Not enough time for...

I don't think considering others' opinions/advice trumps free will, does it? I hope no one here is at risk of such a thing...

When people ask for advice, they usually already have some semblance of humility or insecurity about their plans that makes them open to alternate suggestions, so at the end of the day, the advice is "do what you want anyway"???

Advice can cut either way - it can be misguided and premature, or it can be spot-on and beneficial (more likely somewhere in the middle). It's up to the OPs to have faith in it or not - they have more information than anyone here ever will about their exact circumstances. Good advice can in fact feel constraining because it often contravenes ill-conceived plans by planting a reality check (i.e. sometimes there really is not enough time...).

Hi,

A nice experience to recall. I say go too. Mainly it depends on one's priorities. Whether I would take the train ca 3hrs to get to a place where I can spend max 3.5 to 4 hrs and then almost 3hrs on the return trip, I would do it if I am desperate enough to see the place, Usually, I'm that desperate.

Hello Joan. First, I will say my comment about Venice. You said you were at Venice, one afternoon, and you are glad that you did that. I was at Venice once. I arrived at Venice, via train, at night. Checked in to a hotel in Venice that night. The next day, I experienced Venice for a few hours. I ate a good lunch at a sidewalk café outside near the Grand Canal, near the Rialto Bridge. Talked with a German couple there at the tables. I walked to and through the Doges Palace. And I walked to and through St. Mark's church. And I stood at St. Mark's square for a while, looking at the swarms of people, including a group of Italian teenage persons in a school group. (they were standing on the square, between St. Mark's church and the Doge Palace, waiting for their leader). I retrieved my travel bag from the hotel, and I went to the train station, boarded a train going to Milan. I experienced Venice for a few hours, and that was sufficient time in Venice for me. I did not desire to go in the art gallery, because I had seen paintings by Italian Renaissance artists. When some people, at this internet forum, advised a traveler to not go to a place because the traveler would not have enough time at that place -- the persons giving the advice may have been thinking : The traveler will be able to travel to Europe again. In that future trip the traveler could go to that place, be there for three days or longer, the traveler could see and do what he/she desires to see and do at that city, and go on day trips from that city. (Such as London, or Paris). But if a person must choose to either be at Paris a half day, or not be at Paris ever -- well, I suppose being at Paris a half day would be better than not being at Paris ever. Another factor to consider is the alternatives in the use of a traveler's time at Europe. In planning my trips to Europe, I wish to be at several places in one country, before I move on to another country. When I am there, I think : "I am at this country now, I think I should see the good places in this country, while I am here. I will probably not travel to this country again. In an other trip, in a future year, I could go to another part of Europe. If a traveler will be at Europe (and Britain) a total of 13 days, I generally recommend travelling in the western part of "Western Europe", or the Eastern part of Western Europe, or Northern Europe, or southern Europe. But there could be exceptions to that for some travelers, such as an excursion to a distant country, via a low cost airline flight. Sometimes, some seasoned travelers advised a traveler to not travel a long distance to a place and be at that place a half day. The Seasoned traveler tried to prevent the traveler from suffering from stress or exhaustion or emotional fatigue or emotional depression. Before giving advice, I think it is best to ask a few questions. The advice giver could ask : "What kind of trip do you want ? Do you want to go to several countries in a short amount of time, and are you willing to experience anxiety and physical and emotional exhaustion ? Or, do you want to enjoy being at places in Europe ? Do you want to feel physical and emotional well being when you are at Europe, being at a few destinations". And, I am aware that not all people are the same. Some people can tolerate frequent movement (being at a different hotel in a different town every night).

A lot depends upon the context. If I had a chance to day trip to Venice for a day from Florence, I would say that's too much travel time and too little enjoyment. But if I was on a business trip in Verona and could take an afternoon and evening to go to Venice, for sure I would do it - even though I have been there three times. There is nothing wrong with a day trip where you travel an hour or two each way. I have day tripped to Segovia and Toledo from Madrid, spent way too much time day tripping from Ronda in a rental car that we got for no other purpose than a return visit to Gibraltar. Day trips are less prudent when the city you are staying in is very expensive and the transit costs to your day trip destination are high. I loved Chartes but paying to stay in Paris and for a train ticket too, seems like a lot to me. But sometimes if it speaks to you, you have to do it anyway. I have run myself ragged on two occasions to tack on a day in London on the tail end of business trips to the suburbs of London. It gets more problematic when you move your hotel to spend a day someplace. One day stops are generally to be avoided, but I have done it on a number of occasions with some success. It depends upon the travel distance, how much there is to see in the place, and how disciplined one can be to get an early start. A one night stop in Berlin when you started in Munich and leave at 2 p.m. - not good. We have made a number of one night stops that were very memorable. Baden Baden, Carcassone, Honfleur, Chartres, Hallstatt, Telc Czech Republic. Most of those were a heartbreaker to leave after only one night, but I am glad that I saw each and every one. Have not made it back to any of those yet, either. Be aware that one night stops tend to steal time from the stops before and after, part of the reason to avoid them if you can.

I wouldn't plan a trip for myself with a lot of short stays, but I agree that a half-day somewhere is better than no day. It's difficult for me to understand advice like "you won't have time for XXX, don't go there", when the OP says the place is a high priority. A lower priority may have to give way, but if you really want to go, do it! I once spent nine hours (round trip) on trains and buses to get to Vezelay for an afternoon, it was the best day I had in France.

This is a travel forum but not a holiday itinerary appeals court (pun intended). Ultimately, people will do whatever they want to.

In this context, I do believe many people mentally underestimate how much of their vacation will end up being spent on trains, stations, airplanes, airport lounges, behind the wheel on a highway etc. when they make, in my opinion, extremely hurried plans to visit every possible way if only for a minute. Many seem to be planning a vacation as if there were no "opportunity time cost" to the time they spend moving between different destinations.

This is why I'd generally consider a bad idea the whole idea of "I'll take a Thalys train in the morning in Paris, go to Amsterdam, rush through the rest of the day (can I visit the Anne Frank and Van Gogh museums, but also take a canal tour, and do you know a typical-but-non-touristic-place-full-of-locals pancake restaurant in the way?), sleep at night close to the station and then take a train to Berlin next morning 7AM" It is less about "doing" (I dislike a lot the use of "to do" as a synonymous of "to visit") Amsterdam in 8-10 hours and more about the whole time the logistics take of 2 train trips in 2 days, and three different hotels on three consecutive nights.

Some itineraries, like those in Italy, somehow are more prone to this overstretching mentality - such as people trying to cram Pompeii, Capri island, Napoli and more in a single day trip, then asking all sorts of trips on how to rush through.

I agree with Andre, inexperienced travelers tend to way underestimate travel times. Someday maybe it will be like Star Trek and we can 'beam" to our next destination. In the meantime, it's best to factor in travel time, time for meals, getting pack/unpacked, checking in/out of lodging, and leave some slack for the inevitable missed connection/stop, traffic delay, or catching the wrong bus or metro.

I normally skip itinerary questions. First, because your preferences are your own; I don't want to criticize your choices based on my preferences. I also don't want to rain on peoples' parades by telling them their schedule is unrealistic (I step aside and let others tell them).

I would have appreciated that kind of advice for my first trip or two. Guidebooks make everyplace sound so interesting its hard to understand how much time basic life support takes. Most Americans I know do not have enough understanding of geography or train travel to plan things realistically. I see this forum as servign the same purpose as asking your buddy at the next desk what she thinks., not expecting a textbook solution.

I think one problem we Americans, especially westerners, have planning European travel is underestimating travel times and logistics because actual distances are so short on our scale. I can drive to Boise in a long day with minimal stops on the way. The same distance in Europe might cross a whole country, or two or three, and many fascinating cities, and take much longer even on the excellent highways. So we plan for less time in transit and more "in situ" than turns out to be realistic. Hence so many experienced posters here (me included often) trying to put the brakes on others' plans. Which is OK, because they asked for advice, didn't they? And they don't have to follow it.

I agree, if my choice were between a few hours in Paris or Venice, or never being there, I'd take the few hours. Yesterday I spent almost all day getting to and from Seattle, to spend about 90 minutes looking at artifacts from Pompeii. Well worth it for this retiree who doubts he'll ever get to Pompeii itself and has higher priorities if and when I make it to Italy.

But "assume you will return" is still good advice for travel, and for mental health while traveling. It's one thing to settle for a short visit rather than none, it's another to delude yourself that you can see "everything" in one trip.

Joan, I love your post! What a lovely way to appreciate the time given. Many a time on this forum people are chastised for not giving what is deemed as the "appropriate" time to enjoy a city ( one of my pet peeves, especially when that wasn't even the question you were asking 😉) but if that's all you've got, go for it!

I've had the same kind of experience only in Britain. My domestic partner is one of those people who is never ready to leave on time and always wants to do more than there is time for. So on our last day before turning in our rental car, we left our hotel near Cardiff much too late, and by the time I pulled into the car park at Stonehenge I had to look at my watch with great drama, turn to him, and say, "OK, if we're going to get to Salisbury in time to catch the last direct train to London we have 20 minutes to see Stonehenge." Well, we saw Stonehenge for exactly 20 minutes and just got to the station in time to park the car in the right place for Hertz rental returns, pay for the parking, buy our tickets, and get all of our luggage to the platform as the train pulled in. BUT WE GOT TO SEE STONEHENGE, and we've never been able to return, so it was all worth it.

And it gave us a dynamite conversation starter for the rest of our trip. The loveable witty queen who waited on us for dinner at the gay restaurant in London gave a Pythonesque recital of our tale which regaled all of the other diners who applauded both him and us. We told the story on ourselves and didn't take ourselves too seriously which seemed to open up the lines of friendly communication with every Brit who we told the story to.

So as long as you accept that your time will be limited, go for it and do as much as you can as long as you're willing to accept the necessary rushing around and not being able to do everything.

I stopped off in Heidelberg for ninety minutes a few months ago while travelling back to Stuttgart from the Sinsheim transport museum, and didn't regret it. Got a nice look at the castle from the square below.

People come here to ask questions because they're not sure what to do. They're often looking for opinions. If they don't want to do something, they won't force themselves to do it because someone here said do it or don't do it.

We get to Europe two or three times a year. At least once a year we try and do a Bonsai Trip as part of the larger trip. My three favorite to date have been Jerusalem and Moscow and out last fishing trip to Slovakia. These generally take place over three days including the half day or so of travel there and the half day or so of travel back. Now, what amounts to one full day and two partial days isn't near enough time to see these places in any depth but if you combine it with something special like Orthodox Christmas Eve in Moscow and the first day of Hanukah in Jerusalem or some pretty splendid fly fishing in the High Tatras; they can be amazing fun.

So the question comes up. How much time should I spend in Budapest. My answer is at least 3 full 24 hour days. "But I only have one day;" Outstanding!! We will plan a one day trip you will never forget!!!! Its all good.

I look at it this way....

You may never get to see that place again. One never knows what lay ahead. If a few hours makes your trip, do it!

I only got to spend an afternoon in Bath, but it was memorable. I saw 2 museums, the Roman Baths, and shopped, all in a few hours. Of course, I would have liked more time, but it was wonderful to be there at all.

Inexperienced travelers are often concerned that they will miss out on something. That's where a lot of the itinerary questions come from, and also why some of the itineraries look so jam packed. Those of us who are trying to help with itinerary questions should first be asking some questions before responding with advice. Are they looking for breadth or depth in the itinerary? What are the "can't miss" locations? What do they want out of their trip? While we might not offer perfect advice, understanding their motives in asking the question in the first place goes a long way to giving more appropriate advice.

@ James E. I wound up with only six hours in Budapest, and it was an incredible six hours. I wouldn't trade that crazy, running across the city day for anything else. Even while we were on the train having just left for Zagreb, my wife and I were already saying: "When we come back, we're spending 3 full days there!" :)

Some of my best travel experiences have been due to serendipity and usually NOT because of a highly structured "must do" agenda. Case in point....after having car difficulties en route back to Paris a few years ago, I sat for a few hours waiting for our car to be fixed, and observed a small town in its daily activities and had a wonderful time getting to know the young couple who ran the local car mechanic business. Did I enjoy the grand scenes in Strassburg? Absolutely! But we also remember the wonderful discussions we had with the locals and watched with great interest how a small town worked in the shadows of the large city - just as much. My Husband and I have a phrase we use when we get overwhelmed with trying to see and do too much on our trips. It is simply "Next time!" And so far, it has worked! So take time to smell the proverbial roses....and do what you really want to do, but always remember there will be a "next time".

Mike, glad you had a good time. But be careful. Our first trip was only two days and it led to a lot of next times.

There is nothing wrong with day trips even if you start that day in place and end it in another.

DJ

I agree with Joan - just go! I was born in the UK but have spent most of my life living in Australia and planning trips back "home" to the other side of the world. It takes us over 24 hours just to get to Europe so we usually go for 4 weeks or more at a stretch. I always like to have at least a couple of weeks catching up with family in Scotland, England and Wales but my mission is to see as much of Europe as I possibly can. Most of the time we move on every three or four days but sometimes we choose to stay in one place for longer. Regardless of what everyone tells you, we have always been able to find accommodation at short notice, even in popular tourist areas at the busiest times in summer. We never book ahead any more and that way we can choose to stay longer or move on. Some of my favourite memories are just a day or two in particular spot - two days on the Isle of Skye, a day in Milan (again) on our way south or a meal with relatives in Wales; but there are other places where I need much longer and could probably stay forever - Budapest, Cyprus, the Greek islands. My advice is to take whatever time you have and just go. We meet many people who can only take 10 days or two weeks at a time. They all enjoy their trips. They may not see everything, but they love what they see and the experiences they have along the way.

On my first trip abroad I made a day trip to Edinburgh from London by train--utterly ridiculous, thinking back, and a tease because Edinburgh was just fabulous. 5 hours each way, gave me about 6 hours in the city but I managed to see the Castle and other sites and wander happily and make a definite mental note that I need to return for a much longer visit.

On my recent trip to Poland I stayed Warsaw and from there made a day trip to Gdansk--that's definitely a much more do-able trip since there's now an express train that makes it in 3 hours. Left Warsaw at 6:30 and returned on the 5:30 pm train, so had plenty of time to wander the old town, take the boat to Westerplatte, have a leisurely lunch and then explore the Solidarity sites and museum.

Similar time-frame for a trip to Salzburg from Vienna, makes for a long day but with planning I was able to see what really mattered. I do feel that 3 hours by train is about the most I'll consider for a day trip.

Joan, I agree totally. Much better to say I have been to Venice or wherever than to wish you had been there. I have been lots of places where I only spent a few hours and enjoyed the time there. I'm sure Venice is worth several days, but sometimes it is just not possible. A half day is better than no day.

I have enjoyed the comments of fellow travelers and concede that I too have cautioned about cramming too much into too little time. For me, though, I recognize it is more about the dawdle than the forced march. My husband and I embrace Rick's idea of off the beaten path travel, and in hindsight realize our best memories came from doing just that. Blending in with locals to share a conversation, a snack, or stopping to pet a dog is all about the "dawdle" which is why we travel. No longer will I add my cautionary comments but allow each traveler to find his or her own path and make memories too.

I think most would realize that opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one. Everyone has free will to decide whether or not they want to apply the opinions received here during the planning stages of a trip. Often there are unsolicited opinions. Some years back I posted on this website about my intention to take a year long round the world solo trip. I already knew which countries would require visas, wasn't planning to try and work in a foreign country, had more than enough money to live very comfortably on the road for a year and to prove same to any authorities who needed to see such proof at the border, wasn't planning on staying in Schengen zone countries for more than the 90 day maximum when traveling in Europe, wasn't posting itineraries that had me randomly zig-zagging all over the place or spending just 1 night in a place. Yet someone here sent their unsolicited opinion to me via a private message that I should not be taking a year to do a solo trip as a woman. According to their opinion, it was too long of a time to be away from home, it was dangerous, I'd feel lonely and isolated and the language barriers would be too difficult, and if I did it, there must be something wrong with me to be willing to leave my friends and relatives for that amount of time. Really? Was I supposed to listen to that load of unsolicited crap from a complete stranger that knows nothing about me? I exercised my free will to ignore the opinions expressed by that one poster, took the year and loved it.

But when I see some posts where the OP is saying "I have a 4 hour layover in City X before I fly to Country Y. Is it better to take a taxi, bus or subway to see A, B, C & D before I have to get back to the airport?", then I do give my unsolicited opinion which is usually along the lines of "That's not a long layover and even if your flight arrives on-time, it will still take this amount of time to get to those sites, buy tickets, tour them and then you'll need to get back to the airport by this time so you can get through security again and make it to your gate before boarding starts".

I will also tend to do it when I see people who list itineraries where they are only in a city for a single day, but their "must sees" include about 3-4 major sites PLUS some minor ones (ex. "I'm in Paris for one full day and must see the Louvre, Musee d'Orsay, and climb Notre Dame. We'd also like to take a cruise on the Seine, walk the length of Champs Elysees to do some shopping, and visit Rue Cler by lunch time. My afternoon looks open. Can I get out to Versailles and back in time to climb the Eiffel Tower by sunset before our train leaves for Germany at 8PM?"). I try not to zing their entire plan, but to point out that even if they have a museum pass and can skip to the front of the admission line, they will still need to wait in a security line at some of those places - that some of their agenda has places that they may find slightly underwhelming and not worth the effort for such a quick trip (e.g., walking Champs Elysees and Rue Cler - I did both on my first Paris trip, but I also had a much longer stay - I would never recommend those to anyone with just a day to spend in Paris, even if they are a voracious retail shopper or foodie) - but if someone has those places on their Paris Bucket List and feels they are must-sees, then go for it. I'm a huge fan of visiting obscure medical museums like The Hunterian in London or Museum Vrolik in Amsterdam. I had to choose between Museum Vrolik which was way on the outskirts of Amsterdam, or spending that time seeing Rembrandt House and Our Lord in the Attic. Had I asked for opinions, I'm sure I would have been told that Rembrandt House & Our Lord in the Attic was the way to go. But I really felt that I had seen more than enough Rembrandts over at the Rijksmuseum and been to about half a dozen churches already. To each his own!

I think each person has to decide what will be the biggest regret when they get home? I have had lots of visits to places that were considered 'too short'. But, I have never regretted any of those whirlwind visits, and often have been fortunate enough to return, but at least, I knew I wanted to return. I think if you can make many return visits, then is the time to slow down, or when you are old:)
I find the 'assuming you will return' to be a huge assumption. It's fine for RS, and for many of the posters here, but I think the majority of people who travel to Europe are able to do it once or twice in a lifetime. So... I say go for it with all the gusto you can, and still make it enjoyable.

Often there are those experiences when it feels like time stands still... here's hoping people have plenty of those while traveling.

Terry kathryn, I think the common phrase "Assume you'll return" isn't so much that you will get to go back to every city a second time. I know (sadly) I may never return to some fabulous cities. It's more to prioritize your time, and if you don't get to something because time ran out, at least you saw the most important stuff, to you. If you do return, so much the sweeter.

If I have the opportunity to go someplace for a partial day, knowing it might be my only opportunity, I would probably go for it. But I agree with others' cautions that you have to be realistic about travel times. A couple of years ago I was in Hamburg and I had a rental car. My last day in Germany, I set out for Berlin. On paper, that was perfectly doable. Unfortunately, the plans slowly unraveled. I had to leave about an hour and a half later than I had intended. The drive to the Berlin suburbs was lovely - a beautiful day in Deutschland. I'd planned to park near a rail station and take the train in. I'd googled the most likely looking station. First to find the station itself took awhile. Then to find parking where I felt my rental car would be safe for a few hours. Then when I'd parked and gotten to the train station, I'd just missed the train and had to wait a half hour. Then when I got to the station to transfer, I found that there were problems on the line and only half the trains were running. I did some math, and realized at best I might have an hour and a half in Berlin. So I turned back and returned to Hamburg. A very nice whim that turned into kind of a wasted day, except that I did get to drive on the Autobahn, which is one of my favorite things so it wasn't all bad. Also, I'd been to Germany for a concert, and on the drive back I caught a radio transmission of the same artist's concert in another city, so it was almost like going to a second concert!

I do understand the 'assume you will return' is simply a way to make yourself feel better about what you are missing... but I have often seen posts where people are giving this statement as gospel and as a reason to 'slow down' on their first trip, and skip some amazing places to linger elsewhere. It's just my philosophy... but I say slow down when you are old or on your 10th trip (should you be so fortunate)
Too much to see... too little time (and $):)

I read a quote recently that said something like..." I would never stop traveling if it weren't for the money:)" That would be me!

I think most of our responses have been along the line of, it's better to see something for a few hours than not at all. I don't disagree with that, but a vacation made of seeing a lot of somethings for a few hours, then moving, feels more like a death march than a vacation.

Travelers need to account for what they're missing, and the valuable vacation time they're using up, by always moving.

I went on my first (and last) organized bus tour in England. The tour brochure said we would "see" Buckingham Palace. That's exactly what we did; we drove by on the highway and "saw" it. It was like the Grand Canyon scene from National Lampoon's Vacation, "There it is; okay let's go," except the bus didn't even stop.

I realized then I wasn't interested, in tour groupspeak, in "seeing" Europe as much as I was interested in "visiting" Europe. Unless the brochure says "visit", don't expect to actually spend time there.

Brad, I think this is right on: "I think most of our responses have been along the line of, it's better to see something for a few hours than not at all. I don't disagree with that, but a vacation made of seeing a lot of somethings for a few hours, then moving, feels more like a death march than a vacation."

If there's one or two things you really want to see but only have a few hours in the middle of a trip, go for it. Half-a-day in Paris, if you've always dreamed of Paris, is magical. But a trip built around 10 cities in 12 days is a whole other matter. I suppose if an experienced traveler (who knows the time and effort changing cities takes) plans this way, more power to her. However, most times it's new travelers who plan this way, and if they ask for advice, it's our job to warn them. It really is better to pick your priorities.

One place I see issues is that on forums with more Europeans, they are always advising times that are way too long for me. I have 2 weeks, usually, and will happily split that into 3 or 4 locations. My rule of thumb is no stop less than 3 nights unless it's a road trip stop-over on the way somewhere else, or if literally all I want is to see one thing in a small town.