Itinerary Advice

Hi Eric. You have 11 locations in 21 days; you're moving too much. 2 nights in a place = 1 full day, 3 nights = 2 full days. I'd suggest at least 3 full days in Rome, at least 3 full days in Florence, at least 3 full days in Venice. I can't speak to the other places because I haven't been there. I understand you want to "see everything" but your current itinerary won't allow you to see much of anything. With 3 weeks, you could hit the biggies (3 full days Venice, 4 full days Florence, and 5 full days Rome, plus daytrips) or you could divide the trip by region (northern Italy and Tuscany; or Tuscany, Rome, and coastal locations).

in my opinion it's way too much too many days of traveling, you will be seeing more train stations and bus stops than anything else definitely give Venice, Florence and Rome more time
to really enjoy Italy you have to make time to soak it all in, not rush through it

Eric, I definitely agree with the others in that there are too many places on the list for a 21-day time frame. Keep in mind that each change of location will take about half a day, so in the case of the one-night stops, you'll have less than 24-hours to actually see the town. IMHO, that's hardly worth effort. The trip from Venice to the Cinque Terre will take at least 6-7 hours. The "bottom line" - each change of location will require both time and money. Especially for a first trip to Italy, my suggestion would be to visit fewer destinations, but stay longer in each one. Rome needs at least four nights, but I suppose three would suffice. I assume you're planning to stay in Varenna on Lake Como? It might be an idea to skip Assisi this time. You might consider a slightly different "order of visits", in the interest of efficiency. Would this work: Dolomites > Venice > Florence > Cinque Terre > Siena > Orvieto? Good luck with your planning!

I agree with everyone else, too much in too short a time. I would take out at least half of the cities listed. You will spend the majority of your 3 weeks inside a train or bus and checking into/out of hotels. Pare it down and you'll enjoy your trip much more. Donna

Eric: How about a little more background info? Range of Ages of travelers? How many traveling in the party? Activity level? Are you into art and sculpture? History? Would you be open to rent a car for day trips? Are you into agriculture? Livestock? Farms? Orchards? Any special interests?
Where have you previously traveled to overseas? With a little better information, you might get better answers to your questions. So many people on this website have great experience in international travel.

I went for 3 weeks to Italy on my last trip. I agree with the others on trying to see too much to quick. I might get some flack for this but its just my opinion. I would save the northern part of italy for a time when you might go to switz. or Austria. this way you may free up some time and even find a way to make it to Sorrento and the Amalfi coast. on my 3 week trip I flew into Milan and made it all the way to pastume and never felt rushed. I would not spend for than 3 days in Rome or Florence ( unless of course I could spend a life time). have a great trip. I'm sure you will. ps. the best way to save time is to arrange for a hotel or hostel before you get to that city. this way you wont waste time looking for one.

I've been to Italy a half dozen times, in March, April, Late Aug/early Sept., Nov., etc. Knowing the time of year when you're traveling would help in advising on your itinerary. Rome is Miserable late Aug/Sept, and Lake Cuomo is not pleasant until June and most hotels there are closed until April. My priorities in general, without knowing the time of year would be: Rome, Florence (day-trip to Sienna) Venice with four full days at least devoted to Rome, Four in Florence, maybe five, with day-trips, and two nights in Venice. You can fly open-jawed into Milan, overnight, and go to Venice and then on to Florence, and Florence to Rome, and depart from Rome. Others may disagree with me, but other than having a convenient international airport for U.S. travelers, and close proximity to Venice and Northern Italy, I could skip Milan
completely. So if you're traveling late summer, do Northern Italy.....Spring, Florence and South to Roma. The above poster who indicated that every time you change cities you've spent lots of $$ and at least half a day between travel and checking in and out is absolutely right, and your first itinerary would be spending too much time wasted IMHO! Have Fun!

Thanks for all of the replies. Would it change your opinion at all if you knew that the above itinerary had a title? Specifically, it's the Rick Steves' Italy's Best Three Week Trip (by Train and Bus). I pulled it directly from my Italy 2012 guidebook. Actually, I tend to agree with all of you that it's probably too much in too short of a time frame. However, why would Rick recommend this then? I also have his 2008 book, and while it's slightly different as he adds a car rental, it's essentially the same amount of time in every place. So Rick's been recommending this itinerary to travelers for over 5 years, at least. I'm not sure what to make of all of it. You guys seem very knowledgable and helpful on the whole, yet Rick is the expert. It's kind of hard to reconcile the two.

If it's a tour sponsored by RS then all the details are taken care of and you don't need to do anything for yourself. You'll have people either traveling with you or meeting you at all the stops to help you with the details. If you are trying to do this tour on your own I think you will find it very rushed. Some people like moving to a new city every day or every other day but that's not what I like when on Vacation. Even if I were to book a tour through a company like RS I would consider this agenda to aggressive for me and look else where. It's a personal choice you'll need to make on whether you want to dash through the country or take your time and savor it. Donna

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. It's not a Rick Steves tour. It's his suggested itinerary, listed in at the start of all his Italy guidebooks since at least 2008.

Eric; Do you mean to tell me that you essentially copied an itinerary from a Rick Steves guide book and then went to the Rick Steves helpline to ask people if they thought "your" itinerary sounded good? That sounds a little twisted to me. What, exactly, did you hope to accomplish? First of all; Most people here have been to Europe more than once which means we have a realistic expectation to return. That is conducive to doing less than what is theoretically possible, rather than more, in an effort to better enjoy it. That's not usually the mind-set of a first-time traveler. The travel advice you get here isn't wrong, but it comes from that perspective. The travel advice in the RS guide book isn't wrong either. It is presented as a realistically fast-paced visit for someone who is visiting for the first time and wants to see as much as possible. Many of us would not enjoy going that fast. But the larger question is why you would think there is one right answer when it ought to be obvious that travel must fit the personality and the situation of the individual. It often astounds me that so many people ask for itinerary advice, as if we could possibly know your personality or situation. In every trip I've ever taken, the itinerary has been just about the easiest part of the trip. It's obvious to me what I like, and after doing a little research and glancing at a map, it's fairly obvious to me how to string those sites together. While I am a huge fan of RS travel philosophy, it has never occurred to me to copy one of his itineraries. I'm not him and he's not me. While you will find plenty of people here willing to give itinerary advice, what we're best at is giving first-hand advice about the specific details of a trip, not the broad strokes of itinerary advice that is inherently personal.

Hi Eric, Several years ago on my first trip to Europe, I followed one of Rick Steves' itineraries: Ireland, Wales, and England. It was a wonderful itinerary, but it was so rushed that a lot of what I saw is just a blur in my mind. I decided after that trip that his itineraries would be better paced if the amount of days he recommends for each location is doubled. I've done that on all my subsequent trips and now thoroughly enjoy the time spent at each location. Do consider taking the advice of the folks who took the time to respond and reduce the number of cities you see on this trip and add those days to the remaining cities. You won't regret it, and I'll bet you will be making your plans to return on your flight home!

Eric, "Specifically, it's the Rick Steves' Italy's Best Three Week Trip (by Train and Bus). I pulled it directly from my Italy 2012 guidebook." Ah, that explains a lot! I've found that some of Rick's "suggested Itineraries" are a bit ambitious (to say the least). While these may be feasible, a more important question is whether they're realistic for the "average" traveller. The transportation links between locations need to be organized very precisely with this type of Itinerary. If there are any problems (ie: Strikes), this affects all subsequent parts. If you're only interested in a "blitz" trip, this should be possible. You may see more of Italy from the window of the train than actually enjoying the places you're visiting. Instead of a "blitz", if you'd prefer a more relaxing pace and enjoying the places you're visiting, I'd suggest reducing the number of destinations. My preference would be to skip Milan, Assisi and Orvieto (and possibly others) on this visit. Which places to include will depend on what you're most interested in seeing. Cheers!

Eric: My idea of a great vacation used to be to get a car rental and see how far I could go, and how many European cities I could visit in 2 weeks. I wore out my whole family. Italy is not the same as the other Western European countries. It is the cradle of modern societies, and there is much more to see in Italy than in other places. You can take that itinerary, however expect your memories to be a blur. I especially wouldn't want to take an aggressive travel schedule without a car. And, I certainly wouldn't want to try this odyssey in June, July or August, when it's so hot and there are so many tourists. Good luck!

@Randy
I wasn't trying to be a jerk about it and post some "Gotcha!". What I was trying to avoid was asking on the Rick Steves board to a bunch of Rick Steves followers what they thought of Rick Steves suggested itinerary. I felt like the answers would be different. The trip is for my wife and I, we're in our 30s and in good shape, but it seems a little over the top (as listed) even for us. However, I really do want to "see it all", so now comes the hard part, right? Cutting down the stops to make it more manageable. I know travel is highly personal. And I will take all of this advice and use it to mold my previous ideas into more practical ones. I probably travel a little faster than average, which is why I was considering the blitz itinerary above. At least as a starting point. However, I also know that I don't want to forget that I'm on vacation. Sometimes it's hard to weigh the "this is great, let's see more" with the "slow down and soak it in". Anyways, thanks for all the replies. They've been very helpful.

Eric; Glad to hear this wasn't a "gotcha" because it sure came off that way earlier. Another explanation for the RS 3-week itinerary is that it's sort of a requirement for guide books like these. He has his list of sites, or areas, he covers in his book and he can't very well leave one out when creating a sample itinerary. That would be like admitting it wasn't really that interesting. People like seeing sample itineraries, even if they don't follow them precisely. It's a starting point. To RS credit, he doesn't suggest people qit their jobs and spend two months seeing everything at a more liesurely pace. He's pragmatic. He knows three weeks is at the outside edge of what most people can do for an expensive trip away from home. So he tries to come up with a way to string each of his sites together in three weeks. No, it's not ideal. It was never meant to be ideal. I also read the lonely planet guides and they have several sample itineraries, including some that they suggest should take 1-6 months. Yea, right. The only people doing that are students and vagabonds. I would suggest you re-scan that RS Italy guide book and identify a couple chapters that interest you the LEAST, then omit them from the itinerary, freeing up more time at the other locations. Avoid 1-night stays if you can. You might consider picking only one of Cinque Terra & Sorrento as they are both seaside. You might pass on the Dolomites if you are not an avid hiker and/or have seen lots of mountains before. You could spend 6 hours in Florence on your way to Siena in a long day instead of staying there if you are not gaga over art. It's up to you. But yes, there are numerous ways to take the RS 3-week itinerary as a STARTING POINT and tweeking it to better fit you. Or you could simply ignore it and start from scratch.

PS; What I would do (but of course, I'm not you...) is this; Venice (3) Florence for 6 hours on the way to evening arrival in Siena (1) Rent an apartment somewhere quaint in/near a Tuscan village for a week, rent a car, see everything of interest within 60-80 miles (7) Drop car, train to Rome (5)
Train to Sorrento (5) Fly home from Naples or take the train back to Rome to fly home. What you give up from the RS itinerary would be made up for by seeing literally dozens of different places during your week in Tuscany - and doing it without having to wait for a bus. All the talk of scary driving conditions in Italy are pretty much moot in the countryside of Tuscany. Also, if you could manage to rent your car from near the train station in Florence, but leave it parked there during the day, you could drive off toward your Tuscan rental at about 6PM and be there by 7PM, then see Siena on one of your day trips - that would save you the Siena day from above that you could apply somewhere else. You could also train from Venice to anywhere in Tuscany, pick up your car, and see BOTH Florence ans Siena as day trips from your rental - but beware of driving anywhere near the city centers and the traffic restriction zones "ZTL". You will get fined.

I did a nice Italy trip 2 years ago. I did Milan 1, Florence 3, Siena 2, Assisi 2, Rome 4, Venice 3. I found the time allowed in each city was perfect for me. I also did Orvieto as a side trip from Assisi and found the 3 hours there adequate. You may have some coastal overkill in your itenerary. Sorrento and Cinque Terre is where you could modify it, dropping 1 of the regions and adding a day to Rome and Venice. I would drop Orvieto and add a night to Assisi. Since you are flying into Milan, might as well just get to Lake Como, unless you have sights there you want to see. You could see some sights then be off to Como. There you could add a night to Florence. So if I had to do your trip, this is what I would do: -Fly into Milan, see a sight or two and be off to Lake Como for 2 nights -Dolomites 2 nights -Venice 3 nights -Florence 3 nights -Siena 2 nights -Assisi 2 nights -Sorrento 3 nights
-Rome 4 nights

"He has his list of sites, or areas, he covers in his book and he can't very well leave one out when creating a sample itinerary. That would be like admitting it wasn't really that interesting." That makes so much sense. I hadn't thought of it that way. Okay, I definitely have some cutting to do.