The Tourism Trap - Europe at a Crossroads

The article makes it sound worse that it is. However, having traveled and lived overseas since 1980, I can say that traveling today is far more crowded than it was in the 80s.

Still, we generally avoid going to Europe in June, July and August and usually go in Spring and Fall. That helps with the crowds.

We do cruise a great deal, but don't normally repeat cruises that we have done in the past. In the past three years, we have extended our cruising to include more transatlantics, a transpacific, places like Japan, Australia, India, Singapore and South America. Still, there are great places in Europe that are not as crowded. Portugal and Norway are good examples.

A friend went to Venice for the first time on a huge cruise ship. She didn’t like Venice because of the crowds and I had to point out where the crowds came from.
We like to be in a town or small city on the water, away from cruise ships. When we find one we love, the cruise ships show up. Ugh.

A lot of us would like to think we're not part of the problem if we go off-season or independently, if we try to blend in more, or if we try to find less popular destinations and then not tell people about them.

But all of us who travel are part of the problem. No, all of us who travel are the problem.

And since none of us are likely to stop traveling, the problem is most likely going to keep getting worse. We will bring the problem to those less popular destinations by making them more popular. The smaller, quieter destinations will discover the potential for a new influx of money by marketing themselves as a less-crowded option, and soon they won't be smaller and quieter.

We can't save Europe (or any destination) except by staying away en masse. Which will never happen. So the real question is whether European countries and the EU have the stomach to slow the flow of the tourist dollar.

Not certain exactly how popular European tour destinations can work to limit tourism, but I agree that some popular destinations can easily be overrun. My husband and I counted seven large cruise ships and two riverboat cruise ships in Venice on the same day in late September. We had no trouble avoiding them by taking to back streets and out of the way areas.

We also saw towns in Cinque Terre overrun with groups from a large cruise ship anchored in La Spezia. It was practically impossible to board a train, as the tour groups were pushing and shoving others out of the way in attempts to board together as a large group.

As long as there is money to be made, people will find ways to defeat any controls. Demographics and politics will overwhelm any short-term attempts to manage this problem. There are twice as many people alive in the US now as when I was born, and the population of the earth has tripled in my lifetime. Wars and economic collapses may have a bigger impact on reducing tourism than local restrictions, but have other consequences.

These same stories get written (and rewritten and repacked again with the same message) as if it's a revelation. I think we've all read about this phenomenon for the past few years, and even longer in the case of Venice.

As far as bad behavior and louts go, let's place the blame directly on those folks, ok? Cheap airlines and low airfares are not some kind of unique accomplice that didn't exist in some form in the past. Backpackers, young folks, and people of lesser means traveled by train, by bus, by hitchhiking, whatever...but the mode and price of travel has no correlation with behavior. How a person behaves once they get there is entirely up to him/her. Every country already has misdemeanor laws on their books, so they should enforce them against tourists just like they do with locals. But police is probably too stretched, or these nuisances just don't get their attention as much as they could/should (if this was Singapore, however.....)

My take is that it's really easy to say "someone should do something..!!!." without naming that someone and working out how exactly they can accomplish what you're asking given their constraints (governance, legal, political, and practical given the decentralized nature of tourism and sites). Coordinating the behavior of disparate companies originating from all over the world (tour groups, cruise liners) requires tools such as full access to information (who is going where and when on any given day in order to anticipate potential effects), plenty of leeway so that you can work out some trade-offs, and authority to limit (or at least reshape) their movement, which is even harder in open sites. And then you'd have to get their buy-in because they're a major stakeholder and you need their cooperation. If you don't think this is incredibly tricky, then work out this exercise in your head. Imagine you need to set the amount of visitors in the Cinque Terre to a capped number and then work through all the steps you'd need to go through to get there, including how many other players you'd have to collaborate with to make this happen, and how you'd measure what's an appropriate tourist load and track it over time (every policy would need to be tine-tuned as you go along because things don't work according to some model policy). If this was simple, it would have been done by now.

I am guessing by your post that you don't believe "the market" will solve this problem in the form of pretty apparent signals (overly congested conditions at peak periods should, in theory, drive people toward non-peak periods). If regulation is the preferred option, you have to ask yourself if "they" (you have to be specific here and name the party in charge) have the tools or will to do it.

All I can do at the end of the day that's effective is to control what I do and how I contribute to the problem. That means not going to Europe in the summer, or places like Venice or Cinque Terre and then complaining about the crowds. Like you, I'd be perfectly happy going to Bulgaria instead. I'm also happy not to go to Europe's top sites in favor of elsewhere too - the world is full of interesting places.

The article makes it sound worse that it is. However, having traveled and lived overseas since 1980, I can say that traveling today is far more crowded than it was in the 80s

The population of the planet is growing, but the planet is not. More people occupying the same area equals a more crowded condition.

Imposing artificial limits on numbers of tourists in a city leads to just the 'privileged few' affording travel. Is that really a desirable result?

Thank you for sharing a thought provoking article. The over tourism issue is not just in Europe, but global as cities grapple with the economic benefits of tourism and the implications for the local population. Venice and Barcelona are the two most cited examples of how tourism is changing the landscape for locals, many of whom can no longer afford to live in the heart of their cities.

This is becoming a global topic of academic and industry research as well: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/quality-and-quantity-in-tourism-2169-0286-1000164.php?aid=91266.

As someone who travels to not only see sites, but experience different cultures, I want to better understand how my tourist $ can support the local economy and preserve the local culture.

Sandy

In May 2017 we were staying in Bath, England and made a day trip to Oxford. I had last been in Oxford in 1972, and noticed some changes, in that the town was more commercially developed, and there were many more tourists. In 1972 Oxford was a sleepy college town. On our recent visit, we met people from Bulgaria, Argentina, East Asia and Russia (all in one afternoon). I thought at the time that is was nice to see the impact of the Iron Curtain being down, and that the rising economic tide has allowed people from less developed countries to travel more widely. My experience of Oxford 45 years later was not spoiled since the colleges themselves were the same as I remembered them.

All I can do at the end of the day that's effective is to control what I do and how I contribute to the problem. That means not going to Europe in the summer, or places like Venice or Cinque Terre and then complaining about the crowds. Like you, I'd be perfectly happy going to Bulgaria instead. I'm also happy not to go to Europe's top sites in favor of elsewhere too - the world is full of interesting places. - Agnes' quote

I include Agnes' statement as expressing my opinion also. I haven't been to all the major sights yet but I'm making progress. As an example, I spent a vacation in Paris this April and chose to visit smaller museums and parks that are lesser-known, took walks with Paris Walks and did not encounter massive crowds like the ones at the Louvre. I've been there and admired and enjoyed it immensely but I don't feel compelled to go there everytime I go to Paris. I will continue to travel because it is a passion but I will try to do it in a way that hopefully doesn't contribute to overcrowding. I read a phrase someone used "Europe is being loved to death" and think it has a good amount of truth. Perhaps cities can stop over advertising their features to bring in tourists like I believe Amsterdam is thinking of doing. While I have not been to Barcelona, it sounds like it needs to tone down their advertising too.

A lot of great replies. It's 10:30 here in Athens and I am going to sleep. But I urge those of you who have responded but NOT read the article in TIME to do so. It may give you a different take on the issue and might change some of your assumptions.

Ah the old, "everyone but me", trotted out with boring predictability.

For every Cinque Terre, Barcelona and Cotswolds there are thousands of other places that remain relatively untouched. People move on, places fall out of favour and the cycle continues as it has done for many years. Europe at a crossroads? Hyperbolic nonsense.

All very accurate on the negative aspects of traveling to Europe nowadays...mass tourism swarming the famous tourist visited sights, bus loads at the sights, uncivilised louts, punk wanna be types, crowded trains, pickpocketing and scams, on and on.

Basically, it all depends on one's travel tolerance and style. It is a matter of what one is willing to cope with, put up with or not.

After 24 trips in 47 years mostly traveling solo, I'll still go as I've done before. I am not letting myself be deterred by the negative aspects, though increasing, which one can plainly see. Given these negative and unpleasant features of traveling in Europe, what is one going to do about it, if anything?

Future trips for me will still be in the summer (May to Sept, sometime during this period), using both discounted train tickets bought on-line and the rail pass in Germany, using the ferries, plan for and taking definitely the night trains to extend the trip duration, flying over non-stop from SFO or OAK, staying mainly in small hotels or Pensionen usually in the train station area,

relying almost exclusively on public transport, no rental cars, using taxis on very selected occasions, ie sparingly, engaging in the occasional splurge be it at a restaurant or 4 star hotel, traveling as long as I can in this manner to tourist and especially to the places, towns/cities totally of the tourist radar in Poland, Austria, Czechia, Germany, Finland, France. and Hungary.

Now, when I am with family traveling, my flexibility is limited since I'll have to abide by their styles, more or less.

The main point here...most definitely, I have had to put up with crowds on the most recent trips, 2015, 2016, 2017 and this past one this summer, packed trains where I had to stand, one close to two hrs, packed sites, as did several others on that ICE coach.

Well, I am feeling rather cheerful about being quite old (for a change). Until the last few years going to the top of the Eiffel Tower was a price of cake/gateau. We just lined up for 10 minutes, bought a ticket and Bob’s your uncle, we were on the elevator to the top.

To see the Mona Lisa, to visit the Musee d’Orsay, the Orangerie, the Pompidou, was just a matter of finding one’s way there and paying to enter. On visits to Paris now, we go only to the smaller museums, the cemeteries, Printemps and Galeries Lafayette, the Musee des Arts Decoratifs and other less peopled places. Works a treat for us.

In about 1992 we were walking on the Place de la Concorde and saw a battered old parked tour bus. It had licence plates from Hungary or Poland, can’t remember which. There were bits of laundere7d underwear hanging at the windows. It was obviously the home on the road for valiant early Eastern European tourists. Now there are Asian visitors, some with lots of money to spend and others with hardly any.

Every tourist to France or any other country on one’s Itinerary, has as much right to be there as you have or as I have. If it troubles you too much, travel to Europe in December or January or go to Las Vegas where there is a replica of the Eiffel Tower.

@norma
LOL don't forget you can get a gondola ride in vegas. my feelings exactly, complaints about europe being so crowded, don't go. what goes on in europe happens here in USA, in fact, right in my back yard of san francisco, oakland, walnut creek, napa.
aloha

To read the article we need a link... But we can respond to your summary.

I too have lived and traveled in Europe for over 25 years. I've noticed a difference, some good - some bad. It's a lot easier to travel now with the internet and global connectivity. Prices in many ways have gone down. Transportation is so much better and cheaper - cheap intra-Europe flights and high-speed trains. And certainly the lifting of the Iron Curtain and the economic prosperity of China and India (and others) have brought a massive influx of tourists that barely existed before the late '90s. Crowds at times can make it very frustrating to visit sites; or limited entry tickets mean you miss those sights altogether.

But the negative tone of some of these posts is troubling...

I would point out that tourism is a massive industry worldwide, and especially in Europe. Most of these countries, cities and population depend heavily on the money and jobs tourists bring. So the answer is not to stop visiting or think you'll solve all the problems by significantly reducing tourism - you'll create serious new ones. The answer will have to be how cities better manage tourism.

Sometimes the things we do to make our visits more enjoyable and more enriching, like staying at an AirBnB, cause problems as often as they help. The influx of short-term rentals has really hurt the affordability and availability of housing for locals in many places. Short-term renters may not be as conscientious of neighbors that have to go to bed early for work in the morning while you party late. Yet you might shop at a local food vendor, eat at local restaurants and get to know quiet neighborhoods off the beaten tourist path. I've visited shops and restaurants in major European cities where they are amazed to see an American tourist.

One trend that seems to be the wave of the future is timed ticketing. I predict the days of walking up to a site and buying a ticket will soon be over. Think the Anne Frank House or Parc Guell. That can be good by limiting the crowds and getting rid of long lines in neighborhoods, but it limits who can see a site or museum and makes it less accessible to many.

Managing tour group sizes and cruise ships is another step that will be needed. Tour groups can make a site or museum feel far more crowded than it is. And they tend to all take the same paths and routes, bottling up circulation. Studies have shown that cruise ships do very little for local economies. Passengers don't eat in local restaurants and don't do much shopping or sightseeing outside of a small central area. And the massive influx of people when they dock can overwhelm smaller communities.

Definitely a lot to think about though.

The TIME article:
http://time.com/5349533/europe-against-tourists/

Honestly, I don't see anything here (in the article) that hasn't been discussed many, many times before. Europe is not the only place suffering from overcrowding: some of our National Parks have been overrun for years and the NPS doesn't know what to do about that either.

Some great replies and some very thoughtful ones too. Sorry about not putting a link up but I bought the hard copy of TIME on a newsstand and wrote the piece on the train to Athens after reading the article.

To those of you who think this is old news: Well in a way you would be right. But if you look at the charts in the article you can see the DRAMATIC jump in numbers that has taken place in the last 5 years. It represents and unprecedented rise in tourist numbers. I have a perspective on this some may not share. The last time I was in Europe to travel (vs just changing planes) I felt it was crowded then and I wondered Jeez where did all these people come from? BUT on this trip, my first in more than 10 years as a traveler I was completely stunned by the enormity and behavior of the crowds everywhere. It was mind boggling. Now for those of you who went two years ago the increase might not be so noticeable but beleive me it is monumental if looked at over a period of 5 to 10 years. And a larger increase than at any other time since they started keeping numbers. RS has talked about this situation a lot and is changing some of his guidebooks for 2019 to reflect this new reality.

@Agnes I think it’s easy to demonstrate that increased numbers of tourists and low airfares are linked. It is also easy to demonstrate that there is a correlation between low price and the bad behavior.

Low fares and the cut-rate airlines have made it possible for an entire new economic group to travel. Low fares mean increased numbers. In any population sample you will have a certain percentage of misfits and troublemakers. So when fares are high (regulated) numbers are lower and the population sample also less. When they are VERY low not only does your population sample grow but Who travels also gets more diverse. And just ask the mayors of Amsterdam, Barcelona and Riga what they have seen. They will tell you without a doubt the troublemakers increased dramatically with the 20£ London to the Continent flights.

Bali has struggled with the same phenomenon since Australia deregulated it’s airfares especially the overseas ones. Bali became to Australian students what Ft Lauderdale and Cancun are to our students bringing with that influx some really egregious behavior.

SE Asia in general has been dealing with some of the bad effects of low cost low spending tourism ever since Tony and Maureen Wheeler wrote the first SE Asia on a Shoestring book. (Don’t get me wrong I am in no way implying that all travelers on the cheap misbehave only that it increase the numbers that do) But while the numbers have increased in Asia nothing I can see indicates the kind of tectonic shift that has happened to Europe.

I was able to manage some of the crowd problems on this trip with some well known strategies but even these (like skip-the-line tickets are being over run)

I am off to the Acropolis and the Parthenon this Am so later today I will report back about just how crowded it was....

The Atlantic's CityLab (Richard Florida) The Global Tourism Backlash
NPR In Amsterdam, Even The Tourists Say There Are Too Many Tourists

OK, so there's overcrowding and behavioral issues. What I don't understand is what "we" are able to about that? It doesn't seem that "we" can do anything to alleviate these problems. "We" can throw opinions/ideas around on the subject all day but in the end it's not within our jurisdiction to enact or enforce laws or limitations in a foreign country or city that's not our own? If Europe thinks it needs "saving", then it's up to Europe to determine how it wants to go about that? Looks like Barcelona, Dubrovnik, Amsterdam and some others are already taking some measures.

At the same time, attempts to reduce/control overcrowding are often met with resistance from one corner or another. From the article:

"When the city’s mayor attempted to install checkpoints to potentially shut main thoroughfares to tourists, the initiative was greeted by protests from locals, who saw the surprise measure as an attempt to close the city. “We tried to do something for the city, for the residents,” laments Paola Mar, Venice’s deputy mayor for tourism. “This measure was for them, for their safety. But in Italy, you’re only good if you do nothing.”"

I remember a since-deleted post on the forum a couple of years ago from someone living in the Cinque Terre urging support from the International community - in the form of a petition - towards actions to restrict what some of the citizens there consider to be an unsustainable level of tourism. Their complaint was with largely with day-tripping tour groups from other cities and from ships docking in La Spezia, capacity of which has been expanded to accommodate more/larger vessels. Those ships, especially, were unloading numbers too large for the little villages and their limited infrastructures to sanely manage, and those visitors allegedly not spending on meals, goods and services which benefited the local economy.

http://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/news-headlines/la-spezia-expands-cruise-berthing-access-to-area-highlights.html?print=1&tmpl=component

The request for support was posted on the RS forum because of longtime coverage of this area in the guidebooks and related media. It was largely met with cries of elitism from respondents despite regular warnings and complaints about CT overcrowding on the forums. Cruise-ship and bus-tour folks don't feel they should be demonized for their preferred method of travel, and I think we agree that they shouldn't be: it's the industry that's at fault and not the tourist, IMHO? They have as much right to go to the CT or Venice or Barcelona or any other overrun tourist magnet as anyone else. So what to do?

A number of solutions have been proposed locally but none have seen actual implementation including those in the article linked below, aside from the app. As stated, "...opening up dialogue with cruise liners and tour operators has proved difficult so far."

https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/cinque-terre-tourist-overflow

Of particular note from that piece, "As residents leave the land for secure jobs in tourism, the terraced cultivations that attracted UNESCO fall into disuse and become effectively dangerous." In a landscape all too fragile to begin with, this is far more alarming to me than mobs of visitors clogging up the streets, with potentially deadly consequences for locals and tourists alike.

So if any of you have endured the crowds of Europe this summer as we
have what are your thoughts?

Avoid the entire continent of Europe in the summer if you really feel bothered by the experience or what the OP is calling a "tourism trap". There are 3 other seasons.

If all goes well, we'll be in Paris, Dortmund and Amsterdam in early November.

If you're a resident of one of those European destinations that's inundated with tourists, then you need to engage your govt and tourism office.

RS radio/podcast recently had tour guides from Croatia speaking about their country, one of the topics was the growth of movie tourism, particularly Dubrovnik as the setting for Game of Thrones. Attendees of these tour groups had ZERO interest in the ACTUAL history of Dubrovnik but only wanted to see the city in the context of the HBO show. The other point, that was even more salient is, the government of Croatia wants to double the number of tourists into the country for 2019, however, there's been ZERO improvement in the rail system or, road conditions, nor have investments been made to promote other destinations to help off-set the visitor imbalance that Dubrovnik receives compared to other destinations within the country.

The need to engage govt and their respective tourism offices can't be understated. The Gov created the problem, ergo they need to respond to the situation, if that doesn't work, vote them out.

@Kathy. You make some very good points. But my reference to “We” was not meant as we in the personal sense but “WE” in the global sense. A more Macro “We” We as the Travel industry, “We” as city governments and institutions,

However there are things that we can do on a personal level to mitigate some of our “footprint” as we travel. Now this will not change the overall numbers for sure but they could make the experience better.

But just because the ephemeral “We” cannot effect change in a situation that encompasses so many millions that does not mean that we are bereft of ideas and solutions. I was hoping for less handwringing and more suggestions of how things could be changed if “we” had the power. To me exploring ideas is never a waste of time.

The real power for change here lies in the economics of the issue. The market will adjust and react but markets often move slowly in cases like these. It will need some encouragement.

So if you cannot change the numbers of travelers quickly you can institute some common sense initiatives to at least make the experience of visiting some of these terribly overcrowded sights more bearable, efficient and less crowded at any given time:

Some ideas for the major crowded sights:

Get rid of Ticket Booths/windows altogether and go to ALL ONLINE purchase with timed entry. This would have the effect of limiting numbers per day/hour and get rid of all the lines. (Except the security lines but most of those are short)

All bags must be checked...nothing goes thru security but you your wallet and your phone...This will speed up security lines and greatly improve security overall.

Limit the size and number of tour groups into any venue....let say no group more than 15 persons.

Where possible create “One Way” travel through a site. Everybody going the same direction. Where possible put entry and exits at opposite ends/sides of a site.

Get tough on those folks who insist on standing in doorways and walkways and in the center of everything to compose a photo or worse yet take a “Selfie” or fixated by what’s on their phone holding up hundreds of people who are just trying to get to the next room/area. And as many venues have done already...ban selfie sticks.

Educate Tour Guides to place their groups to the side when expounding on any given subject, out of the stream of travel for the rest of the visitors. Those out of work ticket sellers and takers could be used as Monitors to ensure compliance (and confiscate Selfie sticks) :)

I visited the Acropolis today and then walked down and went to the Acropolis Museum...which I highly recommend, and then went to lunch. I entered the Acropolis at 10 AM and I knew that particular time was going to be packed...and it was. It is a brilliantly clear day here in Athens and 90 degrees. You can see for miles. It was a good day for sure...but could have been much easier, more enjoyable and safer if just some of the things I mention above would have been in place. And this holds true for every venue I have been in on this 9 country, 4 month trip.

I love to travel and I think travel can benefit almost anyone. The more we travel the more we understand, the more we can empathize and see the “other side” of what we beleive to be true. I am someone who believes NO country should be off limits to travel and I dont want to see anything that limits people’s ability to visit other countries. But it is clear from the numbers and my own experience that Europe is nearing a Rubicon of sorts. It will be interesting to see what happens when she crosses it.

@ Continental....”Tourism Trap” was TIME Magazine’s phrase not mine. There is a link to the article in a post above. It is worth reading. I don’t mind the misattribution but like to keep things honest and accurate

You seem to think that the all troublemakers are British (“20£ London fares to the continent”). Whilst no doubt some are British, the worst offenders are the Russians. I know people who own property in two different European countries and now, neither will rent to Russians as they have learnt the hard way that they have no respect for property and have caused disturbance to neighbours at night by their drunken partying.

I have spent 4.5 months abroad over the past year and I haven’t experienced any over-crowding, but I travel off season and tend to stay in smaller places, not major cities.

The problem with allowing tourists to come up with solutions is that most of us are pretty self-centred (I definitely am, see para 2 below), and propose changes that suit us. For instance, if you don't take cruises, then obviously restricting cruise ships is the answer and forget all of us arriving by aeroplane or coach trip. Don't carry a day-bag? Then propose a ban on them to make queues faster. Upset by all those young Brits and Swedes daring to actually have fun in your favourite city rather than visit the dusty art gallery? Whinge about behaviour and stop their cheap flights!

If we want to reduce crowds then I have a modest proposal. Hand over all tourism to the state and put in place rationing on sight entries, tourist transport, hotel rooms; also nationalise private rentals and so on. Not limits based on ability to pay, but limits based on need and benefit. Give priority to local school groups, families from the region, the nation's workers, etc.

"...a modest proposal." a la J. Swift?

Well spotted. Yes a la Swift. And to be taken in the same vein! Apart from my last sentence which I do actually believe.

I just read an article this morning on Condé Nast Traveler about a brawl that started as an altercation between two women at the Trevi Fountain over a prime selfie spot. The altercation between the two women the led to the involvement of their families in the fracas and charges being brought by the local police. The mayor of Rome had proposed making a one way pedestrian route in front of the fountain (similar to the transiting of tourists past the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London) with local police enforcing the same.

@ Continental....”Tourism Trap” was TIME Magazine’s phrase not mine.
There is a link to the article in a post above. It is worth reading. I
don’t mind the misattribution but like to keep things honest and
accurate

Got it. Next time, perhaps share the link in the OP. :-) Time magazine like daytime morning tv (Good Morning America, the Today show, etc) is silent that there are in fact 3 other seasons for those like my husband and I who don't want any part of summer travel. "Europe at a Crossroads"? The continent in its entirety?? That's a wee bit dramatic.

Silly Arthur. Don't you know that posting anything along the lines of, "I don't like ... " just gives the virtue signallers and 'perfect people' an opportunity to criticise you for being critical? Threads like this tend to aggravate the angels among us.

Undeterred by their sermonising, I will agree with the basic point about travel today - too many people, too many of whom behave badly. I will poke my head up above the trench, sans helmet, to say that the affordability of international travel has changed the scene for the worse. I wouldn't single out any one race in this however - ferals exist in every nation. Thirty years ago, when travel was much more expensive, 'those people' could be largely avoided because they tended to opt for package holidays in places like Benidorm, Spain (shudder). Cruise passengers were, by and large, attracted to cruising in part because they were recreating the genteel, polite luxury we used to see in movies - dinner suits and fine dining, etc. Nowadays, it seems cruises are mostly marketed at families and have become floating holiday resorts, attracting lots of people who don't own dinner jackets ;-)

And now a bit of fun with a pet hate of my own, in relation to the 'new tourist' or, more specifically, a certain type of group tour that is becoming more common. These people seem to be oblivious to the fact that other folks are visiting each site for the very same reasons they are, usually simply to gaze at the fountain, panorama or cathedral; perhaps also to take a photo or two. These tours turn up and immediately march to the front, all flag waving and shouting, then stand in front of the thing, blocking everybody's view. They will stand there for quite some time, too, while the guide explains every tiny bit of trivia. This happened literally at every single thing I wanted to photograph in Salzburg recently. The worst example was at Residence Fountain, where one tour guide, having brought her mob to see it and finished her spiel, decided it would be a good spot for a break and a rest, whereupon the thirty or so people she was guiding sat on the walls surrounding the fountain pool, thus ruining everybody's chances of getting a reasonable photo. No consideration - we're done, you're screwed.

Ahh, that's better. A good whinge can be therapeutic!

I wonder if the reporter actually visited any of the places she wrote
about. Did she spend alot of time watching Americans. In 7 trips to
Europe we have never seen an American act badly.

Brad, did you even read the article? The author didn't single out tourists of ANY specific citizenship for criticism. She didn't even talk much about tourists behaving badly, just the AMOUNT of them. As to where she's traveled, look up her bio and list of publications. That's not difficult. At least she resides/has resided in Europe (Madrid and Copenhagen) which is more than I can say for the majority of posters to this thread, including me and thee.

Threads like this do sometimes tend to bring out the, as steves_8 calls them, virtue signalers. Or, in some cases, what I would call the ethnocentrists. Virtue signalers on here tend towards the 'my way of traveling is the best' or 'I go off season, or off peak times, so avoid the crowds and therefore I'm not part of the crowds, therefore I'm not part of the tourist overpopulation'. The ethnocentrists tend more towards the 'people like me' are not the problem, it's the other ethnic groups that are the problem.

Every one of us who travel to Europe as a tourist is part of the over tourism, regardless of whether we travel independent, on group land tours, or on cruise ships, even if we travel in what used to be called the off season (don't think there is one anymore).

I absolutely agree with the premise that cheaper travel has definitely been a driver in the increased tourism in Europe. I know that because I'm not part of the upper middle class that can easily afford international travel but I am part of that group who can now travel precisely because of the reduced cost of travel, particularly budget transportation like cheap airfares.

How to solve this issue is a major conundrum and I doubt that any of us has the perfect solution. I know that, while my logical side says that some kind of restrictions on number of tourists may be the answer, my more selfish side does not want to see world travel reverting to when it was a luxury only available to the more wealthy among us.

Nancy, i wasn't going to chime in on this one, but after reading your post all i can say is DITTO!

@Jennifer...Sorry But I didnt mean to infer that at all. That was used as an example of an Air Fare not a Nationality.

Having said that I agree Nationality plays no part in bad behavior...it can be found everywhere.

@Brad: the author of the article is a well traveled well respected journalist who like me has lived in Europe and worked there as well as traveling there. She made NO reference or Inference to any particular nationality in the article.

About her premise: It is not her premise. If you read the article you can see the numbers. They are in an easy to understand graphic. She is talking about the reality of tourism increase over the last 5 years.

And how does being a professor at Oberlin affect the article or the facts she cites?

@Nancy and Steves_8...You guys nailed it! I love that phrase “Virtue Signalers” And yes when I Post anything I expect that kind of response from some. I take criticism in stride and it doesn’t bother me especially when it’s based in faulty logic and a poor grasp of the facts. And I fully realize I am kind of a lightning rod for a few of my favorite critics who seem to criticize me from some personal standpoint more than what I have actually written. :) And I enjoy reading them. I value eveeryone’s input regardless of whether they agree with me or not.

I will apologize in general for not having a link in my OP. Maybe my mindset is just a holdover from University or from my business background but I assume that if one is interested enough to post and wants to write or criticize with some authority and accuracy one can look up a source as easy as Time Magazine all by themselves. I am remiss in offering “links” in most of my posts. But I do always cite the source. I will remedy this in the future and make it easier for everyone. I should have included a link here.

As for the argument that the seasons make some difference or invalidate the facts of the article or that those that travel in the “off” season are somehow immune to this trend.: The numbers are there. The season doesn’t matter. The fact is the sites are overcrowded to the point of actual physical harm to the buildings and whatever they contain. And as it gets even more crowded more and more will go next time in the “off” season and that too will end up being over-run. (This is one of the “market adjustments” I mentioned that would take time) So you can sit back now patting yourself on the back but next time you go it might be a different situation altogether. People who make the business of Travel their study and career are finding that more and more there is no true “Off” season in many places anymore...

The specific problem of queuing at specific attractions can be solved with advanced compulsory reservations coupled with a rise in admission price and reduction of crowds inside. Another effec

If you feel Europe is too crowded with tourists, visit China. I was there two years ago on a return visit to see several of their new national parks, and during three weeks we saw ONE Western backpacker, a couple dozen Western travelers in Beijing and otherwise no non-Chinese visitors whatsoever.

China's history and culture are just as rich and fascinating as Europe's, and with high-speed trains and Internet everywhere, modern conveniences make it a comfortable venue for travelers now.

There is the law of supply and demand. Great demand makes a particular destination noticeably more crowded, more expensive, and less attractive. During my life, I have visited London three times. Very expensive, and on my last visit in late September 2017, very crowded. Because of how expensive and crowded it is, I suspect that in the future any visit to London will be shorter. Two weeks ago, I was in Boston for four nights. Great city, but hotel prices are much too high. Any future visits will be much shorter. There is an endless list of incredible places in this country, in Europe, and elsewhere in the world to visit and return to. There are different places to go to, different seasons to travel in, and different ways to allocate our travel time.

And greater demand affects supply. For example, before Katrina, the New Orleans area had perhaps 600 restaurants; today, it has 1,600, and tourists are staying and spending time in parts of the city that were not terribly trendy 15 years ago.

I understand that cheap air travel has made different places uncomfortably crowded and in some instances had drawn segments of tourists who can behave badly. But over time, we will adjust to the changes in travel and tourism that we are seeing.

Ban selfies:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6048511/Eight-tourists-brawl-Romes-iconic-Trevi-two-women-argued-selfie-spot.html

American "have great manners"?

Actually both women and their families seem like entitled jerks. Fistfights over a selfie, but then this is the world where Kim Kardashian posing on a bed is big news.

I wonder if the problem is that visitors think that the very busy destinations must be the ones most worth seeing. In fact, the experiences that make the most personal impact are often those where you are not overwhelmed by the crowds. So avoid the "must sees", and go to the places in the second or third rank.

In the last month, we have gone to the following in England, which were worth seeing and well-remembered, but were not very busy and we had time to wander, to read the guidebooks and talk to the staff.
Bolsover Castle, Derbyshire
Selby Abbey, Yorkshire
Temple Newsam House, Leeds, Yorkshire
Barley Hall, York
Old Hall, Gainsborough, Lincolnshire
Doddington Hall, Lincolnshire
Isaac Newton's birthplace, Woolsthorpe Manor, Lincolnshire

In January, we had a similarly enoyable and memorable visit to the following in Cartagena, Murcia, Spain
Roman Theatre
Roman Villa

So my advice is to keep away from the places that everyone else goes to, because the other visitors will spoil your visit. There are still lots of places to visit where you will have the time and space to have a meaningful experience.

Arthur, I forgot to thank you for clarifying what you meant by "we". :O)

It might make sense that individual tolerances of crowds are also very different depending on where someone is from? The tourist from a small town/rural area might deal with them much less easily than one from a busy, noisy, densely populated city where crowds are normal? LOL, the visitor used to dealing with subways in Tokyo, Beijing or Mumbai during peak hours probably doesn't even blink at the crowds in Venice or Barcelona during high season!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFCTip9otKg

@Kathy...I think you are dead right in that analysis. And there is another issue here too. And that is the different “World View” that Asians have vs most so called “westerners”. We Americans, Canadians, Aussies, French etc etc. see ”space” as something to be protected, like the space around our body or our cars...Asians tend to see space as something to be filled, as useful. Any visitor to Hong Kong or Beijing or India can see this played out literally a million times a day in the way they drive, line (que) up, (or not in this case) walk and deal with each other, fill elevators to overflowing etc. And you can see it in the way they deal with the crowds in Europe. So yes I think you are very right about that take on crowds.

In Regards to avoiding the Iconic must see’s of History and Art and Architecture to avoid the crowds mentioned by several...

The problem with substituting a Castle in Derbyshire for the Louvre, The Prado, The Uffizi or the Accademia, the Coloseum, the Eiffel Tower, the Musee d’ Orsay or any number of other places I could list Including the Acropolis and Pompeii is that these are the places where our Western Cultural Heritage and it’s History, Art and Architecture is preserved and on display. People should absolutely see these places and things and there is very good reason they are overcrowded.

No matter how worthy any alternate destination or sight is it is not one of the above. This is not a matter of choice between these two kinds of sights hopefully. I would encourage people to see all of the ones mentioned in Bob from Bristols post above...but honestly they are sights one would see on their 2nd or 3rd trip.. I would also encourage every traveling, thinking American to visit China, probably the most misunderstood country by most Americans.

But I do beleive that when most people sit down to plan their first overseas trip Europe is high on the list and wins out most often and for good reason. It is a place at once familiar and still “foreign”, easy to navigate and pick up a few words of the languages. China can seem much much more daunting and much more foreign and much costlier to get to.

There is good reason for Europes iconic sights to be crowded...the question is not displacing travelers to other places but better managing the numbers that are there now and in to the future.

I reread the article to make sure I didn't miss any wisdom or something newsworthy I was unaware of. If anything, I was put off by the intentionally emotional overtones of "tranquility" of some ideal state in the form of a painting juxtaposed with words like "tourist hordes", "killing [his hometown]", "roil [their way]....not exactly a balanced journalistic piece, the crumbs of data points sprinkled throughout notwithstanding (by the way, the entire continent of Europe is not suffering from "tourist hordes"'; the article itself focuses on well-known hotspots but somehow suggests to unknowing readers that this is a Europe-wide issue). This is an old story that can be summarized as "everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too" (hence the word "Trap"). No one wants to accept trade-offs, make sacrifices or accept responsibility for their own impact on others' experiences - it's easier to tell other people what they should do, how they can "fix" things to make your travels more comfortable for you, to argue about who's a bigger lout and bemoan that more people have the ability to travel now and they are competing to see the same blockbuster sites and sharing limited space with you. Patience, tolerance, adaptability to new circumstances, and even restraint are in short supply when they're most needed. If this article doesn't cause any sort of introspection, then it's a lost cause.

@Agnes...actually I think you are overlooking something here, The article with it’s color coded map and graph make clear which parts of Europe is being discussed in the article. The author points out those places most affected. It is absolutely clear what parts of Europe the article is about.

You may take exception to some of the words she used like “Roil” but if you had been with me this summer in Florence or Rome or Pompeii or the Louvre you might even use a more colorful word or two to describe what you would have experienced.

The Author also mentioned Asia and the Caribbean and the US and the fact that the UN counted 1.3 BILLION international arrivals worldwide last year...51% were in Europe. That’s over 650 Million people arriving in Europe.

Most of the article is about what countries and localities are doing to push back and control the influx.

You can nitpick semantics but the numbers don’t lie and they tell a disturbing story.

There is no map or graph in this link or any others posted on this thread, so I can't overlook something which I can't see :-)
http://time.com/5349533/europe-against-tourists/

As I mentioned above, lots and lots of places I still have in mind to see and intend to before I no longer can in Italy, France, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Germany, Austria, England, Czechia, and Budapest. Whether these places are the typical tourist sights inundated by tourists, day in and day out in the summer, the question is whether this situation presents a deterrent to my intention to go there. I very much doubt it. I may have to tailor daily itinerary plans to lessen the chance of running into tons of tourists at a particular sight but the main point is that I'm still going regardless.

The first time I saw the Mona Lisa was in August 1989 (I remember, it was a broiler, a cooker in Paris), and even then that room was swamped with tourists, among one tour group from Japan and one from China, each with its translator, a French woman speaking Japanese, the other speaking Mandarin. It was linguistically impressive watching them.

I am not overly concerned on a person level if places are swamped by tourists. Lots of places, cities and towns, in eastern and northern Germany will have only a trickle of international tourists, if any. Most often, as I've seen, hardly any or none to be counted.

But I am concerned about the negative aspects in terms of damage to artifacts done tourists, eg, shooting a painting with a flash, to cite a simple example. .

I am sorry about that link but I didnt supply it and I didnt make the decision of what went up online for Time. But if you are missing the Map and the Graph then you are missing lots of context in the article. The map is color coded to show which countries are most affected with their tourist arrival numbers. The graph shows the exponential growth for many of those countries over the past 5 years.

I guess what I don’t understand is the stance you and Brad seem to take that you have a better handle on the problem than the leaders of these communities she interviewed. This is a classic case of the little guy (and government) unusually standing up to powerful corporate interests (the travel industry and it’s own citizens employed Therin or thereby) and trying to make things better. I would have thought that would be something you would be for not against given other things you have written here.

Perhaps this lack of the map and graph in the online version accounts for some of the dissonance I hear on the article here in this discussion. I am using the Hard Copy of Time as printed in Europe.

@ Kathy... I know lots of Americans who have been to China since the late 1970s, regardless of their ethnic background, yes, for professional reasons, job related, etc, but also for vacation, a few repeatedly, with no command of the language either.

Expect for the pollution factor, they're impressed and quite positive about it.

The Chinese Consulate is in SF. If you happen to drive by it prior to its daily opening time, you can see the line, sometimes long, of those wanting to get to apply for the visa. I would not have any problems going there by way of a guided tour, just keeping in mind it's a single party police state. Going to Japan and China are on my bucket list too.

If it is true that many Russians have no respect for property, how can they respect property when for so long they weren't allowed to have any?
I took a bus tour in Spain summer of 2018. It was not RS and was one of the less expensive companies, but on two tours-the Alhambra and I think the Prado, we were split into 2 groups of 15 each with a local guide. It seems like tour companies would choose to do this just because it makes the experience so much better for its customers. You would have to have a lot of bus tours with 50/bus to add up to the impact of one cruise ship that disgorges thousands on a port.

I know lots of Americans who have been to China since the late 1970s,
regardless of their ethnic background.... Expect for the pollution
factor, they're impressed and quite positive about it.

Fred, you may have misunderstood? I wasn't being critical of China, Japan or Mumbai in any way. I was just using them as examples where citizens used to the very dense cities might not find those most-visited places in Europe all that crowded, as a tourist. It may be a different story for the visitor from Smallville, USA. Very sorry, if I gave the wrong impression there.

I'd agree that different levels of comfort with 'personal space' - as Arthur mentioned - also comes into play. The shoulder-to-shoulder mass in the Vatican Museums, say, might be less distressful to someone used to that sort of crowding on a regular basis than someone who is not?

This article makes some interesting points even if it's nothing new. I think a lot about whether places like Cinque Terre (last visit 2007), Dubrovnik (2011), Barcelona (2005, briefly on business in 2010), Venice (2011) are too ruined by crowding to make it worth trying to go back. But a lot of what we read about this takes the worst examples to sensationalize it, because otherwise there is no story. A lot of the posts on this board about how terrible the tourist hoards are here or there, are based upon traveling at absolute peak season.

Many travelers who are less experienced than many of us, may only take an overseas trip or two in a lifetime. They want to see the places the others who also only take a trip or two in lifetime tell them they must see. So those places are really crowded. There are plenty of ways to mitigate the crowds as an individual traveler, for now anyway.

The point of the article - if I read the OP correctly - is that crowding has become noticeably worse in recent years. That has certainly been my experience, at least in the most well-known places.

The reason has to be the relatively low cost/higher disposable income (on average) compared with say, twenty years ago. This is a rather 'interesting' issue for me, when I'm constantly hearing how easy we Baby Boomers had things, and how hard young people and families apparently have it these days.

Something doesn't compute however. If things are so much harder financially today, why are there gyms on every corner, multiple restaurants along every street, mobile phone stores in every mall selling AUD1K handsets (eek!), most driveways full of cars, homes with widescreen TVs in every room and yes, more airports than ever firing millions of planes into the skies en route to holiday destinations?

And as it gets even more crowded more and more will go next time in the “off” season and that too will end up being over-run. (This is one of the “market adjustments” I mentioned that would take time) So you can sit back now patting yourself on the back but next time you go it might be a different situation altogether. People who make the business of Travel their study and career are finding that more and more there is no true “Off” season in many places anymore...

I live in an area that's two parts Department of Defense spending to one part tourism. Said tourism used to be more seasonal and less year round than it used to be, and the growth of tourism in the 'off season' is actually good for the local economy and local small businesses. 20 years ago, it was common for some small businesses in the touristy part of the region to shut down for months in the off-season famine part of feast-or-famine. These days, those same business owners are more likely to reduce the closure for 2-3 weeks for their own vacations (that they now afford to take rather than having to rely on savings to get them through the winter) or to freshen up restaurant of shop and then operate at 60-75% of their in-season hours the rest of the off season. And while those small businesses stay open, they're also till employing other locals who are also better able to make it through the off season than they used to be.

@ Kathy....I never interpreted your response as being critical of going to China or India. Sorry, if my words came across that way, not my intention at all. I took your words actually to mean going to China and Japan could be an option if one wants to try another place to visit other than Europe. It is a very viable alternative, especially going to Japan and China.

You know there might be a meaningful segment of the population that loves the tourism. I think i would leave it up to them to judge if there is a problem.... And its always dangerous to lump Venice in the same conversation with Istanbul (where tourism is suffering right now) and, say, a place like Sofia where the tourist dollars would sure be a plus for the economy with very little downside.

This thread sort of touches on another thread last year. This thread made me proud to be assoicated with the people of the forum. So much intelligent discussion. Amazing...

https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/general-europe/travel-ethics-612334a0-0ca1-4128-b088-c13d1d8a91c3

Steves_8 has it right. This article is about the fact that crowding (Number of tourist arrivals) has become noticeably worse recently (Last 5 Years).

I am not sure what some of you mean when you say this situation is not “new”. New to me in this context means that this hasn’t happened before and in this case Europe has never seen these huge numbers of tourist arrivals...to me that makes this New.

For those who cannot see the map or graph online here is a synopsis:

Picture in your mind a map of Europe (all of it) The countries of Spain and France are colored DARK blue. Italy is a shade lighter. Germany, Greece and the UK a shade lighter still. Croatia and the Netherlands a bit lighter.

Now in each of the most affected countries is the number of tourist arrivals for 2017.
France 87 Million
Spain 82 Million (32 millions of these went to Barcelona)
Italy 58 Million (most of these people will visit only 3 cities Venice, Florence and Rome)
Uk 40 Million
Germany 37 Million (as you can see a very distant 4th)
Austria 29 Million
Greece 27 Million

Now the graph puts the above numbers in perspective. It shows the INCREASE in percentage of tourist arrivals from 2012 to 2017 (so if your last trip was in 2011 to 2013 you may not understand what all the fuss is about)
Greece 75%
Croatia 50%
Spain 42%
Italy 26%

This kind of percentage rise over just 5 years is completely new and never seen before. Further when your tourism numbers increase 10% that’s a BIG number in terms of infrastructure, accommodation and many other factors. But when in the space of only 5 years it jumps 40, 50, or 75 perenct that is a mind boggling amount of people on your streets that weren’t there 5 years ago.

Now I left Iceland out though it is shown on the graph; I am not sure how Iceland has suddenly become part of the European continent (or Britain for that matter) but they included it. It’s rise was 230% but that represents 2 million people, a huge amount for Iceland but to me it’s not Europe.

The article says that 55 Thousand people visit Venice every day. That is equivalent to every man woman and child in Galveston TX on the streets of Venice each day.

I think the numbers speak for themselves. It is clear this is a NEW situation. And only likely to get worse before it gets better.

I hope these numbers add some clarity.

Interesting discussion with a wide range of viewpoints expressed. I remember seeing the Mona Lisa at the Met on one of its few visits outside of France. 1963, in fact. (I bet many of you weren't even born then) Not crowded at all. Reading the above experiences, I'm glad my travel was finished years ago and I don't have to deal with the present crowds and situations. However, I do wish all people could have the experiences of travel that I have had and hope that progress can be made in coping with the problems of mass tourism before all the "attractions" are trampled to oblivion. This article brings up many idea for improvement of the situation some of which have been mentioned in the points above.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/17/residents-in-tourism-hotspots-have-had-enough-so-whats-the-answer

A statistic of interest to me is one from Paris tourism. Most guests in Paris stay only 2.5 days. To me, living in an outer arrondissement, that means that few get to my neighborhood. Consequently I feel no tourist pressure at all. 87 million people did not go to ALL of France.

I was in the 8th grade then.

A question to Aarthur

How does this from the Time article square with your earlier posts about Airbnb?

Time:
"The advent of Airbnb has created a revenue stream for city-center residents with spare bedrooms and second properties . . . . .Yet some people benefit more than others. Canny investors buy up residential properties in desirable locations and convert them into tourist apartments, provoking housing shortages and pushing up prices. . . . . The same cycle (referring to Venice) threatens Barcelona and Florence; tourism drives locals out of the center, which then leaves even more spaces to be colonized by restaurants and shops that cater to tourists."

One of yours from the France forum (others can be easily found)

"AirBnb to me is a great idea that works, it has struck a huge chord in the marketplace, hundreds of thousands of folks are responding to it and having pretty great experiences if the reviews on site and my own experience and others I talk to are any indication. It is here to stay."

Reminds me of an old Pogo quote "We have met the enemy and he is us"

A question to Aarthur
How does this from the Time article square with your earlier posts about Airbnb?

Glad you asked that. There is nothing in the article that changed my mind about AirBnb at all. The author tries to give both sides (which you didnt quote fully) and for that she gets good marks. And the article is not about Airbnb.

There is nothing in this article that even hints at Airbnb adding to the overcrowding. In fact just the opposite. Further nothing I have written here is in the least bit inconsistent with my writings on the Airbnb subject.

Airbnb is set to surpass 100 Million bookings this year. Can all of those people be wrong?

In my opinion Airbnb is more of an emotional issue than a factual one for most people especially the detractors. The hotel industry is losing Billions of dollars a year to Airbnb. So you think for a moment those CEO’s are just sitting on their hands and doing nothing? Oh no. Far from it. They are spending millions to make airbnb look bad and to sway public opinion...none of it is working. Airbnb keeps growing despite all the regulations and propaganda.

I have stayed in 12 AirBnbs, 11 on this trip alone. I had problems with one of them and Airbnb satisfied me with their solution. I have stayed in 21 hotels so far on this trip and I have had some problem or other with all but about 9 or 10. It’s that kind of record that is fueling the growth of Airbnb.

In addition I owned a modest sized hotel/Restaurant and bar in a resort area. I understand the issues from both sides. And I am still a fan of AirBnb.

If tons of folks have responded positively to Air BnB, then it certainly is their choice to do so...obviously. I just won't ever be one of them and would never suggest that option for solo travelers or even couples/pairs.

"Airbnb is set to surpass 100 Million bookings this year. Can all of those people be wrong?"

Perhaps not. But do you think users of Airbnb should be staggered in the same way you think cruise ship arrivals should be staggered?

I read the article and I think a reason for the radically sharp increase in the numbers of tourists in Europe has to do with the cohort of the earlier baby boomers born in 1946 and later, who are realizing if I don’t go to Europe now, I may be too ill or disabled to go next year. I agree with the analysis of previous posters that inexpensive flights, etc. are another main driver. But, I think time running out for folks is a big factor I don’t think the article mentions. IMHO.

@Nick
While this article did mention Airbnb which I suppose makes it fair game as part of the discussion I am hoping we can stay focused on the real topic of the article and my post. But I will answer your direct question:

The TIME Article makes clear (if your read it) that some locales are limiting BOTH hotel construction and AirBnbs. A city can only hold as many visitors nightly as there are places to stay. So if cities think they should go that route that is fine with me.

People who stay in AirBnb’s and hotels add much more to the economy of a place than Cruise ship passengers because those passengers sleep on the ship and usually eat two of the three daily meals aboard. Staggering Cruise Ship arrivals is about keeping overall Day Trippers numbers more manageable.

"Now I left Iceland out though it is shown on the graph; I am not sure how Iceland has suddenly become part of the European continent (or Britain for that matter)" - I don't have access to the graph and it's wording but Britain and Iceland have always been part of the European continent, just not part of Continental Europe (mainland).

I travel off season, rarely to any major cities, not out of any false notion that I am a better person or a more responsible traveller because of it. Air fare is cheaper, I rarely run into crowds (can't think of any overwhelming crowds offhand), I dislike moving around in intense heat. However, many people can only travel during the summer, especially those with children. Factory holiday shutdowns still exist in some areas. Australians usually travel to Europe during their winter. The old Eastern Bloc has started to spend it's money. Those looking for a once or twice in a lifetime experience are likely to visit the more popular and more publicised destinations, which they perceive to be more worthy. I can't blame them for that. The vast majority of us have seen at least one famous landmark in Western Europe before venturing to more out of the way places.

For those advocating an increase in air fares and admission prices as possible solutions to keep out the rabble, please stop. Having said that, I have no sensible solutions.

"a gaggle of Israeli Orthodox Jews, then a tide of Indian Sufis jostled by" (from the article) - ha, brilliant. For more dramtic effect, the author should have added that the sufis were whirling across the bridge.

I think a reason for the radically sharp increase in the numbers of tourists in Europe has to do with the cohort of the earlier baby boomers born in 1946 and later, who are realizing if I don’t go to Europe now, I may be too ill or disabled to go next year. I

Judy I think you are right about that to a point and it is having an effect for sure and it is something I didnt think about. (Probably because I don’t like to think about time running out)

And the baby boom happened all over the world not just in America.

But...many many millions of these travelers are young...very young. Many have a lot more disposable income at a young age than our generation did generally speaking and they are traveling in droves.

Different age cohorts don't share the same travel patterns and interests, and they have different constraints (time, money, health status, need for comfort) when it comes to travel. The article below is a bit old, but probably not outdated as far as general statements are concerned. Reading some of the Boomer comments here, it's obvious there are some odd and straight up inaccurate stereotypes about young people. Just because they "look like" they have money to burn, younger people have nowhere the same level of job or income security as their parents did (no more pensions, no GI Bill, very high student loan debt, lots of poor paid jobs/ pieced together independent contractor types of gigs, marrying much later in life if at all, etc). The flat screen tvs, iPhones, and easy access to credit cards for charging everything are not a reflection of how much savings are actually in their bank accounts or what their retirement prospects will look like (by the way, most young people don't care about having large screen tvs at all). They're traveling because they're healthy, have energy and curiosity, and know their future is totally uncertain and they can squeeze it in now when the stakes are not as high. But I doubt you'd find many of them on a cruise or packaged tour group.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/how-millennials-are-changing-international-travel/373007/
"The World Youth Student and Educational (WYSE) Travel Confederation, which recently surveyed more than 34,000 people from 137 countries, found that young travelers are not as interested in “the traditional sun, sea and sand holidays” as previous generations are. They are spending less time in “major gateway cities” and instead exploring more remote destinations, staying in hostels instead of hotels, and choosing long-term backpacking trips instead of two-week jaunts. The study showed an increase from 2007 in young travelers taking trips (like mine) for longer than two months, with the average trip lasting 58 days."

As boomers and their parents die, there is and will continue to be a tremendous transfer of wealth to the younger generations and the youngsters perhaps have the time to travel and because they have inherited some money, are taking advantage of the lower cost of travel. My nephew went to SE Asia for a month after college graduation. He now owns and runs his own engineering firm.

I think it's easy to overstate the portion of Venice overcrowding that comes from cruise ships. The math on cruise ships being the ruin of Venice does not work out at all. At 20M visitors a year that's 55,000 visitors per day. Say a peak day in summer is 25% more than the annual average, or 82,500 total visitors. Saturday August 4 as an example was a very heavy day for cruise ship visits, around 17,000 passengers in port (source: www.cruisemapper.com). That would mean only 20% of the visitors came from cruise ships on a day when cruise visitors were especially numerous. Big cruise ships also visit very disproportionately on weekends, outside of weekends the numbers of cruise passengers is way lower. Plenty of days with fewer and mostly smaller ships. Wednesday August 8 had five ships in port but the largest was 800 passengers and some of them had only tens of passengers.

Flying into Venice on a Sunday as typical start-of-trip scenario, you would suffer the worst of cruise ship people only on your jet lagged day of arrival. Venice might still be crowded on Monday-Tuesday but it would not be because of cruise passengers.

I agree with the point about U.S. National Parks, it's not just Europe. The Zion welcome video is designed to help you understand that it's going to be a total zoo:
https://www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/zion-park-introduction-video.htm

My wife and I visited Grand Canyon NP in May 2016, right on the cusp of when it started to get busy. It even snowed on the south rim our first day, we thought maybe we came too early in the season. Three days later we spent the last hour of our visit crammed like sardines on a shuttle bus. The margin for error of when to go to these parks is much narrower than it is in Europe.

Edit: Actually I probably did not have to go to the trouble of doing the math as Cruisemapper states 1.453M cruise + ferry passengers annually to the port of Venice, which would be 7% of total visitors if reports of 20M annual visitors are accurate.

vftravels, thank you for your analysis of the numbers in Venice from ships. I would like to add that except for ports such as Venice and le Cinque Terre, passengers disembark and go on different tours in different directions, here and there, some going independently and not on the ship tours, others hiring a taxi at the pier and yet others staying put aboard the ship for various reasons. This minimizes the chances that a venue will be completely overwhelmed in my opinion.

There is also the fact that not all cruise ships carry thousands of passengers. Some of the smaller European cruise companies have fewer than 1000 or 1500. It seems to be the American ships that have the many thousands. On a recent Med. cruise a German ship docked at most of the same ports our ship did, and it was much, much smaller than our Holland America ship, probably in my estimation carrying many fewer than 1000. I have to say that on that particular itinerary, I never saw more that two cruise ships in a port at the same time as our HAL ship.

It is unfair and even ukind to demonize the cruise passenger as the root of a lot of the evil of overcrowding in popular destinations. Surely we are all responsible. Except me, of course.

We just came off a trip to Provence the first few weeks of July. I was expecting crazy crowds, but it was actually not too bad. Granted, we’ve already visited the big spots like Avignon and Nimes on previous trips, so didn’t return there. We did revisit Aix and it wasn’t bad at all. Les Baux wasn’t crowded.

We had a car and stuck to a lot of smaller villages and towns like St Remy, Orange, Moustiers and Manosque. The worst crowd would have been at Forcalquier...but that was because they have a massive market and we went on market day. Overall, most of the spots were pretty quiet, which was a nice change of pace.

Those looking for a once or twice in a lifetime experience are likely
to visit the more popular and more publicised destinations, which they
perceive to be more worthy. I can't blame them for that.

There's also the factor of public transit often being easier/more varied/frequent to these places than those less visited? We see a lot of posters asking for "off the beaten" but when push comes to shove, it's the popular places they really want to see. That or they're unwilling to deal with necessary vehicle rentals or the complexity it can be to reach those less-visited places via public transit. We see that often enough on the Italy forum where people think they want a farm stay but without a rental car + easy walkability to transit and restaurants.

My wife and I visited Grand Canyon NP in May 2016, right on the cusp
of when it started to get busy. It even snowed on the south rim our
first day, we thought maybe we came too early in the season. Three
days later we spent the last hour of our visit crammed like sardines
on a shuttle bus.

Time is also a factor?
We've hiked long sections of rim + some below rim (never clear to the bottom and out) multiple times from both sides. We've had weather that necessitated aborted hikes there and at other parks as well. The saving grace, mostly, has been that we've allotted time for Mother Nature or something else to throw us a curveball on a day or so - which it did for Zion in a MAJOR way for 2 of 3 days on stab #3 - and to enjoy some busy destinations worldwide during the quieter hours those visitors weren't there.

Dunno about you guys but if giving Rome only two nights during high/shoulder season, and spending the one full day being trampled at the Vatican, Colosseum, Pantheon, Trevi, etc. I don't wonder why some folks come away hating that city. Give it a good chunk of a week + some distance between visits to the tourist hot spots, the perception about crowds may be different?

Tourists who behave badly and selfishly are a serious issue.

We have been several times to Zagreb. They do a military re-enactment of a troupe of infantry with a mounted officer that's quite interesting. In each time that I have seen it, there is some moron with his cell phone who goes out into the midst of the troupe, and films the soldiers up close. This of course makes everyone else's more respectful pictures undoable. Very annoying.

I am predicting that tourist numbers will be down next summer. TIME magazine always manages to call the top of any trend by publishing a sensational article about it, and putting it on the cover. A sure sign that the trend has peaked.

Maybe the tourists from China and the Indian Subcontinent aren't familiar with the Time article.

What to do about it, Arthur? Come home and stay home for a while. Do not add to the masses of people. Yes, you, doggie and Mr. Pig all added to the mobs.

If the countries want the revenue from the tourists, then tourists they will get!! The Galapagos and Antarctica limit the number of people on the land at any one time. Since the countries overflowing with visitors have not chosen to limit planes, trains, ships, etc. coming into their airports, stations, ports, then they are clearly welcoming the mobs and their money. They are also likely continuing the promotion of their country and their sites in many established and developing tourist markets. At a time when some countries are really struggling financially, the tourist spending helps to keep many afloat.

What are you doing there during the high season anyway? Figured you would be more knowledgeable than to travel at this time......but now you know!!

Do not judge your fellow tourists, if anything learn from the cultural differences. Those differences might not be pleasant, but you can still observe and learn and gain understanding. Even those on whom you sound like you are looking down (those loud misbehaving who come on the cheapy airlines and ships), remember if they are Americans, they can vote.........might explain the state of things beyond travel.......hmmmmmm. There is at least one person I can think of that does not lack money and travels in high style........and he comes across as very rude, self-centered and loud.......so how can we expect our fellow countrymen to not follow what is typically a role model position?

Arthur, do your part, and you really cannot control other countries, the decisions of other countries, and you really have no right to limit anyone else who is merely trying to do what you are doing. And, thank goodness the hordes are not also taking their dogs with them...that could be a barking mess, as they might not be as caring and responsible with their pet as you are!!

Let it go!!! We can only do so much, and it all starts with us as one person......think about that!!

Arthur,
You seem to believe that cruise ship passengers do not contribute as much to the local economy as someone who might stay in an Airbnb.

Do you ever notice those people who are at the dock welcoming the cruise ship, the pilot and team who help to guide the ship into port, the people who pull the ropes, load the luggage, load the food, prepare the food, farm the food, make the wine....the team of people who work in the local water departments (ships reload water), the fuel providers. The team of people who work in the local tourist industry who organize the people getting off the ship, the drivers, the tour guides, the people who service and clean the bus, the shops that sell to passengers and on and on and on. On top of all that, the ships pay port fees that are significant. When local visas or tourist forms are required, the ship or their passengers pay for that (but it is handled more efficiently on board....revenue to local economies. And, as already mentioned by a previous poster, a lot of those passengers may just walk or take taxis, and no one can then tell them from you!!

I do not know enough about the specific financial impact of a cruise ship on a local economy, but I sure do see ports being increased in size or new ones being built. So, it could be assumed the country, city, whatever sees that ship and those passengers as very, very profitable guests.

Someone who comes into the same city, stays at a modest airbnb and follows the RS Guidebook, eats picnic meals, etc. may very well contribute less to the local economy..........so careful with the assumptions (they could be wrong).

Not this past trip in May and early June but last summer's trip where on any given day, the language most often, even almost daily, I heard regardless of the immediate place, train station eatery, waiting in line for the WC, grocery or train station dept stores, eg Rossmann, Müller, etc, tourist sights, souvenir shops, restaurants, the U-Bahn, just out and about, on and on, other than the local language, was Mandarin Chinese.

I thought this past May was going to be likewise, but not so compared with last summer. True, North American tourists are just a trickle in the over-all picture.

What about the European language heard most often apart from the local language? I would say Spanish, maybe Italian. It certainly was not North American English.

I had to laugh at the bit about the protesters at the Mallorcan airports. Mallorca wouldn't have an economy without tourism. It didn't for centuries after piracy crashed their trade economy. And if they want to protest, it should be their local politicians, who can affect who is able to buy land and for what purpose, not the people who are coming and spending their money there.

Anyway, we just don't travel anywhere popular in July-August. Even taking day trips it seems half the vehicles on the road are Dutch motorhomes. We also rarely choose destinations that are super famous and crowded for warm-weather travel. We had parts of Venice nearly to ourselves in early March nights; Paris is lovely in the winter, etc.

As for what to do, I think it depends on the place. Mallorca has enough all-inclusive resorts - they should preserve what's left of their coastline and leave it undeveloped. Barcelona's "problem" is being exaggerated by the article - it's still a capital of a region, a business hub, one of the most desirable cities in Spain to live in, etc. Maybe it's coming from San Francisco, but some cities have been dealt with being "loved to death" for a very long time and manage to get through it just fine.

Venice is trickier, it really does face serious problems from being loved to death and I don't know what the solutions are. Some of the obvious ones (limit budget airlines flights) have the unfortunate side-effect of punishing the less wealthy, which isn't ideal. I do hear a lot of negative talk about Venice now, so maybe word of mouth will spread and less people will visit? It's clear some kind of aggressive action is needed to preserve what's special about Venice.

To add to the argument by Maggie above, you only need to see a cruise ship being refueled while in port, an all day exercise, to know that many, many thousands of dollars/euros have benefitted the local economy, From our balcony at one Med. port, we watched and took photos as huge crates of colourful produce were loaded onto the ship. We knew broccoli would be on the menu very soon. These items had to be paid for by the cruise line, did they not? My point is, if some, a few, passengers do not spend a lot of money while in port, the cruise line does.

When I was in Venice recently, I couldn't see where they grow all that fresh produce for the cruise ships.

Well, Steves 8, I suppose Venice is not one of the ports for produce supplies, I don’t know. Maybe the ships take on a huge supply of Murano glass? Just a little humour for your supper time enjoyment.

Lets see, you fly into, say Athens, creating a carbon footprint of about 1 metric tons of CO2e (each way).
You rent an AirBnB for three nights, making you complicit in the dislocation of thousands of decent working class people due to the increased value of what was cheap real estate. While relaxing in Athens your effluent is pouring into the Aegean sea while coal is being consumed to maintain you in Athens and to keep your empty home in the states from over heating or freezing.

Then you board your US owned 2000 person cruise ship, flying under a Panamanian flag resulting in the exploitation of hundreds of crew because of the the loss of US Employee rights, wages and benefits. And add another metric ton of CO2e to the environment.

A few more days to enjoy your departure city and a few more thousand decent work class people homeless and more effluent spewed coal consumed at home while now your vacation city is on the Russian gas pipeline where the profits go to fund invasions of neighboring countries. Finally another 1 metric ton of CO2e to get you home.

MAN, this has got to end!!!

How many people have you met that just don't realize the true impact of their actions? Traveling should be limited to those who will really appreciate the experience on both a cultural and an intellectual level. Traveling for fun can no longer be tolerated.

This isnt such a bad idea: https://www.terrapass.com/product/productindividuals-families

James, I gotta say...........you are right.......you make one heck of a case for ALL of us just staying home!!!!!

And, while we are at it, quick everyone turn off their computers to save electricity (and where do all those old computer batteries (or computers) end up anyway?.....and how many people are underpaid while making the batteries? And, while we are at it, consider where your shoes, clothing, cameras, whatever are made.....are those people in the manufacturing process paid a living wage? Hmmmmm..........? And, think of all the fuel spent to have them shipped here). How big is your house (or houses)....do you really need that much space? This can go on and on an on.

There is a reaction to every single thing we do every single day.

If you are living with a truly smaller footprint in ALL your dealings every day, you are to be admired.

Side note: The crew on cruise ships are likely very happy and appreciative to be there. On some of the small ships, there are multi-generations working, and many with really long tenures. They have the opportunity to see the world a bit while earning a living, and what many of them to consider being a much better living than what might be available in their home countries....ask them if they feel exploited!! You might be surprised at the answer if you step onto a nice smaller cruise ship.

@ Maggie: I have to correct the misconception your post has left with some about me and some of the very wrong assumptions you have made about me.

But first let me commend you for your response to this thread where you laid out the Cruise ship economics to a port. I agree almost completely with that. But in a subsequent post you take it one level too far.

Now let me start with this: I never in my posts in this thread or any other advocated for limiting any form of travel as a response to the overcrowding. My suggestions were about Managing the crowds. And I did call for staggering CS arrivals which has been going on in some ports for some time now not limiting them. They are two vastly different things.

Now if you had noticed on other threads that I have participated in where this old canard about Cruise Ship passengers being the main culprit of overcrowding comes up I have defended the Cruise industry, it’s passengers and spoke about the economic benefits...apparently you missed those and have jumped to some very wrong conclusions.

Also as I have stated up thread (please read all of my responses to get a clear and accurate picture of what I beleive and to avoid these misunderstandings) I was relating the “takeaways” from the article and adding a few of my own suggestions. To leave out any mention of CS arrivals would have been wrong on my part.

Additionally I am not “looking down” on anyone. I know bad behavior when I see it and I can certainly tell the difference between cultural norms of behavior and urinating in public, fistfights, cutting in line and loud drunken behavior. (See my post mentioning the Asian world view of space vs the western above)

The one misunderstanding you have about cruise ships and their economic impact is this: The reprovisioning of cruise ships are done in “contract” ports. Not every port is a reprovisioning one. And not every reprovisioning port is a full reprovision. Every ship pays dockage and port fees everywhere. But even if they do all of this at a port the per passenger cost to the cruise line is small. And thereby the per passenger impact to the community is also small. It does not approach the same economic level of a 2,3 or 4 night hotel stay (or Airbnb) food and experiences that the same number of non cruise passengers pay.

However where CP’s do have an impact is in Tours and Bus Moves. Some of these can be substantial but still does not approach the land visitor spending.

Maybe you are right as one-off your posts to me suggests; we should all just Let it GO!! Maybe we should all just bumble through life without thought of or about our actions or how things can be changed for the better... But I am sorry that’s just not who I am.

And I apologize for the length of this response but it takes a lot of space to correct so many wrong assumptions and misunderstandings.

I have heard from Germans that there is a difference between them and their interpretation of space and that of Americans. Between Americans and the Germans' view of space there is definitely a difference. That is easily seen and evident when you know the cultural cues. Among Asians and space interpretation, which Asians?

Arthur,
When a place is overcrowded, "managing" often means "limiting." Managing can to be defined as limiting the number during peak times and off-loading to less popular times. Many European sites "manage" or "limit" by the number of tickets sold any one day, for any one hour, etc. but that still does not stop the number of people lining up or walking in the streets. It used to be if hotels were fully booked, that sort of limited the number of visitors, but now Airbnb and others bring in a whole new supply of rooms....same as here in my hometown. Such overnight rooms, if priced lower than hotels, also may allow lower-budget visitors (which can be perceived as a good thing).

As I mentioned, Galapagos and Antarctica manage/limit the number of visitors on land. Galapagos also mandates locals must staff passenger ships in the area....not sure if every job or just the majority, but it is a significant restriction.

AGAIN, if the countries in Europe decide it is best for their revenue streams to "manage" or "limit" the number of visitors, whether those visitors pour in by plane, train, vehicle, or ship, then they will do that. But, until those countries determine it is a problem, there is absolutely nothing any of us on the Forum can do, other than choose to travel in less-busy times.

Again, it appears you chose a prime (in terms of popularity) time to travel.

Right here in my hometown, we have become such a popular tourist destination we often see significant overcrowding, but no one seems to want to turn that off. Revenue from hotel taxes, visitor spending, etc. is seen by most (not all) as a very good thing. But, oh gosh, our traffic is suffering big time, which is also compounded by the number of people who are choosing to make this city their new home. It is tempting to dream of playing back the tape (so to speak) and hitting the pause button for 10 years ago. But, that is not going to happen. In the meantime, new hotel after new hotel is being built, apartments and houses are going up as fast as possible. Infrastructure is not keeping up. Has anyone chosen to limit or manage? Europe in a different way is making a similar choice.

It is up to the locale to make the tough decisions, but so many seem to respond with "bring it on."

Your post is an interesting one, but other than encouraging readers to go at non-peak times (so as I say/not as I do), I don't know what can really be achieved here on-line. What do you expect the result to be? Re: the bad behavior you have witnessed, unfortunately that happens in many locales, including among visitors to my hometown, too. I do not know of a pre-screening test that can be administered at the border. What is your suggestion, especially when police forces are limited? I think I recall someone mentioned Singapore.....such behavior would not happen there....been there, I know they have very strict rules and enforcement. Do we want the entire world to be the same? Every approach has its pros/cons. A little of Singapore might be a good thing as we repeatedly hear about mass shootings, etc. It is all a delicate balance of freedom/control. You want the freedom to travel when you want to go..........so do many,many,many others. So what is the answer?

I have never taken a tour to Europe. I will say some tour groups sweep through like they own the place. That said, I've never seen a RS group while traveling and I like to follow Sarah Murdoch and would doubt that I'd find her tour groups obtrusive. Maybe some of these cities should get tougher on the cruise travelers. I say this because I wonder, what impact the cruise ship travelers really have on the local economy. They don't stay in or eat in local places. They come in for the day and go back to their ships.

I would love to go to some of my wish list cities at the peak in terms of weather, like perhaps Paris and Italian cities in the spring. Provence during lavender time, the Netherlands during tulip time, but I choose to travel off season because for me, personally, I am overwhelmed in crowds and long lines annoy me because I feel like I'm missing other sight seeing opportunities. Most people would not choose to go to Prague in January, but I did, and the trade off worked well for me.

Likewise, some U.S. locations are being overwhelmed by European tourists. National parks to be sure. I was at a more remote park in Nevada a week ago. There were several groups from Europe. During a hike up in the mountains at about 10,000 foot elevation we encountered a large family from the Netherlands. They seemed to be very nice people and I was impressed that they chose to do some research and get off the beaten path. However, their 10ish son, was cutting paths and switchbacks which is really harmful to the alpine environment. I wanted to say something, but didn't want to cause hard feelings. Had we all stopped in the same spot for a water break I might have tried to approach the issue. I do feel bad that I didn't stand up for the park.

"However, their 10ish son, was cutting paths and switchbacks which is really harmful to the alpine environment."

We stayed on Heron Island, among Australia's Great Barrier Reef, some years ago. It is a tiny island focused mainly on scuba and snorkelling but, presumably because numbers were dropping off, they started to market more to families. I found this strange given that there is little to interest the average child there.

One of the things that you receive on first arriving is a talk about the pristine, yet vulnerable environment. In particular, the reef which lies just a hundred metres off shore, in a shallow lagoon, is described as fragile and people are asked to avoid walking on it but to use the sandy 'avenues' that twist and turn through it.

Needless to say, some families weren't listening and, while parents relaxed in the sun, their kids were just allowed to wander around unsupervised. Inevitably, we saw many such children actually climbing around on the reef, doubtless doing much damage. We always stopped to explain why they shouldn't do that but, while some would listen, others just ignored us.

Yes, I blame the parents, but also the island operators who are clearly sacrificing the local environment and ecology in favour of profit.

That is easily seen and evident when you know the cultural cues. Among Asians and space interpretation, which Asians?

@Fred

“World view” as I used it is defined below. It is an anthropological term. It is a step above the “Cultural” level of a society or group of people. In other words more than one culture can share distinct aspects of their world view. Having lived in SE Asia for 7 years and traveled the length and breadth of China doing business there and spending literally years traveling in almost every country that make up East, SE. and North Asia I can say there is very little difference between the many cultures in how they view “space” and how they use it.

To clarify here are a couple of definitions of Worldview:
“It is an aggregate of sensation, perception, experience and memory. World-view is a multi-dimensional concept particularly having anthropological and sociological context. ... The German term weltanschauung may also be employed with the same meaning.”
CHAPTER-1 World-View: Meaning and Theory - Shodhganga
And another:

“In summary, your worldview is the set of beliefs about fundamental aspects of Reality that ground and influence all your perceiving, thinking, knowing, and doing. Your worldview consists of your epistemology, your metaphysics, your cosmology, your teleology, your theology, your anthropology, and your axiology.”

@Maggie: You seem to still be laboring under one fundamental misconception which I had hoped would clarify itself when you read (or re-read) my original post and their follow-ups.

I never claimed “we” as in those here on this forum could DO anything about the situation. My post was about the TIME magazine Article and it’’s contents with some suggestion from me about what I thought could be done to better manage the crowds. It was meant to hopefully make people think about this situation and possibly offer ideas of their own in the way of solutions. But you are right none of us has the power to effect real change quickly. My post was meant to start a dialogue about what many see as, I think including RS, the overriding issue of European Touriism at this point.

I think you are conflating two different ideas when you mix “limiting” with Managing. Let me offer an example:

Managing is Staggering Cruise ship arrivals

Limiting would be a city forcing tour companies to apply for a permit for each tour group and thus imposing “limits’ on the number of people who can actually arrive in the city.

As for my timing in coming to Europe? Well due to my own schedule and the fact that I am going to spend the fall in the Rockies and Southwest and the winter in Mexico that pretty much left the Summer...Also, since you prodded me three times about this; due to a previous serious illness and it’s treatment I just do not tolerate the cold at all any more.

In general:
This has been a great discussion with so many thoughtful and interesting responses from so many. While many of us may disagree from time to time here about a myriad of subjects I think that topics of consequence should be discussed here, not just the “what train should I take from here to there” type of post (which has value too don’t misunderstand me.)

By the time most of you are awake and reading this I will be on my Air France flight on my way back to the USA bringing to an end this 4 month journey that has been so rewarding and amazing in so many ways.

The last time I came back from a trip in Europe in August was in 2009, the first of the post-professional-life ' trips. During my professional life and prior, my trips were in the summer, never were they of the lucky four months duration, the closest to that was three months exactly, ie 12 weeks. The trips since retirement have been also in the summer, including this past one.

The word "Weltanschauung" has also a historical connotation.

aarthur, I'd like to thank you for this thread and your many others during your journey over the last number of months. You've survived a lot of slings and arrows and it's been interesting and educational to watch. I appreciate your writing style and the way you methodically and accurately respond to questions and comments both positive and negative. Im glad to hear you're managing your health issues. And I hope your dog has done well along the way.

Looking forward to your future posts.

Thank you.

Crowds or no crowds, I plan to.......wait for it..........Keep On Travelling!!!
As an aside......after a month in Europe, the only crowds we encountered were on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh. No crowds in Norway, the rest of Scotland or Ireland. And this was high season.

"Crowds or no crowds" Ditto, I am still going to that site/place I intend to.