Is my 21 day Eurotrip itinerary impossible?!

I'd cut one if not two or three cities. Are you flying out of Amsterdam? Where you are flying out of will make a difference in what makes the most sense to cut. London, Paris, Venice, Rome makes great sense if you fly out of Rome. Prague and Barcelona are the furthest out of your way. Those are the two I'd cut.

Before you get plane tickets between cities, consider the time and expense involved in getting to and from airports to city centers and time that you will lose to airport security. Train times are pretty much city center to city center. Also train fares for tickets bought well in advance are usually much cheaper than guidebook estimates. The Man in Seat 61 is a great train resource.

Travel by train from London to Paris, Paris to Amsterdam, and Rome to Venice is probably faster by train.

I'm averaging each trip will take about 5 hours; 1.5 hrs to and from
airport, 2 hrs before flight and 1-2 hr flights. That would allow
about 2.7 days in all cities

clock time is not the same as tourism time. By which I mean that even if your calculations are right about 5 hours of travel time, those are prime daylight hours. A lot of every 24 hours don't really count as much for travel. 3am in a hotel room in Paris or Rome isn't that much different than 3am in your home. The tourist day as far as sightseeing goes is perhaps 8am to 7pm, probably a bit less if you're not a particularly early riser. Subtract off some time for lunch, resting your feet, etc. and you might have 10 usable hours a day. You're going to be spending at least 1/2 of those usable hours every 3rd day. Maybe even more, depending on what time the flight is; you aren't going to be doing anything in your departure city before you leave for the airport, so that time might as well be added on to your travel time.

I'd also say that 1.5 hours to/from the airport is way optimistic. You need to check out of your hotel, get to the airport (which, including the time waiting for the next RER train or whatever, is more likely to be around 1 hour). When the plane touches down figure 30 minutes until you're actually off the plane. Then you need to find your way out of the airport, buy a ticket for the next transit system and figure out how to get to the stop nearest your hotel, then get to the hotel and drop your bags. I'm going to say this time is more like 3 hours total for to/from.

Also I don't know what time the flights you see are, but the really cheap ones tend to be the 7 or 8am flights. So every 3rd day you're going to be getting up at 5am. You're young, maybe you don't mind, but many people would find that exhausting.

Jen,

I'm flying out of London as well so I was planning on going in a full circle. Start going south and end up in Amsterdam and then London to fly home. I'm thinking Barcelona might be too out of the way also but Rome is also extremely south.

John,
I should definitely add more time to traveling to and from the airport. Even in everyday situations I'm terrible at estimating how long things will take. I thought I was being generous with the 1.5 hours to and from the airport. Haha! Does Europe have uber or any similar taxi services? And let's just say that it did work out to 2.7 days per city, do you think that's enough time to get a sense of the city?

Thank you for your helpful replies!

You can do this trip as planned if you have lots of energy and can afford it. Two plus days in a city can give you a good taste of the place. It will help a lot if you do lots of homework to plan activities and learn something about these cities. Reserve lodging, buy train/plane tickets, have information in convenient form. Maybe track everything on iPhone or iPad. I took one of these whirlwind trips the first time I went to Europe. I traveled by train with a rail pass and stayed in hotels close to train stations. Of course, if you pare this list to about four cities, you can have a more leisurely, relaxed vacation.

You are young and should have many chances (hopefully) to return to Europe. I understand wanting to jam a lot in (been there, done that in 2010, not fun - even our first trip over in 2008 was too ambitious). This trip would exhaust me. Having spent 10 nights in Rome over two trips, about that many in Paris over 3, about 10 nights in Venice over 4 trips and about 15 nights in London over 5 trips - I still haven't seen everything. You will certainly 'see' these places, but not 'experience' them - I feel like the trip would just be a blur - but you know your travel style (or will soon find out - it's stressful enough for my husband and I who have been together 25 years! Every trip he says - I'm not travelling with you again...but he always does ;) ).

Even just figuring out public transport is stressful, not to mention so many flights. I agree with the others about cutting out the outliers...it's much more enjoyable to stay put.

And you also have to figure a few hours lost getting from the airports to your accommodations and into the city - I used to pooh-pooh that notion, but it is totally true. We did 2 nights in Florence a few years ago and I thought - oh, that'll give us the better part of a day and another day...well, we spent a few extra hours in Venice, totally went to the wrong bus stop in Florence by the train station (should have taken a taxi) and wasted almost an hour, plus getting to our accoms. Crammed on the bus - by the time we got to our accoms, our half a day to sightsee was lost as it was too late to head back into the city center...we found a pizza joint nearby and just hung out in our room. DON'T underestimate how long it takes to move about...

You don't want to just pop into these major cities and then leave to keep a schedule... If you stayed the "bare minimum" number of nights in each of these 3 cities, that's about 2 of your 3 weeks. (I acknowledge these minimums are subjective, but I submit that most of us would be on the same page.) From these numbers, I would subtract "1" to get the number of sightseeing DAYS that you actually have available after transport, checking in and out, using the Tube or Metro, etc. And since you've always wanted to see these places, YOU will probably need additional nights. They're big and they take time.

London - 4-5 nights
Paris - 4-5 nights
Amsterdam - 3-4 nights

Then I think the wise traveler asks... what interests me nearby? What about an outing to the D-Day beaches in Normandy? Or a bike ride through the tulips or a visit to Zaanse Schans or Delft, or maybe a stop between Paris and A'dam in lovely Bruges? Save time for such places. And save the other destinations for another trip.

I'm going to come down on the other side of the fence from the majority. You're young and ambitious, this is your first time, and you want a taste of the cities you've always wanted to see. I say "go for it"! You'll have plenty of time in the future to go back and smell the roses. This is fine for a first, exploratory, trip. If you don't mind the moving around every 3 days or so, then who are we to say you shouldn't. The only thing I might suggest is that if Prague is not in your top 3 want to visit cities that you drop that for another time. It's the only real 'outlier' on your trip. That would give you a little more breathing room in the other cities, especially Venice since that will take the most time to get to and from.

Enjoy your trip and I'm sure you'll be back again and again in the future. European travel will grab you by the "fill in the blank" and never let go.

Unless you are good at sleeping on night trains, I would significantly reduce your number of destinations. Flights may look cheaper, but the airports will all be miles out of the city, which will cost quite a bit to get to and take time. Most places are an hour to the airport, two hours before the flight, say 1.0/1.5 hour flight, an hour to get out of the airport and at least an hour to your accommodation after waiting for train or bus. Trains run into city centres, saving you time.

You will lose an hour between London and the rest of Europe. The first day wherever will be getting over jetlag.

Most places that you want to visit are worth more than three full days just to scratch the surface.

Wherever you end, fly back open jaw from there rather than the time and cost of getting back to London.

I would recommend London, Eurostar to Paris (book 6 months in advance for the best prices) then Rome and Venice or Barcelona. From London, you could have 4 or 5 days looking round there and do day trips to Bath, Hampton Court and take a boat to Greenwich for the day or Brighton. In Paris, have a day in Versailles.

Does Europe have uber or any similar taxi services? And let's just say that it did work out to 2.7 days per city, do you think that's enough time to get a sense of the city?

Airports in Paris, Rome, etc are located 20+ miles away to avoid constant jet noise. Taking a taxi is more convenient but actually slower than public transit since they have to go thru miles of traffic.

My estimate is you'll have 3 hours or so on the travel day plus the following 2 days to see each city. Is that enough time? Nobody can say, its up to you. There was a post recently by someone who wanted to do a trip like yours, on a previous trip they had stayed for 5 nites in each city and were ready to leave after 3. Many others, myself included, would think that 2 days plus change per major city would be a tiring pace and barely allow time to get a good sense of the place. Where do you fall? Dunno.

I would also add that just like travel time, its easy to overestimate how much you can see per day. If you take a guided tour like the ones RS offers you have a guide that can easily lead the group from place to place, plus they have reservations at museums and the like. On your own you need to queue to get in. You also need to figure out how to get around and while it is fun in a way to pinch yourself and say "I'm walking around in London" , it takes time and can be a bit confusing in unfamiliar setting; 30 minutes to an hour slips away each time you go somewhere. A quick illustration - suppose you're going to Notre Dame and you take the metro to St-Michel, about 400 yards away, St-Michel. Look at the photosphere at https://goo.gl/maps/9cVzVFPYhpT2 and ask yourself which direction to walk. I'd say that 3 sights/places per day is a decent estimate. For example the Louvre, a left-bank walk, and a visit to the Luxembourg gardens. Flip thru some guidebooks (to put in a plug, the RS books are my favorite) and see if 6-7 areas/museums/monuments per city are enough for you.

I agree with Jen about taking trains between some places. When I was your age, that schedule was fine. In fact when planning a trip to some of those places, I allotted a similar time in Barcelona, Venice, and Rome. I know that there is much more that can be seen in each place, but I think the highlights are doable in 2 days.

If you were going to the US for the first time, would you want to see Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, New Orleans, and Chicago in 21 days? If you would, your itinerary is fine. If not, cut some places.

That's not snark, just reality. If you like zipping around (and some do), you'll be fine. If not, you'll be sorry. And it's not that your cities aren't worthwhile - there's just a lot of them.

My bigger concern is cost. When pricing getting between cities, you not only have to account for the flights. You also have to add the fees for checking bags (hard to avoid on budget flights, as they have very low carry-on allowances and the allowances are strictly enforced). You have to get from the airport to the city and vice-versa - the cheap ways are often time-consuming, and taxis are often expensive. Also, with such short time in a place, you're less likely to have time to look for cheaper things, but will take whatever's handy (eg, food), which costs more. You'll also probably be taking more taxis within cities (again, time shortage to see things).

All of us have had to cut things on a trip, and know how hard it is. But it really does make for a better trip - we promise.

I agree with the majority that this is overly ambitious. These are cities where three full days is the minimum, Prague and Venice you could get away with two full days. And some of those cities even with three full days it will seem like too little. I am always strongly predisposed to train over plane for a lot of reasons. A one hour flight is more like five hours or more door to door. Planes are more subject to delay and are a much bigger hassle than the train – also less comfortable. A lot of times the overhead compartments on planes within Europe are very small, and you're not going to buy new toiletries at every stop so you'll definitely have to check a back each time. London-Paris-Venice-Rome would make more sense, with perhaps a plan from Paris to Venice. I guess some people don't sleep well on overnight trains but I have always enjoyed them and never had trouble sleeping. There used to be a night train from Paris to Venice. Also be aware that this is an expensive way to travel though, moving around a lot over long distances and staying in big cities. It's not uncommon for people that are new to traveling to want to focus on the big name cities, and all of those places are great stops. Don't feel as if you have to do it all on your first trip though.

Rick's generic advice: https://www.ricksteves.com/travel-tips/trip-planning/itinerary-tips

Minimize one-night stands.

Leave some slack in your itinerary.

Assume you will return.

For those responders discouraging the OP from the ambitious itinerary, maybe a comparison is in order.

On the RS Best of Europe in 21 days, there are visits to 5 major cities (Amsterdam, Paris, Rome, Florence, Venice) and visits to 6 other areas (Bacharach (Rhine), Rothenburg, Reutte, Cinque Terre, Lauterbrunen Valley, and Beaune). Admittedly the transportation is easier due to tour bus, but the OP is planning on 4 fewer locations so that should equal out. Also, the RS tour only stays in places 1 or 2 nights so there is lots more packing and unpacking and moving from hotel to hotel and less time in each city for sightseeing. I don't remember anyone on here trying to discourage someone from taking that tour as an introduction to Europe. In fact, many here have done it and enjoyed it. Sure it's exhausting but it's a good exhaustion - you can rest when you get home.

On another note, the total physical distances on this proposed itinerary are quite a bit smaller than those in the US as proposed as a comparison and transportation between them is much quicker and more efficient than in the US so it's not a true comparison.

When you're young and energetic you can accomplish a lot in a short time, much more so than when you get older and get that 'urge' to slow down. I would encourage the OP to discuss it with her boyfriend, read and appreciate all of the responses here (both positive and negative), and do lots of research regarding the transport between locations and how much time it will take. As long as they are informed and prepared it's an entirely doable itinerary.

Agree with Nancy.... And go for it. My first trip was 18 days and I drove and visited 9 countries (some small and close) but it gave us a taste and that was all I needed. That was about 16 years ago and I have returned about 25 times.... My daughter (who was 21 at the time) went on to grad school, PhDs, marriage, 3 kids etc. has not yet returned.... But we both absolutely loved that trip and were awe struck by all our experiences. You can slow down and smell the roses when you are old.... But at least you will know which ones you want to smell!

Assuming you will return is a great line.... However, life can take over, so, I would rather travel with no regrets and see as much as I want to... Then if I am lucky enough to return I know what are my favorite places.

I have been in lots of cities that I could enjoy for a day. Make it your trip and you can sleep when you get home! I would rather leave a place wanting more than to find myself wishing it was time to move on. Everyone likes different places...so I would see everything possible the first trip .

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. You all helped me reflect on my past travels and I have always done aggressive 8am-1am days. My first day in New York City I walked from the south end of financial district all the way to northern Harlem in one day stopping at the 911 memorial, Empire State Building, Times Square +many others). But you also helped me realize how unrealistic my expected travel time was. Unless I can find very efficient ways to go from on side of Europe to the other I think I'm going to skip Prague (as is the most inconvenient to get to). Unless everyone suggests I skip another city based on the the city itself and not location. I know people have different options on each city but I equally want to go to every single one and really wouldn't be able to decide. Again, I cannot thank you enough for your replies!

If you think you would do well on night trains, consider this:

London to Amsterdam by Dutch Flyer (overnight ferry and rail combo )leaving at 7:30 PM and arriving downtown Amsterdam by 10:30 am the next morning. Cost is less than 100 Pounds each which includes a nights lodging on board.http://www.seat61.com/Netherlands.htm#.VomliuiIaf0

Amsterdam to Paris by train. 3.5 hours.

Paris to Venice or Rome by overnight train. Leave Paris 7:15 arrive Venice 9:30 next morning.http://www.seat61.com/thello-train-from-paris-to-italy.htm#.VompC-iIaf0 Cost between 81 and 159 Euros each depending on whether you sleep in a 6 or 4 berth compartment or a 2 berth sleeper. Again you save a nights lodging. --or change trains just before six in Milan and get to Rome mid morning.

Venice to Rome or Rome to Venice by train. 3 3/4 hours.-

From Rome or Venice you could fly home or to either Barcelona or Prague or if you already have London tickets to London. Fly home or back to London after Barcelona or Prague.

Some people do well with night trains others do not. I would do better with them then that many flights. Each night train gets you an extra day of sight seeing.

Just by dropping Prague and/or Barcelona you would really free things up, and both would actually sit better in future trips to Eastern Europe and Spain. Florence would be an easy addition between Rome and Venice ...

On arrival in London take Eurostar to Paris (4) >> Amsterdam (3)
fly to
Venice (3) >> Florence (3) >> Rome (4)
fly to
London (4) before heading home

You wrote that you have to return to London for your flight home. Take into account that you should plan to spend your last night in London. Don't risk missing your trans-Atlantic flight because of a flight delay or schedule change, both of which are pretty common or even a train delay. While they may be rare, they do happen. This means two stays in London.

You mentioned that early morning flights are cheaper than trains. Besides all the extra airline fees (checked bags for a start, but even credit card fees, internet fees, boarding pass fees, add them ALL up), it costs more to get to the airport and in many cities public transportation doesn't run all night, which means you may have to take a more expensive shuttle or taxi just to get to the airport. Pay attention to the airports. For instance, some budget flights use Beauvais airport, which is very far from Paris and with sketchy transportation options. Some of London's airports are not as well connected to the center as others.

I don't think you need more than 2 nights in Venice. Its a scenic and cozy city, but kind of small. I think you are done with it in 1 and a half day. Maybe for instans you only need 1 night there. If you take an early plane from Rome, and a late plane to Prague the next day. Or maybe night trains?

Then you can spread the saved time on the other cities. Thoug. I still think it can be a bit cramped. Therefore I also recomend you to take out one city. And my vote is also for taking out Barcelona.

I recommend you to end your trip with 3-4 days in London.
I mean. When landing in London, maybe just stay one night (if it's late) and go straight to Paris. Like some other wrote. It's nice to not have to rush to reach your trans-atlantic flight back home.

You could take Eurostar to Paris later the same day on your arrival in to London.
This would allow you to consolidate your London time at the end of the trip.

Go for it, but if costs are a concern, do the research so you can make the most of your travel budget, especially in choosing how to travel.

I would put in one slack day somewhere just to catch up if anything goes awry, or you find you need a break. Think of it as a bonus day.

i would advice you to drop Barcelona and come back next year to it. If you spend 3 nights in each of the other 6 cities that is already about 18 days. We traveled to Paris the same day we landed in London. We had a 4 hour gap between landing and train departure and our bags were already packed. We were tired but with an hour nap in Paris we felt refresh. I would suggest you do London->Paris->Rome->Venice->Prague->Amsterdam->London. There's a couple of long legs there but you are not backtracking. What you want to do is minimize the packing/unpacking/travel time. Have fun and enjoy.