First Trip To Europe - Please Help With My Itinerary!

This is not the worst itinerary I've seen from a first-time traveler who wants to see a lot in a limited amount of time.

However, I think you will be happier if you cut back some.

Rick's recommended itineraries are fast paced. They assume you will never get lost, never be delayed, never have trouble finding your lodging, never waste any time, never get tired, and make all the most efficient travel connections. In real life, things never go that smoothly. In addition, his itineraries really give you a flavor of places without the opportunity to get beyond the surface.

That said, if you want to see all these cities and just get that bit of flavor, there's nothing wrong with this itinerary. But by the time you get home, you will be trying to remember what you saw in Florence. Everything will blur together in your memory.

Given that you're planning this for April, i think I'd skip the Cinque Terre. In April it might be nice, but if not, you'll just spend two days sitting around wishing you were somewhere else, because the main things to do there are about being outside.

With 17 days on the ground, I'd suggest you stick with one geographical area. Since Italy seems to have captured your fancy, maybe you should consider spending all 17 days there. You could certainly add a day or two to each of the four cities there, and you could add Naples.

If you really want to see at least one city outside Italy, any of Budapest, Prague, and Paris are great options. There's no right or best answer there.

Enjoy planning your trip, and as you narrow things down, be sure to come back and ask more specific questions.

Cut out the CT and Prague, add the days to Paris, Rome and Florence and you have a great first trip. Chances are you'll find more International Flights to Rome and Paris in which case start in Rome and end in Paris. Venice to Paris flights are cheap and plentiful. I've done Amsterdam, Venice, Florence, Siena, Tuscany, Rome, Paris over 21 days.

Your itinerary involves four flight days and some very short stays. Flying is disruptive and takes more time and energy than you would imagine, especially if you are not an experienced traveler. Plus, you have mostly big, touristy places on your itinerary. Big cities can be disorienting and take a lot of time to get your bearings in. Two to three nights in Prague and then Paris is barely going to give you enough time to find your way around before you have to pack up and head back to the airport.

If you have this much time, I would try to devote it to just one area - Italy probably based on what you have posted. I'd stay longer in Venice, Florence, and Rome - and maybe even add Pompeii/Naples/Sorrento for a couple of nights. But your basic itinerary of flying into Venice out of Rome is great.

You're young. Plan to come back and visit France another time and Prague another time.

You might want to consider cutting back on the number of stops. It is an interesting idea to use the RS tour itinerary as a model. However keep in mind that on the RS tour transportation is handled for you. Sometimes travelers underestimate the stress caused packing, unpacking and travelling from place to place. It is also stressful to deal with changes in language, culture and currencies.

Rick Steves says (and I agree) that Rome and Paris each deserve a week’s visit.

You can expect that most responders here will say that you are not spending enough time in any one place to really "know" a location. And that may be true. But there is something to be said for experiencing places more on the surface. For example, we have been to Paris twice and spent a grand total of 6 days there. So, I can't say that I really "know" Paris the way that someone who spends a month, season or year does. But, is it enough for you? For me/us it is. There are places that I want to return to but to some extent there is something to be said to just briefly experiencing a city/region. There are a lot of places to see in this world and if I spent a month in each one I would miss out on seeing many, many places. And it just wouldn't be feasible from a financial / life standpoint. So. my advice is to travel light and don't worry as much as some on here say about seeing several places. That being said, I like Budapest more than Paris, but I think everyone should be able to say they have been to Paris. And, Prague is one of my top 5 places in Europe. And, we have been to Venice twice and I still really don't like it. But I guess those stops are part of your RS tour.

The main consideration on your trip is how much time you will be in transit. We took the first part of your trip in early June. The train from Venice to Cinque Terre can take anywhere from 5.5 to 6.5 hours with multiple changes. The train from Cinque Terre to Florence takes 2.5 to 3 hours. While the Cinque Terre is lovely and we are glad we went, if we had to do it over, we would have spent more time in the Cinque Terre or cut it out altogether and spent more time in Florence.

Every time you change a location, a good rule of thumb is you lose 1/2 day to travel unless you are going a really short distance.

It is always challenging planning a trip, my husband and I are very active travelers and we always have to remind ourselves to pace the trip so that you have time to relax and enjoy. In planning over the years, I have repurposed the famous Coco Chanel quote about accessories: Before you leave the house, look in the mirror and take at least one thing off.” for travel: Before I leave on the trip, look at the itinerary and take at least one thing off.

Whatever you decide, enjoy the journey.

Sandy

Here's one man's opinion on Cinque Terre.

If you're like me, you have spoken to a great many friends on their eve of a trip to Italy, who have made a point of saying that they would include the "Cinque Terre" in their itinerary. And when you have asked them why they were planning a detour to these out-of-the-way, cliffside towns on the northwest coast of Italy, they have responded somewhat sheepishly that the Cinque Terre were recommended by a television personality. To which you have then attempted to discourage them from this choice, but to no avail.

FWIW, I'd pick one region & do that this time. Do another sometime later.

Is this too much travel?

If you are a contestant on The Amazing Race, the answer is 'no'

In just about any other circumstance, the answer is 'yes'

3 countries, 7 locations, 16 days = endurance test, not a vacation trip

I took part of the Rick Steve’s three week itinerary and then added Prague and Paris.

You took a 3 week itinerary, added two widely separated places and crammed it into just a bit over 2 weeks.

I agree with elkjer that there's nothing wrong with a "tasting platter" approach to a place - a short visit designed just to hit some highlights and see how you like it.

However, the problem is that flying takes not only time, but energy. Trains take less energy once you're used to them, but if you're not, there's also a learning curve to these.

Also, three nights means only two full days. A series of 2 and 3 night stays, particularly in different countries, becomes tiring. Don't underestimate the adjustment you make in each new country - different language, different money (in Prague), different meal times, etc.

Even if you do want a tasting platter trip, I'd eliminate either Prague or Paris, so you only have one flight. Put at least one extra day to Venice, since it's your arrival city. The day of arrival is often a jet-lagged haze, so you will want more time in the arrival city.

First of all, congrats on the good start on planning! It sounds like the two of you are going to have an amazing adventure.

Second of all, a lot of travel depends on your own traveling style and what you expect to see/want to get out of each location. Do you want to checkmark places just to say 'been there' and see just a glimpse of each place? Do you want to feel like you've had a taste of the place? Are there specific sites you NEED to see or specific activities you NEED to experience to enjoy the trip? If the latter is the case, then it's a good idea to make a second list of places/experiences you're hoping to have on your adventure.

Last - and possibly least, depending on your travel style - you have whole days marked off for your flight days (well done!), but the transit days in Italy provide no such buffer. I always assume a half day is going to be spent getting from point A to point B, and I do that based on past experience. Sometimes it's less. Sometimes it is more. Sometimes things go amiss which require even the best of travelers to make alternate plans.

At present, it doesn't look like you have much time to spend in your Italian cities. If it were me, I'd skip the Cinque Terre and Sienna as dedicated locations. I'd devote my days to Venice, Florence & Rome. You can always make day trips from these locations.

Whatever you decide, it's totally your call. Just think about how you like to travel and what you're wanting to see while you're in Europe.

I loved the Cinque Terre - have visited three times. In April, it may not be quite as crowded, and if the trails are open and weather is decent, it could be a great time to visit. I highly recommend including it as a contrast to the other places on the Italy part of the itinerary which are much older, big cities, lots of art and history...the Cinque Terre is more about charm and scenery.

Sorry, but I too agree that you are trying to cover far too much, particularly as you are going to be travelling during the school Easter holidays, when everywhere will be busier. Drop Prague, the outlier.

Venice is unique and by the time you get to your hotel from a noon flight arrival, it will be 3pm and you’ll be jet lagged. You have only allowed one day here (and you will still be tired) before you move onto the (overrated) CT. Even scratching at the surface, Venice is a 3 full day place.

Personally, I would stick to Italy, as I would be frustrated with only 2 days in Paris. If Paris is a must, I would drop CT and add a night each to Florence and Sienna.

I suggest paring down your visit to fewer places.

For example Cinque Terre is great to visit, but geographically away from The Venice, Florence, Rome route. You can do Siena on a day trip from Florence. I suggest you do that and not stay two nights in Siena.

Add more time to Florence, two nights is way not enough. Go with at least four. Also, Rome could use more time.

Then, I would pick either Prague or Paris. For a first trip to Europe, go with Paris.

You can always go back. Visit Prague when you plan on visiting places like Vienna, Munich or Berlin.

As others have said, there is nothing wrong with a "tasting platter" tour. After this you may have two or three places you want to return to and spend more time in. I hope your camera/phone has a GPS so you can place your pictures on the map when you come home, because the places will be a bit of a blur at that time. I will even go against some peoples advice and recommend that your first action in a new city (after checking in to your hotel) is to take a HOHO bus (if it exists in that city - it doesn't exist in Venice) to give you a "tasting platter" of the morsel - I mean city.

And I love Venice so I think one (jet lagged) day is not enough there.

I’m really grateful for all the responses so far. I think I knew I needed to cut something, but it’s tough not knowing how long it will be until I can come back to Europe to remove something from the itinerary. But hearing most of you agree that I need to cut something and knowing that you’re experienced travelers will help me to actually do it (and hopefully have a better trip because I did), so thank you!

I’m weighing my options and looking into what everyone has said, but now what I’m leaning towards is cutting CT and Prague (5 days) and adding 1 day each to Venice, Florence, Rome, and Paris (4 days).

What I’m wondering now is what to do with the extra day? I’m considering maybe going to a smaller town in between Siena and Rome on the way (maybe Assisi or something?), and that would help contrast some of the big cities on my itinerary. Does anyone have any thoughts to my proposed changes? If a small Tuscan town would be a good idea? And if so, if Assisi would be a good one? Or other recommendations? Thanks again for the responses so far!

Don't mean to be Debbie Downer and rain on your parade, just offering food for thought. Even though it sounds as if you just want a once over lightly, in my opinion it is still just too much.

Keep two night stays to a minimum. Try for three or four night stays with day trips from those locations.

The reason for offering that thought is this: It almost always takes longer to change locations than anticipated even when everything goes well (and often times it doesn't). It's not just the actual travel time, its the packing up, checking out, getting to the train station, finding the track and waiting for the train. Then, upon arrival, you have to clear the terminal, get a taxi, get to your hotel, check in (if your room is ready), and unpack to some degree.

You want good memories of unique sights, good food, good wine, and people you'll meet. I'm afraid with your plans you'll only have blurred memories of taxi rides, train stations, and riding the rails.

What you are proposing is doable and I wish you well if you proceed. But it might be wise to consider scaling way back on the itinerary.

I’m weighing my options and looking into what everyone has said, but now what I’m leaning towards is cutting CT and Prague (5 days) and adding 1 day each to Venice, Florence, Rome, and Paris (4 days).

What I’m wondering now is what to do with the extra day?

I would add yet another day to Paris.

It's a massive city with tons of sights and great day trips. Plus, it's the final leg of your trip, so you can savor it a bit more before you have to pack up and fly out.

"extra day"

You could add it to Paris or Rome and make good use of it that way.

For a bit of a change you could spend 1 night in Orvieto, on your way to Rome, just to have a bit of a different experience

Your revised plan looks much better from an 'enjoyment' standpoint

I'll add a couple of things to the fewer places, more time in each place argument.

1. If you're visiting fewer places, that gives you more time to research each place and plan. A common rookie mistake is underestimating the amount of time it takes to get from sight to sight. Public transportation is usually excellent, but it isn't a TARDIS, it takes time to get from one sight to another.

2. While inter city trains are excellent, they're not always the relaxing bliss that Rick shows in his travel videos. Yes, they have screaming babies, loudmouths doing conference calls on the phone, and all the usual hassles that you can find anywhere.

3. I assume, with that much moving around, you're looking at hotels rather than apartments. If you're looking at Rick's suggestions, keep in mind that you might burn out on the 'local charm' in some of the places after you've hauled bags up several steps of stairs and been unlucky enough to get a shoebox special with a sagging mattress. With chains, you're likely to get consistent quality, but you'd want to research the area to make sure you're reasonably close to the tourist attractions you've come to see and not in a suburb or an area surrounded by office parks.

I agree that you should choose Paris OR Prague. If it were me, I would choose Paris, especially if it were my first trip to Europe. A European trip to the highlights of Italy and Paris over 2+ weeks sounds wonderful.

One of Italy's highlights for me is a visit to Pompeii, Sorrento, and the Amalfi Coast. If it were me, I'd strongly consider to take 2 nights from Prague and add a trip to Pompeii en route from Rome and a day to visit the Amalfi Coast. 2 nights in Sorrento. Skip Cinque Terre this trip and add an additional night in Venice. Take the 3rd night from Prague and one of the Cinque Terre nights and add them to Paris.

Fly from Napoli to Paris (it should take about 1.5 hours to get to the Naples airport from Sorrento and cost about 10 Euro). You could also consider to fly from Rome, but only if the flights are super-cheap. It would take 3.5+ hours by train to get from Sorrento to the Rome airport and cost about 100+ Euro! Plus, you still have to fly to Paris, so that would make for a long travel day. But, it is doable with an early start and good planning.

4/1 - Venice (flight arrives at noon)
4/2 - Venice
4/3 - Venice
4/4 - Florence (2-hour train)
4/5 - Florence
4/6 - Siena (1.5-hour train)
4/7 - Siena
4/8 - Rome (3-hour direct bus or 3+-hour train via Florence)
4/9 - Rome
4/10 -Rome
4/11 - Sorrento (1+-hour morning train to Napoli, 30-minute Circumvesuviana train to Pompeii. Visit Pompeii, then when ready 30 minutes further to Sorrento)
4/12 - Sorrento (To visit Amalfi, consider bus ride [1.5 hours one-way] or taxi [45-60 minutes one-way] and 1-hour ferry back).
4/13 - Fly to Paris (from Napoli airport, see above. 1.5 hour train and 2-hour flight, but give yourself plenty of time for check-in, security, etc.!)
4/14 - Paris
4/15 - Paris
4/16 - Paris
4/17 - Paris
4/18 - Fly home

FWIW you have a lot of very short stays in places that aren't served well by short stays. Three nights in Rome doesn't begin to allow you to see even the major sights, same with two days for Paris.

Venice is nice, you will essentially give yourself one day to see the town (arriving noon is more like getting into your hotel in time to get ready for dinner and a walk). That's plenty ONLY if you have reviewed the sights and decided only a couple interest you. Understand, you won't have time to visit Burano or Murano, which is fine if you don't want to.

Venice to Cinque Terra is a long haul. Personally I'd skip it. They roll up the sidewalks there outside of high season. Sometimes the weekends are lively if there is good weather, but not the weekdays. I think you may be disappointed anytime but especially in April.

Florence is great but it's going to take a good part of a day to get there from Venice (we had a car and it took 1 1/2 hours just to recover the car from secured parking). You will essentially give yourself a day to see the cradle of the renaissance. No problem, if you only want to see a couple sights.

I do think you are giving enough time for Siena. I really like Siena but there aren't as many must sees there as some of your other destinations.

I like Orvieto as another stop on the way to Rome. It's in Umbria (not Tuscany) about half way between Siena and Rome. It offers a lot more than most hill towns (major Cathedral, underground tours).

Three nights in Rome doesn't leave room for much. When I ask myself how long to stay in a destination, the answer depends on how many sights I decide are "must see" (for me). Once I've decided my must sees, I divide by two and that's how many days I need. I plan one big sight in the morning, lunch, and another big sight in the afternoon. I keep a list of smaller sights/quick visits in my back pocket. As time is available, I'll visit those knowing I may skip everything on that list. I don't plan an evening sight (other than dinner and a stroll) unless I'm up for it at the time. Cramming too much into your days turns your dream vacation into a death march. Also realize most travel days (starting in a different place than you end up) take up most of your day. If you're lucky, you may have time for one sight that day. Experience has taught me not to plan on it; it's a bonus if I have time for a sight but I'm not running behind if I don't.

Paris is like Rome, so many things to see a couple days doesn't begin to do it justice.