Aggressive itineraries

First time travelers usually do more. The experienced posters on this forum have taken multiple trips and don't feel the need to see everything in one trip. If you think that your Europe trip is a once in a lifetime event of course you will be driven to do as much as possible. So your question should be "How many people here have done multiple aggressive itineraries?". I doubt many people make the same type of trip twice and realized that less is more.

You actually "see" less if you push it too hard because all the potential "seeing time" is spent in transit from one place to the next. HOWEVER, the experience of traveling from Istanbul to Bucharest to Berlin to Paris and London in two weeks can't be beat ...... but you won't "see" much.

I see tons of aggressive/whirl-wind plans posted with the inevitable replies to slow down, plan travel time, allow extra time for each check-out/check-in and buffer for just relaxing. I have never seen anyone suggest a way underloaded plan and never a reply to do more, add a city, pack in more events.

Travel style, personal energy level, trip length all play into how agressively you can fill your days. A shorter trip can be very busy but when you get exhausted you are already heading home. Too many moves and travel days reduce the time available to actually see sites and enjoy the places you do visit. A longer trip needs some days to be slower to rest and recoup for the next chunk.

It is a personal balancing act to get the most from your vacation time and money and see everything on your once-in-a-lifetime trIp. Plan to return is also added to many suggestions but that does not feel real for most first time travelers.

Enjoy the planning and the trip!

Of course, especially when I was younger but I still do now at times if I see the trade-off as a net benefit. I would not recommend it to anyone else - just because I can live with it as a happy solo traveler, doesn't mean someone else can (or would want to). Everyone has their style of travel (and various fitness levels) and it should be respected. Some folk simply prefer more active vacations and that's OK. Over time, everyone learns (sometimes the hard way) about what their limits are and what their sweet spot is when it comes to travel - then you just use your instincts.

I think some of the crazy itinerary questions posed are borne more out of innocent ignorance about what can possibly be done (or lack of geographic knowledge), as opposed to a conscious effort to run yourself ragged.

A lot of us have probably made that mistake at one time or another, in one place or another.

The thing is, "rushed" routes end up with more time in trains or cars or buses or boats or the air than they do with seeing "more." Most people don't realize how long it takes to get from one place to the next. Or perhaps, I should correct that to say, if seeing more from those forms of transportation is what you want to do, rushed routes are perfect. Except maybe for the time you have spend waiting in the stations or airports for public transportation.

But if you actually want to visit a sight or a location, you have to have time on the ground there. One way to combine rushing with visiting is to be very, and I mean VERY, selective about what you see/visit in the location. And that means planning carefully around arrival times, departure times, where you're going to stay or where you're going to leave your luggage if you don't spend the night, time getting to what you want to see, how long it will take to see what you want to see, opening and closing times, possible entry time appointments, getting through potential security, waiting in line, and, and and...

Something else I've noticed in rushed itineraries is the lack of planning for meals of any kind, or indeed any breaks at all. Sitting down in a cafe, having a nice, not necessarily expensive, meal, and watching what's going on is one of the great pleasures of European cultures. It's a shame to miss out on that.

I get the sense that most of the veterans here are not just traveling to see a bunch of sites, but also to experience a small window into a different lifestyle (emphasis on "small window"!). And you really can't get that sense by just bouncing back and forth between the well-known travel icons. You really have to slow down, look, listen, smell, taste and feel... and most importantly, allow your curiosity to let itself wander away from a set list of destinations.

Plus, rushed itineraries are just tiring. Even in my college-aged trips, I ended up crashing towards the end. Trains are a nice change from driving, but they lose their novelty fast.

I posted on another thread that I try to plan to visit one main sight before lunch, have lunch, visit another place then look for my lodgings and plan for dinner and evening entertainment. Having said that I will put shorter stops in with the main sights, something that I just want to take some photos of or get a quick look at. When I did my driving tour of Scotland I used a service to plan the route, and they kept telling me I was doing too much driving, but I think it can come down to what you are comfortable with. In this part of the world we are used to driving long distances to visit friends and family on a long weekend (it's a five hour drive to my mother's) so I was not bothered by the driving distance, and I still saw everything I wanted to. Others might not want to do that. But, I still stayed, for the most part, more than one night in each place I stopped. It really is best to plan your trip like you are going to return, and to prioritize what you want to see so you aren't disappointed if you run out of time.

I think many people with aggressive plans don't factor in the things mentioned previously, but I think the amount/percentage spent on just getting there makes some people want to squeeze in as much as possible to get their money's worth - unfortunately often the opposite happens.

People who travel frequently - even on a simple budget - tend to not think too much about the cost of transatlantic transportation. For me, it's the first item budgeted and I plan the rest of my trip around how much money is left.

Also, I think people who are new to travel sometimes look at tour routes for ideas and think some of the aggressive itineraries are possible based on that. I did do Rick's 21 day BOE, knowing it was aggressive but wanting a general tour. I loved it and it worked well because Rick and crew have the tour thing down to a science. There is no way someone could do this on their own and see as much as we saw, even as experienced travelers.

FWIW, I also see this in the Trip Advisor forums I frequent, mostly for touring the US West/Western National Parks. No, you can't see Yellowstone in 2 days.

I like to maximize my days in the sense of waking up relatively early, having often a short lunch and then making dinner the major meal. I know some people abhor the notion of waking up early when on vacation, no matter what. Different travel styles.

What I think many people think, though, is about maximizing the number of sights they are physically present at. Often taken videos or pictures aggressively as they have something else scheduled soon. The problem with that, particularly if it involves many different cities - or, shall I say, hotel beds - is that the more compacted each of your stays are, the higher the % of your travel is going to be spent on means of transportation of various types.

I used to try to suggest people to slow down on their first plans, but I got tired of it, most people who decided they want to "do" Paris, Berlin and London in 8 days are already set up in their minds about that and just want validation/encouragement. It is their time and their money though.

The matter of fact is that all big European capitals and major cities have enough attractions and activities to fill not one, but two whole weeks. A handful can probably fill a whole month (Paris, Berlin, Roma, London come to mind on that department) of traveling before you start running out of options and need to repeat something.

Then, again, most people are way too much concerned on missing something elsewhere to give it more time to a place where they are told they can "cover everything" in 4 days.

My travel these days is pretty laid back, but when younger it wasn't the Eiffel tower that was so magnificent, it was the journey. Both points of view are personal and valid.

The other extreme would be to have two or three opportunities in a life time and spend one of them as 3 weeks in Tuscany. Also valid.

Each traveler has her/his own travel preferences, which will probably change over time based on their experience in prior trips.
The traveler who chooses an aggressive itinerary has to do their trip the way they designed it. If they like that, they will do it again, if they don't, and they make more trips, they'll probably change their travel style. If they don't like changing hotels every night, they probably won't do that the next trip, if there is a next trip.
The people I feel for are the ones who are only going to do one trip, then have children or whatever, and they choose an aggressive itinerary for their first trip and come back wishing they'd taken a different approach.

What's fair is that the traveler gets to do their itinerary exactly the way they designed it--and the rest of get to do it our way.

I've done it, but don't necessarily recommend it for anyone but an experienced traveler.

In 2007, I spent 13 nights in Bavaria and stayed at 10 different towns (7 one-night stands). However, this was my seventh self-planned trip, and I had pretty much perfected my technique for packing for quick checkout. The first half of the trip was a slow route up the Romantic Road, traveling mostly only a few hours a day and spending the rest of my time exploring several towns on the Road each day, so I didn't spend a lot of time traveling.

The trip before, I stayed in only two places in 12 nights.

Last summer we traveled from Sofia to Istanbul by car. Different hotel each night and different fishing stream or river each day. I took about a week. We spend three nights in Istanbul and then flew on to Budapest where we did very little but relax and eat and relive the road trip across Bulgaria in our conversations. One of the best vacations ever. Rushed through Bulgaria, uncomfortable in Istanbul and way laid back in beautiful Budapest. A bit of everything.

OK, our second trip to Europe in 2010, this is what we did:

Flew overnight to London, arriving in the morning, Eurostar to Paris...3 nights. Strasbourg, Augsburg, Munich 1 night each. Salzburg 2 nights. Overnight train to Venice...2 more nights there. Milan 2 nights. Spiez, Bern and Zurich 1 night apiece. Fly back to London, head to Portsmouth to visit my sister...2 nights and then a couple nights in London.

In Strasbourg, we arrived in the evening (we went to Arras from Paris then on to Strasbourg) and had all of 3 hours the next morning before heading for Augsburg. Spent more time in Augsburg because of a great couchsurfing host...arrived Munich after supper, had about 7-8 hours the next day before we had to catch the train to Salzburg. In Milan, we took a day trip to Como (leaving us about 4-5 hrs to explore Milan.) By the time we got from Bern to Zurich, it was evening and we had about 3 hrs in Zurich the next morning before having to go to the airport for our flight. After coming home and going thru the photos, hubby totally forgot we were even in Munich! We were so rushed that he blanked on it.

Would we do it again - never in a million years. We (and many others) totally underestimate how long it takes to change cities/accommodations. One night stays are just not worth it (unless it is a small village and maybe you are spending the night on the way to somewhere else). I mean, if you are dying and will never ever go back, then yeah, dip your toes everywhere, but I think major cities (London, Paris, Rome) deserve at least 4-5 nights, more minor places like Venice, Munich you want at least 3 nights. Some smaller in between places 2 nights.

Not to mention the money spent on transportation! Whew. My husband wanted to see so much because he didn't know if we'd ever get back - you'd think he knew me by now...lol. Mind you, we still try to cram too much in (in 2012, we only spent 2 nights in Florence, Cinque Terre, Nice, Avignon, Caen area)...but we are finally coming to realize slower is better...for us anyways.

I tend to do a mix of both... First trip... whirlwind... drove all over Europe..9 countries 17 days, and if I could re-live a trip, that would be it! I really did not know if I would ever be able to return nor my daughter. We had a taste of it all and loved every minute (except when we were tired and trying to find a hotel:) We had no hotel reservations, a car, and a rough idea of what we wanted to do, and it changed our lives forever. I have now returned many times, however my daughter had her degree, her job, a marriage, three kids, etc. and has yet to make the trip back. No regrets for either of us. Recently I have been able to stay many places for a longer period of time and it is a different kind of trip... but I always want to travel as though I might not return, so I try to do it with no regrets, and if I am fortunate enough to go back, it is just a bonus.

I used to rent a car and drive as far as the car would go in 2 weeks. $9.00 per U.S. gallon of gasoline in Italy changed my mind about traveling. Now, we will stay in one great European city 4-5 nights and do some day trips out into the countryside.

Our trips are now researched carefully on the internet, and Wikipedia--and I know what sites to see before getting there. Our trips are no longer a blur, and we enjoy our trips much better.

I do suggest traveling in a straight line to cities that complement each other. Like visiting London and taking a Eurostar train down to Brussells and Paris. Or, visiting Venice, Florence and Rome. Or, hitting Prague, Vienna and Budapest.

And if time permits, European budget airlines would be a great way to visit a completely different place without breaking the bank. You could see one of the above triad city groupings--and then fly to Stockholm or Edinburgh or Lisbon.

Contrary to most other posters here, I am an aggressive traveler. My first trip was in 1994 with a 90-day Eurail pass and I used every line on the log-in at the back of the envelope. I traveled with various partners from my husband, then my adult daughter and her husband, one girl friend and then my sister. We never stayed any place more than 3 days and went everywhere - even Prague and a tour to Morocco. Was it worth it - for me, no question. DH and I are taking granddaughter on her "grand tour" in June when she graduates from high school. We took her brother and another granddaughter on the same basic itinerary in 2011. Sure, it is fast and furious but life changing for them. Everything is planned - train tickets bought, rooms reserved and reservations for Rome, Florence and Venice tours. We have 3 weeks and sometimes we will be tired but it works for us. This will be trip #16 and hoping for more. I love taking others, including friends, for their "trip of a lifetime". We have done a few less aggressive trips - like renting a canal boat in France for a week - but we were moving every night. Yeah, I know - excessive-:)

Barb

Barb

I'm like Barb, an aggressive traveler and I LOVE IT. Different strokes for different folks! I am an over planner and not very spontaneous, so if I follow my much researched, action packed day, I can see quite a lot. I factor in travel time and check in etc. I don't like a slow pace, I like activity. It costs a small fortune to get to Europe and I am going to cram in as much as I can handle. I don't feel short changed because I am not people watching in a small cafe and getting the vibe of the country. I am seeing and doing and will rest when I'm flying home! My schedule isn't so rigid that I can't deviate from my plans and just poke around, but so far I haven't wanted to do that, If I want a relaxing vacation, I will go to Hawaii, and for now I will enjoy every bit of my aggressive, ambitious time in Europe! A majority of the people on this forum prefer a much slower pace, like I said, different strokes for different folks! Happy travels!

I don't think the term "aggressive itineraries" is even very accurate or descriptive. These travelers aren't being aggressive, that's not the right word. They just prefer a busier itinerary than some of us. Maybe we should call it a "busy itinerary."

The more experienced I get as a traveler, the more I look for ways to slow things down. A great thing about travel is that it puts you in the moment, when we ordinarily live so much our our lives on autopilot. Especially for those of us who spend most of every workday staring at a computer screen. Travel lets (or forces) you to be present in the moment and acutely conscious of your surroundings - fully present, because you need to pay attention to deal with the logistics. When you slow down you are able to look beyond the sights, and just be in the place. Often more mundane experiences (lunch in a great cafe, walking a neighborhood, browsing in unique shops) or random interactions with locals end up being as memorable that the sights. The more you slow down, the better the chance that you will have those experiences. If you want to visit a wide variety of blockbuster sights in rapid succession, a tour is a great way to go. The down side is five hours on a bus on too many days for my taste. Another way to go would be to have a train pass, pack really light, and travel in places where the train connections are very efficient. The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, even the U.K. Rail passes don't tend to be a great deal as far as I have heard but if you really want to hustle and visit lots of places for a short time, they might make more sense. The Germany regional tickets are a great deal if you want to do that to. The regional pass within Bavaria is especially a good deal, as there are lots of places to go well connected by train, and it's a big province.

There are times when I choose to do a more aggressive itinerary and I still enjoy the trip. I pick places relatively close to one another so I am never in transit for more than 2-3 hours. And I go with the understanding that I am not going to see everything this trip. Ten days is my max for this kind of pace but everyone has a different stamina.

So yes, I think it is possible to enjoy a faster paced trip. I think the key is pick your cities carefully.

An aggressive itinerary can work with very aggressive planning. You need to really chart out realistic travel times, meal times, lines, closed days, walk times, everything. I can do it and I have. I may do it again, but I prefer a bit more time. I have a guideline of 3 nights unless I'm passing through in transit or really only want to see one thing in the place. Do I always follow this? No, but it's a good guide.

One place I am more comfortable rushing is with drive or transit times. I grew up with cross country US drives annually, so I think nothing of a 6 hour drive between town A (where I spent 4 days) and on to town B (where I will spend 5). The transit is fine, it's the time in the destination that I focus on.

My trips have sped up! My first ever trip to Europe was in 2000, to England. Sixteen nights. We chose four nights in Liverpool, three nights in Cotswolds, and nine nights in London. Loved every minute of it but wouldn't recommend it to anyone else. That's the weirdest itinerary for someone's first ever trip to England!

My optimal time for any one place is long enough that I've seen most of what interests me, but not so long that I don't feel a bit sad that its time to leave. Its difficult to judge for new places and that is why I rely on advice dispensed on these forums.

An itinerary aggressive, laid-back, or rushed is based on the one's pace of travel. I've done trips where changing hostels or hotels every one or two days was pretty much the norm with some longer stays of 4-5 days thrown in here and there. I'm still up for some of that depending on where and whether the energy level expended is worth it.

Now, I see well paced trip is spending a minimum of 3 nights in a hostel/Pension/small hotel to a max of 6 with these towns/cities as the itinerary London, Paris, Brussels, Munich, Minden, Leipzig, Berlin, Schwerin, Greifswald, Weimar, Vienna, Budapest, Brno, Krakow, Warsaw, plus a few day trips, using both day and night train options. True, an aggressive trip can be done provided it is well planned, along with route flexibility re: the trains, even backtracking a little, deoending on the purpose, and knowing what you want to track down upon reaching the destination.

I would basically recommend an aggressive trip of 3 weeks if the solo traveler is experienced, (knows what to expect and put up with), very determined to do it, plans it well out, knows specifically what his/her priorities are, plans on taking also buses, night trains, short as well as long train rides of more than six hrs, have a reminder/check list, have a great capacity to cope if things go awry, (money helps too), be willing to take public transportation, and if you're traveling with someone else, the other person has to be exactly in agreement, on the same page as regards to energy, interest, flexibility, coping level, and just as important, you have to be willing to split up for a few hours/day, ie rendezvous later, if not, forget it.

The word 'vacation' or 'holiday' hasn't come up much in this thread, but the word 'traveler' has come up plenty (in implied contrast to tourist [sorry to touch on that sore spot again]) If your time traveling has to satisfy many desires, including using up precious vacation hours wisely, then you want both novelty and relaxation, broadening experience and downtime.

In early trips to Europe, I didn't plan time for dining at all but just ate near whatever museum or sight I was at. Am now very grateful for a travel partner who showed me that attending to restaurant reviews and maps pays off in every way -- little time lost from the mind-broadening exercise and much gained in the way of waistline-broadening ever since then.

I can handle a run of 4 or 5 one-night stays only as long as there is a subsequent chance to spend half a day in a park or on a beach as part of a multi-night stop. Same for bathroom facilities -- I can put up with a shoulder-width shower stall if I know there's a jacuzzi tub waiting for me a day or two down the tracks. It's a vacation, fer heaven's sake, so things should be fun and easier than regular life.