We have planned 2 nights Venice, 2 nights Rome. Two options to get from Venice to Rome:
1. Rent a car, stay one night in Florence, drive through Tuscany, sightsee as we drive all the way to Rome (two, 3.5 hour drives).
2. High speed train directly to Rome (3.5 hours total, and save Florence for next time!), and spend an extra night in either Venice or Rome (if so, which city deserves the extra night?)
Family of four. I was looking forward to scenery, small towns, having a car, etc. Husband and kids seem more interested in bigger cities, and not packing/unpacking as much.
Any input will be appreciated for our first trip!
Posted by
Forest Grove, OR
11851 posts
#2 by all means! Enjoy the train ride with no stress and add a night to Rome. Not packing/unpacking as much is always good. One night in Florence is just not quality time.
Posted by
Portland, Oregon, United States
907 posts
Agreed. Take the train
Posted by
Vermont
354 posts
This is a very vague question. When are you traveling? Are you going to Italy as a stop between other destinations? What are your interests other than small towns and cities? Why did you select Venice and Rome? Can you allocate more time to Italy? If not, I would spend the entire time in Venice OR Rome but not both but it would really depend on the answers to the above questions.
Posted by
Pacific Northwest
2698 posts
Train is the easy choice here. Both cities deserve more than 2 nights so it's hard to choose where night 3 should go. I'd be curious as to you entire itinerary...pacing, other cities, total travel time etc.
Posted by
Vernon, Canada
32402 posts
I agree with the others, take the high speed train. With only a very short 4 nights, you don't have time to add Florence. There are a few "issues" to be aware of with rental cars in Italy, for those that aren't aware of the rules. Meandering through the countryside in a car will waste valuable touring time.