . . .
So does this work?
Milan (2 nights) - to Venice by train, 2 nights in Venice, Venice - Cinque Terra by Train (yes thru La Spezia)2 nights in Cinque Terra, pick up a rent car in La Spezia Pisa (morning) - Lucca (afternoon) Florence - 3 nights Ovieto - 1 night drop off rent car - 3 nights in Rome - - then sadly return home
Questions: 1. Which places should we have reservations before heading out?
2. I've looked at trenitalia.com, but still unsure - - which way would you take the train? Venice - milan - La Spezia or Venice - Bologna - La Spezia?? Does one way have a more spectacular view?
3. Leave off Ovieto & stay 1 more night in Cinque Terre? (We do enjoy the outdoors & the hiking sounds great.)
Well, congrats on the open-jaw ticket: in one place, out the other, makes good sense for your trip. Congrats also for seeking the advice of us kindly folk....
Also, your Mom is entitled to a good night's rest on landing: one night in Milan sounds good.
Pisa (morning) and Lucca (afternoon) sounds dreadful, and you will rue it. Way too much travel for the rush.
My version, then:
Milan - 1 night. Venice by train - 5 nights in Venice Cinque Terre if you must Florence - 3 nights Rome - 3 nights
Drop Pisa, Lucca, Orvieto; and see what you think about the Cinque Terre after everybody weighs in, and after you've poked around onboard ("Find" key with the magnifying glass).
I like Bill's version except--I would not stay 5 nights in Venice and only 3 in Rome. I would add another night in Rome--not for the night but for the day that gets you and time to prepare for the return trip.
If you want to be at the cinque terre, this order minimized travel and connection waiting time by railway: Milan - Venice - Florence - Cinque terre - Rome
You only need 1 or 2 nights in Venice, depending on when you arrive and depart. I would NEVER stay 5 nights in Venice on a trip like yours. Especially with the range of ages you have. There just is not that much to see, and the swarming tourists will make you crazy!
There's not much to see in Milan either ... unless you're heading to Lake Como for a day ... a long day. I might make that only 1 night if everyone, including your Mom, can get a good rest.
If you take the Eurostar to Venice, it will not be very taxing on anyone, which will be nice for everyone. Again, I encourage you to have a lunch on the train (Eurostar of course) ... it's a neat experience and the food is well above average.
There is a very great deal to see in Venice, and it is precisely if you only stay one or two days and only hit the "highlights" that you will end up following the crowds and hating a city that deserves much, much better.
Perhaps I would not urge five nights as Bill did, but at least three and maybe four.
Originally posted by Eloise: I humbly beg to disagree with Marco Ohio & Fano.
There is a very great deal to see in Venice, and it is precisely if you only stay one or two days and only hit the "highlights" that you will end up following the crowds and hating a city that deserves much, much better.
Perhaps I would not urge five nights as Bill did, but at least three and maybe four.
That's what makes the world great ... we can agree to disagree.
The young folks will be going crazy after 1 day ... mark my words ... I know from experience.
Originally posted by Jim Zurer: What DO you like to see?
That's actually not important Jim, it's what a group with the range of ages Kathy has will be able to tolerate as a group. I put myself in her shoes, and looked at an itinerary that will keep everyone happy. Five nights in Venice will not do that, in my opinion ... and just my opinion of course.
You've got strong bookends for your trip and one necessary stop in between for the oldest traveler. I'm coming at this from my perspective but you won't (or can't) make everyone happy on a trip with a group. It's hard to resist the urge to visit (Pisa, Lucca, Orvieto...) but try to focus on what wil make it the most enjoyable in the long run. Although it sounds like a travel brochure, you could really spend semi equal times in Venice, Florence Rome or, if the whole group wants to hike, skip Florence and go to the Cinque Terre.
As far as reservations, you are traveling at peak season and should book ahead. The last thing you want to do is waste time looking for accomodations. Are you travelin this year?
Posts: 406 | Location: Watertown, New York, USA | Registered: 22 August 2003
I personally cannot imagine thinking Venice would be boring and Cinque Terre interesting. Cinque Terre is pretty, yes, but early June is not beach weather yet in Italy, and once you've hiked the pay trails, what then? I have previously recommended a book called "Venice" by an art historian that is very helpful, but it is out on loan at the moment. There is so much more to Venice than meets the casual eye. It's not that Milan is uninteresting, it's more that it is a bustling big city and not an easy place. Florence, OTH, is small and reeks of history and has street markets youngsters love and loads of other youngsters, and yet still has the museums and architecture beyond almost any other city. Rome is one of my three favorite cities of the world and you can never run out of things to do, no matter your age and interests. Lucca? Haven't yet gone. Pisa I have seen and my feeling afterward was, "Well, I've done that and now I never have to do it again." I felt that way too much junky tourist stuff has been allowed to taint the pathway to the Campo and it seems therefore tawdry. We were also besieged by vendors and people whose purpose I couldn't divine although I speak the language adequately. There is so much hiking all over Italy that you don't really need to go someplace to find it. As much as I like Orvieto, I wouldn't think of it as a destination for a fast trip like this, unless you want to replace the hiking at Cinque Terre with some around Orvieto, which is less off the path you describe. I think that mother and kids will both like the hanging out potential of Rome, Florence and Venice, on foot in two, and in boats as well in Venice. I might take that car and wander Tuscany on the way to Florence, maybe doing an off pike coastal route and then cutting across to Florence, and then drop it off there, since it will be only an expense and not useful in Florence. Then the rest of the trip can be accomplished by train.
I won't stay in venice more than 3 days with all the rest you are trying to see!
This is the very antithesis of Slow Travel.... Golly, if you had a list four times as long, would we advise you to run to each for half a day? Of course not: but to prune that list down. It's not how much we "see" — when we start running around that bad, we see nothing — but how well we see it.
That Venice and Milan have nothing much to see (as opposed to Lake Como or the Cinque Terre) is, well, an odd idea.
The rest of your crew may, God willing, come back many times to Italy; your mother, at 70, is making a very special trip.
(If it were my own trip under your particular circumstances, I'd start my open jaw in Venice, stay a full week there, skip Florence in favor of the Tuscany countryside or maybe the beaches of Numana/Sirolo on the Adriatic coast, and get to Rome on the last night just to meet the plane, or fly out of Ancona if convenient.)
Now Bill, be honest. You would actully walk from Venice to Sirolo/Numana (but you know we are not supposed to talk about those places and reveal the secret) and eat in that heavenly restaurant up by the weather station. Mom may decide to buy a little flat with a view and say, "See you when you come back." Stranger things have happened.
Ok, right now everyone is pretty much foussed on the Venice vs Cinque Terre thing. I would rahter talk about the amont of moving around you are thinking about. In a trip as you outlined you will basically be spending half of your time just runing from place to place. The mere transit from Milano to Venice is a two and a half hours train ride from station to station. That's a pretty long but not impossible ride. What adds up to the transit time is the time needed to pack your things back up, check out of the hotel, get to the station, ride the tain (to play it safe always ad 15-20 minutes delay), get from the station to yor next hotel, check in, unpack, probably have a shower and refresh a bit... Plus, thefact that you are traveling with as many as 6 people aged 14-70 will add up even more time, required to group up, mandatory stops at the toilet, need to find not 1 but 2 taxis etc. This will shoot the trainst time from Milano to Venice to some 5 hours or more: start packing up at 7,30, be in your venie hotel and ready to do some sightseeing by 1,30 or 2 pm. Not too long if you are planning longer stays (say 4-5 days in each location, or even one week), far too much (IMHO) for a two nights visit. Basically, considering that at night you will be sleeping, this leaves you with one day and a half to visit each location. And some of your train trips are far longer than this one: in orer to get from Venice to La Spezia oyu have to backtrack all the way to Milano, than take another trian to Genova and rom Genova to La Spezia, or take the (slow!) train through Parma and to Spezia. THis will take the whole day!
I would certainly drop either Venice or Cinque Terre (pick the ne that appeals you the most, or that gets more votes in a family poll, don't know, just not both at the same time). Doing this you could plan a nice and easy itinerary through nothern and central Italy: Milano-Venice-Florence-Rome (with a daytrip to either Lucca or Pisa by train) or Milano-Cinque Terre-Lucca or Pisa (one night)-Florence-Rome. These two itineraries still look far too crowded to me, with 14 nights I would honestly concentate on 2-3 locations only. But even trimming off a destination or two would make your trip far more anjoyable. And less moving around means more time to see the places, not seeing less.
You really only have 12 plannable nights. The first night you are just getting over getting in and the last day is just a jaunt to the airport. I would pick 3 places for 4 nights each. If you can change your flight into Venice, that what I would do but flying into Firenze as well would work. Our nephews (11 & 12) liked big things so they loved Pisa (not just the leaning tower but also the Cathedral and much else. They also loved Florence over the countryside of Tuscany. I might think about Venice, Florence and Rome. Cliched maybe, but I think you will have a great time and not need a car at all.
Topic Closed
