Treviso as a base

As you haven't been for a while, you may not be aware that a number of the bridges are now 'roller luggage' friendly, meaning they have ramps as well as stairs. There are a number of YouTube videos by ProWalk Tours that have footage of walking around the cities and Venice is one they walk several district of. That might be of some help for you to decide about best location for your/his short time in Venice.
I can't advise on the schedule and one place as 'home base' for 3 cities - well, actually 4 - but what about Padua as home base?
It really isn't much time; particularly jet lagged, for that area of the country. Consider Padua as home base and Day 1, then Day 2&3 for Venice, Day 4 for Verona and from Padua, Bologna could receive a little more time as it is closer.

Vicenza could also be a good base or a nice stop for a visit. I'm a bit biased because I lived there for a few years, but the Palladio architecture is gorgeous and worth a view!

Treviso and Venice are 40 minutes apart by train, so you'll lose an hour and a half each day just riding. I can understand why mobility limitations would make you hesitate about visiting Venice at all, but apparently you've decided they aren't bad enough to keep you from going there. If that's the case, it seems like you might as well stay there as well, at least the first few nights. Venice is best early and late in the day when the day-trippers from ships and the mainland are gone. You might look for accommodation along or near the Strada Nova, Venice's longest street without bridges or steps, away from the main tourist routes but still in the heart of the city.

Are you flying into Treviso airport rather than Marco Polo (VCE)? Otherwise why Treviso? I'd think getting there from VCE would be harder than getting into Venice itself. Your first day (acclimate, get over jet lag) might as well be in Venice where there's plenty to see and do.

I haven't been to Verona, but I liked Padua. To visit both cities, it's probably best to base yourself in one or the other.

Interesting that Padua is recommended. When I went there 30+ years ago I had a really negative impression, but that might be because I arrived on a gloomy, rainy afternoon. I was SO looking forward to seeing the Giotto frescoes and they were a HUGE disappointment. I understand they've been restored since then. I'm really not keen on Padua at all, but allowed a half day there. We could substitute Vicenza and I'd probably be happy with that.

I chose Treviso because of a NY Times article highlighting it as a place to appreciate the charm of canals without the hoopla and crowds of Venice. I honestly don't think hubs will be interested in more than a day in Venice.

We would land at Marco Polo airport AFAIK. I haven't looked at flights yet, but my impression is that the Treviso airport is served by airlines like Wizz Air that connect places within Europe, not transatlantic flights. I could be wrong.

I suggested Padua as an alternate home base, but that was due to your current itinerary and train routes. But personally, I too would just stay in Venice for 3 nights, then move on to another rather than day trip, but you know your abilities and interests more than I. (I did wonder about what is more challenging in Venice than Pompeii for mobility issues - particularly as they have added ramps to the small bridges).

Thanks, MariaF! It is walking in crowds that tends to be an issue for hubs, so I am not so concerned about Pompeii. And he positively wants to go to Pompeii.

Changing hotels is a bigger hassle for us than for the average traveler, that's why I'm trying to choose a home base for each of our destinations/regions. With the exception of Pompeii, though we'll probably sleep there 2 nights.

most of the crowds in Venice follow a well tramped - and very predictable - route and path. Just 20 feet off those routes you will find yourselves in a quiet and beautiful alternative.

I go there often and avoid the crowds unless I intentionally want to immerse myself. One evening I thought I'd see what the going home commute was like for the workers and waited in a queue at one of the vaporetto stops and then put myself inside the vaporetto cabin (I usually find an outside seat or stand outside the cabin). It was interesting and I won't do it again, but it was intentional.

There are also routes that you can choose which have fewer bridges.

A ride on a vaporetto, particularly if you can catch outside seating, gives you all of the beauty and architectural interest with none of the effort.

There are very few bridges on Burano.

Nigel, thank you for that perspective on how best to enjoy Venice. It's great that you get to visit there often!

I'd still be interested in any comments on Treviso -- or perhaps Treviso compared to Vicenza? -- if anyone else is still looking at this thread.

I have been to Vicenza (just a day-trip from Padua) and enjoyed it, but I spent a lot more time in Padua. I've never been to Treviso but am convinced it's a worthwhile destination for me; it's on my list for my next trip to NE Italy, possibly this September. I have absolutely no idea what the terrain is like in Treviso. Vicenza seemed quite flat.

Geographically speaking, Treviso isn't particularly convenient as a base for the destinations you've identified. It would be a 3-1/2 to 5-hour round-trip to Verona.

Just want to say that I too think that Padua is a good base, We used it as base and it was very convenient to Venice. I am not sure about its connectivity to other cities. And I must admit, I have never been to Treviso. We took the train in and out of Venice and it was very easy and short (from my recollection maybe 30 minutes, but you should check). And, I must add - we really liked Padua. And don’t forget to check out the university - one of the oldest in Europe

I’ve been to both Treviso and Vicenza (lived in V and have a friend who lives in T) and personally find Vicenza more charming as far as the historical center. There is a nice hotel right outside the city walls about a 5 minute walk from the train station- Hotel Campo Marzio- super convenient.

since I'm from Treviso, these are my two cents: the old town is very charming, expecially in the evening, with lots of cafe and bars (for sure less expensive than the ones that you can find in Venice), and, yes, there are three main canals that cross the downtown flowing through watermills; one of my favourite spot is the island of the fish market completely surrounded by one of this canal.
The train station is well located just on the border of the downtown area, you can reach Venice taking a regionale train (the faster one takes 30 minutes).
The drawback is that the railway line passing through Treviso is not the same as the one that connects Padua, Vicenza and Verona so, if you want to visit these cities you have to change in Mestre.

Thanks for these last four comments!

You are making me think I didn't give Padua a fair chance when I was there. I really hated it, but that was so-o-o long ago, my attitudes and knowledge and needs were entirely different from what they'll be on this trip.

OTOH you're also reassuring me that there's nothing wrong with Treviso. It will be a few more months before we can even think about making reservations, so we'll continue weighing the options. And enjoying looking up tourism information, watching videos etc.

We’ve been to all the towns mentioned, Venice, Padova, Vicenza, Verona, and Treviso. I would rank Treviso as # 5. If you feel that you can’t stay in Venice, proper, Vicenza or Padova would be my choice. You haven’t said what your interests are; but as another poster mentioned, Vicenza is famous for its Palladian architecture.
There is an attraction in the area that may interest you, a boat trip on the Brenta Canal. Two companies offer very similar experiences, which include disembarking at some Palladian villas with a guide. The. full day goes between Padova and Venice; half day starts at one and goes halfway. We did the full day; but, in retrospect, I think half would have been sufficient. You can google for details. (All that was pre-covid, so who knows what’s true now.)

Rosalyn, great minds think alike! I started poking around online, and the Brenta cruise was one of the first things I found. I think hubs would enjoy that; we've done similar short cruises in France (River Cher) and in Scotland (Loch Lomond), both thoroughly enjoyable.

I am leaning toward giving Padua a chance because of the more convenient connections and all the various comments. We could still go to Treviso for a day if we wanted.

Regarding our interests, hubs is most keen to see the Vatican and Pompeii. I've decreed that Venice must be part of our itinerary because there's just nothing else like it. My own travels in Italy have been pretty thorough (except I've never been to Treviso, LOL). I've seen all the highlights of great works of art and architecture that I studied in college, and then some. Just soaking up being in Italy will be my goal this time around.

Do what you can to verify that the water level in the canal is suitable for the boat trip before buying a ticket. I recall a pan of that trip a long time ago. The water level was so low that stops were missed. I think part of the trip ended up being on a bus. Mother nature at her finest, I guess.

acraven thanks for the tip! I'm guessing the river boat cruise doesn't have to be booked way, way in advance (unlike, say, tidal bore rafting in Nova Scotia!) so I will definitely plan to check water levels before committing. It's one of those experiences that would be nice, but not essential for us.