We are leaving for Italy in three weeks and are still wrestling with the car/train question. We know we want the car for the week in Tuscany and not for the four days in Rome at the end of the trip. Our first week will be fast--Varenna, Venice, Florence and CT (in that order). Car or train for that week? We love the convenience of the car, but it sounds as though it might be a liability in those areas. Any thoughts will be appreciated.
Posted by
Renton, WA, USA
81 posts
Those cities are well-served by rail connections. One hour or so Milano-Varenna, four-five hours Varenna-Venice,
under three hours Venice-Florence, about three hours Florence-Vernazza, and about five hours Vernazza-Rome, and you arrive fresh and right in the center of things.
You likely would end up renting a parked, unattended car while you see the towns and risk break-ins.
Cars are better used in the more rural areas poorly served by rail--are you planning to visit any hill towns or perhaps stay at an agriturismo? A private car would be perfect for that.
Posted by
Lake Forest, CA, USA
1633 posts
Just returned last Wed. With rail passes in hand, I had found out that most of the trains we wanted to go on would cost additional $ because they required seat reservations (another $500 for the 3 of us). A car would cost $810 for those same 3 1/2 weeks. Rented a compact diesel VW Golf that got 59 miles/gallon w/o the a.c. on (37 with it on). Diesel gas is quite a bit cheaper. In Italy our route was Frankfurt airport to Rome, Rome to Venice, Venice to Florence, Florence to Pisa, hill towns and then out to Austria. The backtracking was because of hotel reservations. We left the car at the train station in Orvieto for free for 3 nights while we took a 1 hr train to Rome. We had hotels on the outskirts of Venice & Florence--took public trans into the cities. I would rent a car again. As you said, the conveniece was so worth it. We had driven all over Europe b4 but not Italy. We put Italian newspapers on the seats & put any maps, etc. in the trunk. No problems.
Posted by
Portland, Oregon, USA
320 posts
Susan -
In my opinion it is car all the way. With a good map (or better yet GPS) you are all set to explore whenever and wherever you want to go.
Remember there is no steering wheel on a train - it goes where the tracks go.
Lastly, the one thing that you cannot get any more of on vacation is time. For me it is not a cost issue - I am on vacation - it is about maximizing my experiences.
Have fun.
Posted by
Los Angeles, CA, USA
1449 posts
you can't take a car into the heart of Venice (unless it floats!). A car is mostly a hassle in CT; according to http://www.cinqueterreonline.com/tips.htm#trains "In the Cinque Terre towns there are small pay parking lots in Monterosso and Riomaggiore. During the summer, from May to August, the car park is usually full and the roads to Monterosso and Riomaggiore are closed because there is no parking available. The other villages are always closed to cars, except for the residents." There is excellent train service for the towns of your first week. The trains will take you right into the heart of Venice and Florence, quicker than you could get there by car. Buy your tix a day or more in advance when in Italy and you'll know what time the trains leave so you won't waste time at the station.
Posted by
In the Mountains, USA
689 posts
Use the train. Voice of experience... Paying to park an unsed rented car for those days is silly. Not to mention the drive into those cities is no fun. We drive everywhere but won't in CT or Florence again! We always drop our car when we get to Venice and train out from there.