Great Places Ruined by Too Many Tour Groups

That’s why I went during the afternoon in 2014 since most tour groups go in the morning. My first visit there was in 1977 and it was pretty empty then. That’s another reason we travel off season. As the song lyrics go “they took paradise and put up a parking lot.” You have to take the bad with the good if you want the tourists to come.

I would have to agree on the problem with some tour groups. These people act entitled. It's like the rest of us should just step aside when they come along and file past like ducklings following their mother. I get that the tour is for a specified length, but why should I step aside and wait while they do their thing? I try to just let it go, because life is just too short and it feels better to be kind than bitter. I do not like crowds and I make sacrifices in terms of when I travel. I typically do not go anywhere "peak season". But, for some places, its always peak season. I am going to the Alhambra in November for the first time. I hope we can enjoy it.

A lot of the tour groups at historic sites are from cruise ships which disgorge thousands of passengers onto Europe’s shores.

To be honest, the Alhambra is a gem. If you can take your time and admire the sheer beauty of its craftsmanship, it’s mindboggling to realize that it was carved by hand 700 years ago.

Is part of it the time of year? For example, right now in DC, it’s one large school group after another in their matching t-shirts. Good luck making that left or right turn at the intersection before the light changes. And I would never purposely visit the Smithsonian this time of year.

I have family members who just returned from a major national park out west, and they commented that they noticed way more Asian tour groups than in years past.

So, yes, more people traveling period but definitely the time of year plays a role. I saw another family member’s photo taken inside the Louvre in February and there was next to no one there—they could walk right up by the Mona Lisa.

I now plan all my trips with avoiding crowds as one of the top priorities. That's a mixed blessing - we skipped Cinque Terre on our first trip to Italy because it didn't really fit geographically, now I am resigned to the fact that I'll probably never go there because of the crowds. OTOH, I've found wonderful places (with no gaggles of idiots waving selfie sticks) that I would not have discovered otherwise if I hadn't vowed to not let crowds ruin my travels.

With each trip my destinations seem to be getting further and further from "famous". Really not a bad thing.

A good litmus test is to tell friends, co-workers, and folks at your bank where you're headed. If most of them just stare back at you vacantly and then eventually say things like "where's that?", "how do you pronounce that again?" or my favorite, "why would you want to go there?" then you're probably on the right track.

I liken the situation to the person sitting in their car complaining about traffic ... they are just as guilty of contributing to the ‘problem’. Group behaviour may need to be addressed, but their ‘right’ to be there is no less than any of ours.

Once upon a time only the wealthy and privileged travelled abroad. Is that the time the OP yearns for?

This common complaint confuses me. Please include a strategy to improve the situation with your complaint.
I choose to live in a semi rural neighborhood with low traffic, pretty scenery, and a low cost of living. It is in Ohio. I would not expect to have these things AND the convenience of living near a 300 year old Masterpiece or an 800 year old cathedral. I also have to drive to hear a top rated orchestra play, see a famous rock band perform....etc.
I understand the aggravations that natives of tourist destinations experience. But how can you begrudge an American school child the opportunity to see her capitol city or the Smithsonian? How can you begrudge any citizen of the planet the opportunity to gaze into the eyes of David? If you are there, they have the right to be there also, even if they got there on a cruise ship.
If the cities of Italy such as Florence, Rome, Venice started an entry program that involved buying a tourist pass prior to visiting that included some sort of application, I would apply. I would pay for this privilege. These monies could be used to pay for the preservation and upkeep of the city. I would also be happy to donate a fee for someone that could not afford it, however, I am sure that this would exclude a lot of deserving folks from being able to share in the planet's rich historical artifacts.

So, please by all means be aggravated that you live on a planet with "lots" of other people. But please explain to me why your right to exist and experience great sites is greater than the next guy.

I think the point of the post is just to express surprise about the situation, get it off his chest. Those of us here regularly are aware of the growth in tourism in the last ten years. As asked above, what’s your personal solution?
For me, it’s similar but less well-known sites and travelling in shoulder and off season. A lot of what we do on this Forum is try to give people work-around solutions to the problem: off hours, evening hours, private viewings....

It’s not just cruise ships passengers, but also big-bus tours, small-bus tours, and even independents.

I agree that it is frustrating. And the groups are worse than the individuals. 50 individuals, in parties of 1-5 easily spread throughout a big sight like the Alhambra. A tour group of 50 is 50 people all in the same room trying to look at the same art/feature/scene at the same time. It is different and makes the specific area much more crowded. At the Alhambra last year I had a little bit of luck waiting for a group to leave the room, there would often be a few minutes before a new group came in.

I generally try to find off hours. If a sight opens before 9 or 10, go then. Many people, including large tour groups, stay a ways outside the center of a city and take awhile to get going in the morning. 8-10AM is much quieter at many sights. Same for later in the day. In Venice last month I would go out at 7-8AM and see outdoor sights, hit museums at opening, have lunch, go back to the hotel for a rest around 2 when everything was ridiculously crowded. I'd go back out at 4 when it was still crowded but by 5 it was noticeably quieter and by dinner time it was pleasant. Apparently evening hours at sights are also less crowded. I didn't go to this in Venice bur people told me that the Doge's Palace was open until 10PM on some days and after 5 or 6 it was pretty uncrowded. Every city has its crowd rhythms and you can figure it out and avoid the worst of it.

This is why I am hesitant about "day trips" to towns and cities - you pretty much only hit the crowded times, if you are going to a place prone to crowds. It's worth it sometimes but definitely should be a consideration.

.... keep'em coming, very interesting comments :))

Me again, the OP.
Based on the excellent feedback from all of you, I want to emphasize that I don’t begrudge anyone the right to visit famous or beautiful places. Nor would I want them confined to the “Wealthy and privileged.”

It’s the mega-tour groups and the mob mentality that bothers me and the lack of awareness of others (and at Yellowstone N.P., witnessing shocking behavior towards the animals there.)

My wife and I DID take the wonderful Rooftop Tour of the Sevilla Cathedral. But there were only 12 of us, the tour times were well-spaced and we had nearly zero impact on others.

Just wanted to vent and see how others are dealing with this issue. Thanks again.

I do agree with you. But most of us are going to be somebody else's annoying tourist getting in the way at some point. I agree the tour groups of a dozen or two can be especially annoying in smaller places where they can fill up the room. But mostly it doesn't matter if we came by bus tour, cruise ship or travelled "independently" (ho, ho - few of us really travel independently, getting on a scheduled airline flight at Rome and getting off at Schipol then going to a hotel isn't really independent - but it perhaps makes us feel better to pretend we are).

In the end, as has been pointed out already, the crowds just reflect that more people have the opportunity (financial or otherwise), to travel. That's a good thing, as you say.

So far as my strategies for avoiding the worst of the (other) tourists goes - try to go out of peak season; go early for the big sights; accept some places are busy and allow more time at them so you can wait out or dodge the big groups; mix big sights with less popular ones across the day; and if you were there first then ignore the dark looks from the guide wanting to hustle you on so their group gets the best view to see "it".

Awareness and respect of both place and fellow beings is missing in a lot of circumstances in the current world, whether travelling or not. Your observation, without judgement, is a valid one to make.

This rant about too many tourists being raised by another tourist I always find a little self centered. It would be great if everyone stayed home so I can travel freely with no advance reservations or concerns about lines and do away with airport security. After all - I am totally trustworthy. What is the world population today compared to 25 years ago? Even with only a small percentage traveling, there are many more people traveling today than yesterday. And lets blame those damn big cruise ships, large buses, high capacity airplanes that have made travel more convenient and cheaper.

I would propose a tourist tax of perhaps 25% or a bit more, that is levied against every tourists. That should help to discourage some tourists from traveling. And if doesn't discourage enough - raise it. I can afford it so it is not a problem for me and am glad to pay for the opportunity to rub shoulders with fewer tourists. If it makes my travel experience better - so be it ! Funds raised would be use to off-set the damage by tourists and to increase the experience for those continuing to travel. There has to be a happy price point balance somewhere that would still allow some of us to travel freely and keep the riffraff at home.

I hope OP is not feeling bad about the post. I think this is a legitimate concern. I believe much could be remedied by people, including tour group leaders, tour group members and individuals on their own, being a little bit more thoughtful. Then there are some places that are just too busy for their own good. I have been to most national park sights in the U.S. However, I have not been to Yosemite. It is quite busy when the waterfalls are running and I can't envision having a good time stuck in traffic. Its no one's fault, really, its just that the place is too popular for its own good. I think the answer is to be respectful to the venue and its employees, groups and those around you, and then doing some research and using this forum for strategies to handle crowds. In some cases, there is not much that can be done (Yosemite, Cinque Terre) but in others, there are some things that work. Thanks to the OP for bringing something up that others of us are thinking about.

This is why I regret the drive to see Old Faithful when we were in Yellowstone in 2016. On our drive from Gardiner, MT, we passed multiple trail heads for less popular geyser trails. They may have lacked the wow factor of Old Faithful, but we would have shared the experience with a few dozen, as opposed to a few hundred other people.

Going off-season helps a lot. So does getting off the tourist trail. If you look at the proposed itinerary described in the posts here, it is mostly the same few cities. It's a big country, but the tourists are concentrated in a tiny, tiny part of it. It doesn't help that the most popular Spain guidebook in the U.S. covers only a very limited number of areas.

Also, re-upping this for Enric, Tourism in Barcelona, Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded.

Quite a common theme in Rick's guidebooks is finding the places which are not as crowded, but just as charming. But we do want to see the famous sights. I agree with Rachel that if you can travel at non-peak time of year, it can make quite a difference. Personally, if the tourists are from a different culture than mine, I usually have a fun time watching them. I used to work in a school and enjoy the different ways that the chaperones in other cultures manage their youth groups. Another thing you can do is go as early in the morning as the place opens. (Speaking of school groups, my sister-in-law had to laugh when I forgot where I was and asked three young men at the back of their group who were not paying attention to the museum guide as their school group toured a museum in Ecuador, "No debe poner attención?") They did shut up, though LOL! One more point: a crowded tourist season may be a blessing to those locals who make a sizable percentage of their income from it....

Interesting thread and comments.

Last October, while resting in the late afternoon in my quiet room, in a small peaceful Umbrian Hill town... Suddenly I hear a loud rumble, then the noise kept getting louder and louder... I wondered... What's going on?
I get up from my comfy bed, walk over to my window, and there below on the narrow cobblestone street I witness a large group of people lugging their roller suitcases.
Yes, a tour group had arrived, and they were all staying at the very same "quiet" hotel where I'd chosen to stay.

At that very moment I thought about all the residents who must endure this noise, day in and day out!
Then, I thought... I'm also part of the problem when I lug my roller up and down all those cobblestone streets!

What can I say... Most of us want to see all the beautiful sites of this world, and so does everyone else!

@Going234 thanks for the article... unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), figures say otherwise. There seems to be no end to the number of people visiting -which is probably not a good thing. As later as two weeks ago, for example, the figures for the cruise passengers arriving in 2017 were published and there has been an increment on the frequency and number of passengers, consolidating, by a long shot, the city as the main cruise port in the south of Europe; traffic at the airport has also increased reaching a new record of 47,4 million passengers in 2017 and making it the first airport in Europe in terms of annual growth.

And while Sagrada Familia, to put an example, has decreased visitors (in some 34,000) compared to last year, the annual figure stays at 4,5 million visitors, however, a few other (already popular) attractions have had double-digit growth.

Again, as someone pointed above, the city has 1.9 million residents (4.5 if considering the metro area, which comprises 36 cities and towns alongside Barcelona)... and receives nearly 18 million visitors (tourists included) every year. This is becoming indeed a problem for everybody: residents and tourists themselves. However, the trend continues to be, in general terms, "bullish", with nearly 47% repeating (up from 41% in 2013).

This is not a problem limited to Barcelona but to a very large number of other cities and towns here in Catalonia and also in many other countries. Has anyone been in say any of the picturesque towns in la Costa Brava in July? or in the Catalan Pyrenees during ski season?... it can be hellish. And tourism does not only refer to international visitors, but also to internal tourism here within Catalonia itself.

The issue is complex, with no easy solution in sight and, for the time being, no scheme anywhere in the world which suffers the same problem has been, let's say, successful. The City Hall in Barcelona and the Tourism Board -which are considered some of the best in the world regarding planning and strategy in this matter alongside others like Paris or London's- have been struggling with their counterparts around the world for a number of years trying to find a sustainable strategy which balances everybody's interests.... so far there have been only small successes.

Local governments and the tourists sites themselves should have an actual formal strategy and long-term plan to accommodate tourists and dealing with overcrowding and potential degradation of natural sites due to too much human traffic. Somebody has to take the lead. Finger pointing is not going to solve the issue, it just makes people feel (oddly) enough that somehow someone else, but them, is the problem. It is unsustainable to just "let things be" because the trends are written on the wall. Unfortunately, to have a good user experience one will probably have to accept certain limits - like actual hard limits on the number of people that can access a site at once (this is much harder for places that can't be cardoned off), timed entry with limits for how long one can stay, and advanced booking. I know these things are already in place at a lot of popular sites but it sounds like the system still needs tinkering because too many people are still visiting all at once. I don't know how you deal with large groups except for the tour leader to break them up into smaller ones and phase in actual sightseeing so the whole group is not there all at once. Problem is that a lot of small groups add up too - and it's almost indistinguishable from a large one.

Whatever the case, things like "optimal" tourist load and phasing can be worked out using math and operations research principles just like traffic control - it's the politics of the situation that's hard because you're trying to shift human behavior. Putting limits on human behavior is obviously very unpopular, plus it can result in less revenue (in the short-term at least). Things like congestion (human, vehicle, etc) can be smoothed out, it's just that few are willing to do it. Take the example of congestion pricing in London - it keeps many cars out of the city center because people don't want to pay high prices, so they're steered toward alternate means. If you use dynamic pricing and outright controls on sites, those work too. I went to the Hypogeum in Malta a few years ago, a truly amazing world class site (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/maltas-hypogeum-one-worlds-best-preserved-prehistoric-sites-reopens-public-180963397/). The site was very tightly controlled because it's extremely sensitive, so only a set small number of people were allowed in at one time and advanced booking was required. And it was quite expensive to get in, so you had to really want to go there. There are mechanisms for dealing with affordability and access so that people of all incomes can go (you can allocate a certain number of below cost or free tickets to locals or kids, etc), so that's not an issue. The issue is just how to deal with a typical congestion problem. It will require hard choices and iterative tinkering until you get the situation to a beareable level.

And a brief note on taxing "ideas" that some may like to toy with to "solve" the problem...

(1) there are already "tourist taxes" in place in many cities in Europe, Barcelona included -an amount you're charged on top of your accommodation's cost per each day you stay in the city- and which is (supposedly!) destined to maintenance and enhancement of some infrastructures that get "damaged" due to the massive use by non-residents (non-resident = non-taxpayer!). Yet paying say 2 to 5€ per night doesn't really deter someone who's already spending a few thousand to visit (airplane, accommodation, entertainment....)

(2) slapping visitors with a large tax could indeed drive away a number of tourists, making the numbers more sustainable in terms of the number of people in the city at any given time... HOWEVER that

• would possibly be overruled as per anti-discriminating laws in place here in the EU. Not willing to open now a new debate here, but we all know that social values and understanding of what capitalism is (or should be) is often different in both sides of the Atlantic, right? :)

• cannot be done as per the inevitable gentrification of the city: if only rich tourists (those that can afford a high tax) visit the city, services around those tourists will increase their prices accordingly and not only accommodation but also other daily activities (ie going out for a meal, which is something so local here in Barcelona) will be more expensive... alienating an increasing part of the residents, which in turn would spark complaints to the political parties and cause unrest. Actually, the large numbers of visitors are already causing this effect and across the globe, many local residents are starting to voice their complaints, from SF to Istanbul and everywhere in between.

(3) for those not aware: while tourism is an important "driver" to the dynamism of some of the major city destinations in Europe (London, Paris, Barcelona, Rome... ) and does indeed help to the cities' coffers and employment, it's not, by a long shot, a decisive part of the cities' overall GDP. In Barcelona, for example, direct and indirect tourism-related activities and services yield "only" an estimated 12-15% of the city's GDP. So one could safely say that these cities do not really "depend" on tourism. Again, 15% is not a negligible figure, but it's not decisive either.

My husband and I visited the Alhambra about three weeks ago. It was certainly a highlight of our trip....thanks to Priscilla here on this forum we were able to purchase tickets on line. We visited about 6:30 (18:30) and the crowds were light. We are a couple of modest means and travel is our extravagance. I would hate to enact anything which would prevent others from visiting these awe inspiring sites.

I agree @salexan... as I said, it's really a very complex issue.

Enric,
You offered a very rational and compelling argument but there are a lot of nuances that should be taken into account. With respect to (1) lodging taxes, it's clear that those taxes are merely a revenue stream for the city and there is no clear link as to where they go (or none have been spelled out anyway). The only effective taxes are clearly thought out, targeted to achieve a certain kind of behavioral shift, monitored for effectiveness and outcomes, and tailored specifically to a policy problem that can be addressed through tax policy. Just having hotel taxes that "are supposed to do something" are not exactly a sound tax policy, and it's not surprising that they don't work well because they're too generic (or they're being siphoned off to close budget gaps elsewhere). So because the current taxing scheme is not effective doesn't mean that all taxing schemes are necessarily a lost cause - all it means is that the current scheme is not yielding the desired results and needs to be changed.

It's obvious that whatever pricing or policy mechanisms currently exist are inadequate for moving the needle on tourism, assuming one wants to move the needle in some marginal direction (and that policy itself needs to be clearly articulated, consistent, and supported politically). People tend to freak out over any tax increases or policy changes that constrain their access, saying the world will end but of course that's not going to happen - all that will happen is there will be a shift to a new equilibrium and people will adjust. The Met Museum in NYC just put in a new and hard pricing policy for non-NYC residents - people are having a fit but they'll get over it. Obviously it's much easier to deal with a single discrete attraction that is being overwhelmed versus an entire city, but it seems like no one will even touch even totally overcrowded museums which can mitigated with proper phasing of entry/exit times. And like I said before, there can be different pricing schemes for locals, other exempt groups, and tourists to differentiate ability to pay, so it's not hard to protect some classes of people from huge pricing spikes. Of course no one wants to pay more but that's how economics work and there's no free lunch (everyone seems to want a great experience without being willing to pay for the trade-offs, there are always trade-offs). The current tax and policy signals are clearly failing and there's a lot of room for experimentation and improvement. Throwing up your hands and saying nothing can be done because x, y, and z is merely saying that people have to live with the status quo because no one is willing to try new things. The Galapagos would lose all their uniqueness and animal species if tourism wasn't controlled there - it had to be done and it was the right decision. No one has an unlimited right to go anywhere they want whenever they want...there are excellent examples out there of ecotourism. I know that's very different from the Barcelona example but I'm just throwing it out there to show other places have dealt with their own problems and I'm sure it was a hard process. Every solution has to be context specific because the local details really matter.

I think Barcelona, is a special case, though not a unique one. It has become too successful for it's own good, or even made a rod for it's own back. More positively, it could be a warning to other European cities and regions.

Apparently a whopping 9 million international visitors now go to Barcelona each year, and I'm not surprised as it is deservedly one of Spain's major attractions. But whilst that is less than the numbers going to say Paris or London, those cities are much larger in area/population and can better "absorb" the visitors. Barcelona's tourist zone is relatively small, there isn't the same existing infrastructure already needed anyway for millions of residents/commuters and it doesn't have the same range of "must see" sights as, for example, Rome or Berlin. So whilst London might have more visitors each day, and it sure can feel crowded at individual sights, they are at least spread out a bit more between for instance the Tower or Westminster or Buckingham Palace or the the various shopping/entertainment districts or the many big world class museums it has to choose from but Barcelona doesn't.

Thus in central Barcelona fewer, smaller (but great) sights, squares, cafes and metro lines have to cope and the crowding can be oppressive. I do feel for the residents but have no solution. If 15% of the GDP is from tourism then it would be a disaster to lose that (just remember the smaller GDP drop after 2008 and the mass unemployment and debt that followed).

Has there also been a noticeable increase in direct flights via budget carriers (from Northern America, Europe and elsewhere) to Barcelona? I would not be surprised if that's the case.

Agnes,
yes indeed, it is very easy and cheap to get there. One of the reasons we chose Barcelona for the start of our family vacation this year: the four of us managed to arrive in the city from 3 different countries within 3 hours at the airport - only one of the flights was on a "big" airline, the others were budget airlines.