hectic itineraries

Lots of interesting feelings, thanks I tend to be someone who hates being so rushed on trips that I can't experience things as they pop up. I'm not judging anyone's way of traveling , just think it's fun to see how the process of learning from traveling differs for all of us. I travel both by myself or with tours. I find there are advantages and of course disadvantages with both. Worse trip was with someone who wanted every minute planned and "needed" to experience "everything". All I could say the whole trip was ....we'll be back!! of course not with her. Thanks I enjoy the humor and information on this site.
I've been to Europe 15 times in the past 4 years. Ihad lots of cathing up to do

From what I've read, it seems to be a novice thing. My guess is that the usual cause is an underestimation of traveling times.

Yes, I think Tom is right as well as an under-estimation of how long it takes just to pack up and check out of hotels, then getting to the next hotel and figuring out where everything is in the next town.

im a hectic traveler. im used to the waking up in a new city every day thing. im beyond used to spending hoursssssss on a bus or train and finally reaching my destination and go go go go goooooooooo. its my lifestyle, its what i do. im accustomed to it, i love it. of course, its not for everyone. im also aware that there are times that hectic itineraries do come from lack of understanding travel times. when i started planning my upcoming trip, i made a list of every place i thought i could visit in one trip. while making detailed lists of everything i wanted to see, i had to adjust my plans and cut out some cities to afford more time in other places. its always a great idea to first make a list of EVERYTHING you want to see in one place and THEN decide how many days you need to do it all. i am an insane overplanner. if you figure you have enough time to visit two places but you dont realize that opening hours and lines cut into that, then you have truly messed up. i dont want to mess up. i figure out everything before i book a flight. i dont want to be stuck having to catch a flight from (wherever) and then realizing that the logisitcs of making it there involve hightailing it on a 24-hour train because i didnt realize i couldnt mosey my way there tourist style. its never a great idea to commit to two days somewhere and then go and research and find all the things you can not do because you didnt allot enough time.

I move at a pretty good clip but I try to be realistic about travel times. I, too, think two weeks isn't nearly enough time to see Rome, Paris, London and Prague in one trip. I try not to be overly critical, however, because it's people's time and money and really their own business how they spend it.

A novice thing, but also an American thing, and also a rational thing. Rational because we Americans do not get very much time off from work. So often we are spending thousands of dollars just to get there, and we have two weeks, two of which will be eaten by jet lag and departure. So 12 days to see as much as you can. I'm not saying that 12 1-night-stands are therefore optimal, but it does logically tilt preferences towards a more athletic style of travel. One of the strengths of Rick's books is that he recognizes and to some extent caters to this.

Q: 'how long it takes just to pack up and check out of hotels' A: Toss your shaving kit in the suitcase and walk out the door. Q: 'figuring out where everything is in the next town' A: Map. I ain't exactly a novice traveler. I'll be darned if I'm going to spend two days in a half-day spot.

Well I think the poster who brought up the time thing has a good point,, and frankly, Americans seem to get the least time off I have ever seen. They work at companies for like 10 years and get one week off or something,, maybe if lucky they can get 2 weeks, so of course they want to pack in alot of bang for their bucks( airfare is about the same whether you go for one week or three) Ed,, I don't visit "1/2 days spots, " and also, some places you do need more then a day just to get to the good stuff! I had a friend tell me that her and her boyfriend visited FOUR museums in ONE day in Paris,, they only had 4 days in Paris and wanted to see alot. I asked her which four museums they managed,, she said "SHE FORGOT",, well no wonder, pretty sure she absorbed nothing. ( I am still curious ,, which four could you see in a day and not end up brain dead! lol)

One reason that so many people come up with hectic itineraries is that they see that Rick Steves has a 21-day tour across a zillion countries or seven days in a couple dozen (I haven't counted) and think they can do the same on their own. The tours work because professionals have all the details worked out. I doubt if even the professions would try to cover that much ground on their own.

Roy, very good point,, I have only ever done one tour in my life, previous to it travelled independently. But when I decided to take my 11 yr old to Europe I wanted to see alot, with minimal hassle, and the Rick Steves Family Europe in 14 Days tour really fit the bill , we saw WAY more then I could of in same time frame,, oh yes, I could have done the same trip, but not on same timeline. Bus delivers you door to door, no waiting for trains, then finding your way to hotels and vice versus two days later, that eats up time. I would have never done the same itinerary independently,, tour of train stations is what that would have been.. I did however tack on 14 more days to trip, 7 before in Paris, then flew to Rome to meet tour, two days early, then 5 more days after tour in Paris. So we whirled a bit seeing alot of places, AND had time to really enjoy Paris.( plus had to bump Rome up to 4 days, sorry no way you can do Rome in two days!) Travelling independently does take alot more time. I love it,but I will do another RS tour later in life,, when I am tired of planning stuff, right now its still alot of fun!

My thought is that most folks are not frequent visitors to Europe. Usually the ones asking for itinerary advice seem to be first-time visitors. They do not think that they will be going back for another ten to twenty years, if ever again. Understandably, they want to see as much as possible in the limited amount of time off they can get from work. They figure they are paying more than $1000 to get over there, so better make it good. They don't see it as a vacation, but rather a tour. With a little TLC from this Helpline, I think most see the feasibility (or lack thereof) of their itinerary and make the necessary adjustments. What's really frustrating are the ones who take offense and get upset when they don't hear what they want. What surprises me is the number of first-time visitors who include the CT. I know it's wonderful, but there are other wonderful relaxed spots that would make more sense in their plan.
I agree. It's their time and money, so let them do what they think they would like.

A lot of good points here. Americans do have the least amount of paid time off amongst industrialized countries I think, although 2 weeks is actually pretty standard for most white-collar full-time jobs, not 1. Getting to Europe from the U.S. is very expensive (and getting more so) and as a result people want to get the best "bang for their buck" because as others have said, most people cannot afford to go every year or two, a trip to Europe is a once-in-a-decade thing, or even a once-in-a-lifetime thing. Before I moved here, I had no plans to visit Europe because our travel budget was limited and it's a lot cheaper to go to say, Central America than Europe. I could have a fabulous vacation in Mexico for 1/3 the price of going to Europe (and I actually prefer travel in Mexico to Europe - Heresy, I know!) That said, I still don't understand the impulse to pack in a bunch of sites/sights. I do want vacations to be relaxing - that's kind of the point, right? I like to have a mix of seeing things that are not too far away from each other, and PLANNED down time, be it hanging at a cafe, the beach, whatever. If people really prefer to spend 1 1/2 days in Paris, then rush off to Rome, then CT, then Switzerland, etc so they can "see" it, I guess that's fine, different strokes, but I wonder if even people who THINK they want that wouldn't be happier if they spent their entire 2 weeks in one country, spending several days at each location, really soaking it all in and you know...relaxing and enjoying the different culture and food and getting to know a place. Shrug Sounds a lot better to me, anyway.

Hectic itineraries not unique to Americans. Many years ago, I sat next to a German couple on a flight back to the U.S. Their daughter had been working as an au pair in DC and they were making their first trip to the U.S. to sightsee with her. They'd bought those air passes that the U.S. airlines used to sell to foreign travellers (I doubt they exist any more). Their trip included DC, Disney World, New York, Chicago, the Grand Canyon, California, and more places. All in less than 30 days. Just thinking about it makes me exhausted. I did plenty of hectic travelling in my 20s. Lots of one or two night stops, lots of night trains, etc. I loved it. I enjoyed having the wide variety of experiences. Along the way, I met many people from many different countries who were travelling at just as fast a pace. I think the biggest difference was that back in the 80s and early 90s, railpasses were a bargain and flights were expensive. Thus, I would do things like take a 3 week trip to Germany, Austria, and Switzerland and stay in 12 different towns as opposed to trying to stay in 12 different countries. Now, I appreciate the slower pace.

It isn't just an American thing. One of my German friends came to the U.S. for his spring break (2 weeks) and his itinerary was 2 days in Madison, WI; 2 days in Chicago; 2 days in San Francisco; 2 days in L.A.; 2 days in Flagstaff; 2 days in Phoenix; and home from there. I went to school in Illinois with a friend from Austria who was planning a crazy American tour after the school year ended - Chicago, Mount Rushmore, Las Vegas, San Francisco, L.A., and I don't even remember where else. She wanted to include Hawaii until I told her that the flight from the West Coast was like, 6 hours one way. I think people in general underestimate the size of the country or region they want to visit.

I don't know if it is an American or novice or man or woman thing.... I think it's just a personal thing. Sometimes I just like to skim through an area and other times spend more time...it all depends on my mood.
Each of us gives advice from our own experiences as well as our own travel style and the 'novice' can either follow that advice or follow their own dream. I just find it amazing when people give advice as though their opinion is the only one that matters... that no one could possibly have a good time seeing 'fake castles' or ' non-authentic' sights. There is plenty of Europe to go around to please all tourists.

sarah - " I do want vacations to be relaxing - that's kind of the point, right?" um.....no? it seems that YOU want your vacations to be relaxing. i say go for it! i personally think that FOR ME, spending thousands of dollars to relax is the biggest waste of my money. if i want to relax, i will do it for free on my porch, on my couch, at a local spa, in central park which is one block from me as i type this. i live a leisurely life, i dont need to travel to get some rest and relaxation and i most certainly would never ever go to EUROPE to relax. i go to europe to see europe. i run around like a lunatic because i am so excited and i want to see everything NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW. there is nothing wrong with you choosing to take relaxing vacations. just please dont assume that your way is the right way. its not for everyone.

Well, it's obvious we're all speaking to our own opinions here, I don't think there's much point in prefacing statements of opinion with "to each his own" or "different strokes" (although I do it sometimes here because people seem to get defensive otherwise!). There would be no point to having discussions on a board if people didn't have different opinions about things! But to clarify: when I say "relaxing" I don't mean sitting around the hotel doing nothing, I mean relaxing in such a way that you really get to soak in the culture and ambiance and food and feel of a place. Strolling around neighborhoods, 3 hour lunches, checking out local bars, sitting in a beautiful park like the gardens at the Palais Du Luxemborg with a bottle of French wine and a good historical book specific to the area - these things are relaxing and also things I can't do at home. Hiking in scenic areas, or spending half a day on a warm beach are all relaxing things that many people can't do at home, so it seems like a pretty justified use of vacation time to me. Obviously if that sounds terrible to people, they shouldn't do it. But I think most people would have more enjoyable, less stressful vacations if they gave themselves a little breathing room to relax once in a while instead of rushing from famous site to museum to another famous site constantly. But here's the obligatory "different strokes!" comment.

Well, this forum is more N. American centered with a few posters from down under and the UK. So, we might tend to think those newbie kind of whirlwind travel plans are American. All you have to do is check one of the other travel forums, like Fodors or Trip Advisor and there you find people from ALL over the world presenting whirlwind plans. This mostly comes from people not being very familiar with the geography of a place. Ask some one from Australia how many tourists think they can quickly travel around their country without knowing how far away all the cities are. Another problem is people are used to places like Disney, where all the attractions are next to each other, and when they are planning a trip, they think cities are like that too. That all the attractions in Paris are lined up, one after another, with little time needed to see them or to go from one to the other. If they come from a city with little public transportation, the simple act of riding around town on trams and buses, let alone go underground where you can't see where you are going, is completely disorienting. Thus, they have no idea how much time will be spent getting lost, getting on the wrong train, or going the wrong direction. Trying to read signs that are in another language, until you have done it, often doesn't even occur to people who have never been in another country. I can see the attraction though of zipping around, getting just a taste of many different countries for a first visit. Perhaps seeing where you would like to come the next time, for a longer visit. Frankly, some people don't like to just sit around "soaking up the atmosphere". I feel the same way about those who say don't plan all big cities, go stay out in the country. Why would I want to do that? It isn't boring, but that is not how I want to spend my vacation.

I recall about 20-25 years ago there was a "speed-reading" craze. Everywhere you looked there was a course in speed-reading. The concept never interested me much, but I remember wondering how anyone could find that enjoyable. The only advantage I could see in speed-reading was that you could quickly get the gist of what was being said without any detail. Hectic travel is like that. It's like reading a book to get the basic plot points without ever getting to know the characters or savoring the author's craft with language. The question then becomes; What, if anything, are we supposed to do about it? And I think the answer is; not much. Rick Steves' advice to assume you will return is good advice, but usually falls on deaf ears. I think the only practical thing we can do is point out when the timing of transitions from place to place becomes borderline impossible. It's not particularly helpful to tell someone with two weeks vacation and who honestly thinks this could be the only time in their life to see Europe to slow down and smell the roses. I never got the chance to do the college-kid-with-a-rail-pass thing when I was younger, but I suspect I would have seen a different city every day and loved every minute. That makes less sense (and is less practical) for older citizens like most of us, but it can be done. One of my dream trips that I have not yet had the chance to do is to bicycle across a segment of Europe. Most people, upon hearing that, would consider it a wonderfully romantic way to "slow" travel. But If I did it, I would change locations almost every day and spend 3-6 hours each day biking in transition from place to place. If someone came here asking advice on doing a similarly timed vacation by train we would probably imply that they were crazy. It's all a matter of perspective.

American novice thing. We look at a map of Europe and everything seems so close compared to our country. We all have our preferences and my next trip will be to go to fewer destinations and have more time to enjoy them. Any itinerary with less than 3 days in Rome makes me feel sorry for the planner.

my research of rome shows me that two days is plenty for me. you can feel bad for me all you want, but id waste feelings of pity for people who are homeless or terminally ill. not for someone zipping around rome having THE time of her life.

When I first started traveling in Europe, I spent only a couple of days in a few places. You can arrive, settle into a hotel/hostel, scout around and get an overview. Then you can spend the entire second day seeing what you are interested in or just walking all over the place. It's a reasonable way to travel if you want to see lots in a fairly short time. Now, I spend more time in fewer places. I still find interesting things to see and do wherever I am.

I also think maybe there's two different "ways" of traveling hectically. For instance, I tend to do a lot of overnight trips and weekend trips even though most people here say "never stay just one night somewhere!" But that's how it works out with our schedule and obviously being here we know we can return if we want to. But I think it can be fine for people coming from afar as well under some circumstances. I don't necessarily think people doing 1 nights (or 2 nights in major cities) is pointless, stupid, etc. It has more to do with how long they're going to be in transit versus time on the ground enjoying stuff. Traveling the Romantic Road staying one night in several towns a couple hours or less apart from each other is not "hectic" travel! Jumping from major city to major city with total transit times of 6 hours or more in between could be characterized that way, however. But what I think of "hectic" itineraries is having nearly every second of your time accounted for trying to rush from sight to sight without any downtime or time to slow down and savor what you're looking at or where you are. That kind of travel I find personally anxiety-invoking for two reasons: 1) because if I'm interested in something I don't just wanna hit it and quit it, I want to really see it/experience it. 2) most importantly, most of us are just not really capable of spending all of our time sightseeing, walking, in transit without a break for 7 days or 10 days or 14 days. Exhaustion sets in. People get cranky. Stuff starts to swim together and blend in to the point where you don't know what you saw or did or ate 2 days ago because you're constantly on the move and experiencing new things. Cont.

So my distaste for hectic itineraries is not so much a moral judgement - "my style of travel is more cultured/better than yours!" but just a practical concern. Traveling with stressed out, exhausted, anxious people who are trying to see as much as possible in as short amount of time as possible is in my experience not a lot of fun at all. And usually responsible for a few breakdowns/tears (and I'm talking about adults, and I'm including myself!) If people can travel this way without getting stressed out or tired, more power to 'em. The young seem to be better at this (I know I was when I was a teen). But I think for most of us it pays to leave a bit of "wiggle room" in our itineraries for a break for the sake of your mental and physical health even if you're still gonna move at a pretty good clip. People just need downtime. And I don't think this is super controversial, doesn't RS advocate for a "vacation from your vacation"? It's good advice. I've done hectic itineraries with other people enjoy to last me one lifetime. I'm looking forward to taking a vacation this summer that will involve checking into an apartment for one week and not staying anywhere else. Does this mean, in the long run, I'm going to not see other places in Europe I want to see? Probably, I'm limited by funds and time like everyone else. But the idea of spending a week in Paris or Provence or Spain in one place sounds magical to me after my whirlwind last summer. That's my 2 cents on hectic travel.

I'm a SAHM who can relax as much as she wants to at home, and has very limited $$$ for travel. I am treating myself to a whirlwind trip of Italy for my 40th birthday in May with no hubby or kids, only my BFF. I intend to see LOTS, because who knows when I'll ever get back to Europe again? My folks just got back from driving around the USA, starting in Oregon, all the way to Philedelphia, down to Key West, along the Gulf Coast, thru Texas, and back to Oregon in less than 3 weeks. They had a BLAST!

While I travel to SEE things, I also travel to EXPERIENCE things and I find it hard to do that when moving too fast. We've been to many of the major tourist towns in Europe such as Paris, London, and Amsterdam but as more mature travellers, we find that we much more enjoy smaller places with character. We rarely spend less than 2 days in one place and usually like to stay 3 to 4 days or more so we can really experience the feel of a town. It's not how many museums or churches you can see, but how many of the local people can you interact with and how many long walks you can take to soak up the scenery. Everyone has to discover for themselves how they want to travel. Some people don't like to stand still, don't know how to relax. I like to take it slow.