Ksu93dlv

I know it's kind of novel for this newsgroup, but I actually have a question
related to European travel. I'm sorry to interrupt all the off-topic debates
going on here, but if anyone can help me I'd appreciate it.

I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll have
no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the US).
I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't want
to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

Keeger

LOL! Great Subject line!

(Ksu93dlv) wrote:

    >I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll have
    >no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the US).
    >I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't want
    >to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    >there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    >really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    >perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

You left out one major detail. Are you flying round trip? If you can
fly in and out of different cities, it would be a lot easier to fit in
a third. If you have to return to Rome, that will eat up a lot more
of your time. Most people would probably suggest Florence, but a
really nice change of pace would be Verona. It's got great
architecture and not nearly as many tourists as Florence. If you
haven't purchased airfare yet, you might consider this itinerary:

Day 1 - Arrive Rome
Day 2 - Rome
Day 3 - Rome
Day 4 - Train to Verona
Day 5 - Verona
Day 6 - Train to Venice
Day 7 - Venice
Day 8 - Venice
Day 9 - Train to Milan
Day 10 - Depart Milan

Or, if you are purchasing R/T airfare, you might consider leaving
Venice out for this trip and instead do a loop around Florence and
maybe Sienna or some of the hill towns. There are a lot of Italy
experts here, so I'm sure you'll get a lot of good suggestions.

K

Deep Freud Moors

On 23 Dec 2003 21:48:58 GMT, (Ksu93dlv)
wrote:

    >I know it's kind of novel for this newsgroup, but I actually have a question
    >related to European travel. I'm sorry to interrupt all the off-topic debates
    >going on here, but if anyone can help me I'd appreciate it.

When you put it like that, who could resist? ;o)

    >I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll have
    >no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the US).
    >I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't want
    >to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    >there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    >really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    >perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

8 days, huh? I would possibly add Florence for a night. You need a
minimum of a day to see the major stuff there, but the town centre is
stunning, including the jaw-dropping Duomo.

Rome in itself needs many months to explore properly, so don't be
surprised if you leave feeling like it was all a bit rushed. As a
city, it rates as my favourite in western Europe.

Strangely I have never been to Venice, but the general impression is
that it's phenomenal, but touristy and pricey.

Italian cities are made for walking around, and that is where they
truly come into their own. Allow at least half your time for doing not
much at all. Just wander around, and you wont get bored! Eat in small,
busy restaurants, preferably where not much english is spoken and
you'll be in for a treat.
---
DFM

barney

In article <>,
(Ksu93dlv) wrote:

    > I know it's kind of novel for this newsgroup, but I actually have a
    > question
    > related to European travel.

maybe you should try a tax group, or a theology group, or a middle-eastern
politics group...

    > Rome sounds like a must-see
    > Venice is the other city we
    > would
    > really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third
    > city,
    > perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

as others have said - florence would be the 'classic' suggestion. i'm not
at all sure it's the best one unless you are especially interested in
renaissance art, and even then it might be rather frustrating to have just
a day or two there.

verona, also mentioned, is a good alternative; another possibility,
especially if you are interested in italian cuisine, is bologna. ravenna
and particularly urbino are fabulous small cities more or less on your
way, but i suspect that practically speaking you'd need to be driving
rather than taking public transport to fit them into your tight schedule.

having said that, imho pompeii - which is near naples - is one of -the-
unmissable italian highlights. it's out of your way but you could very
easily see it with just a one-night trip out from rome.

B Vaughan

On 23 Dec 2003 21:48:58 GMT, (Ksu93dlv)
wrote:

    >I know it's kind of novel for this newsgroup, but I actually have a question
    >related to European travel. I'm sorry to interrupt all the off-topic debates
    >going on here, but if anyone can help me I'd appreciate it.
    >I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll have
    >no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the US).
    >I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't want
    >to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    >there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    >really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    >perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

OK, here is my advice. I live in Italy, and Rome is one of my favorite
places in the whole universe, so I would try to maximize my time in
Rome. Venice is certainly worth seeing, but it's a long train ride
from Rome. To really see much, you'd have to spend two nights there,
cutting three days out of the eight you have to spend in Italy. Plus
two of those days would mostly be spent on the train. Two days out of
the eight is a quarter of your time in Italy. This is an argument for
not going there on this trip.

Here is an alternative suggestion that will get you a good overview of
what's best about Italy, plus leave you lots of time in Rome, and
minimize the amount of time spent checking in and out of hotels.

1) Spend all eight (or nine) nights in Rome.

2) Make a day trip by train to Orvieto, a very pretty Umbrian hill
town with a wonderful Italian Gothic cathedral (very different from
the Gothic cathedrals of northern Europe!)

3) Spend part or all of one day at Ostia Antica, the ancient Roman
seaport, which has been preserved in good condition and in some ways
is more rewarding than Pompei. Bring a picnic lunch if the weather's
nice, and definitely get a good guide book for Ostia Antica before you
go. (Otherwise, it's hard to find your way around. You can buy guides
in Rome, either in a book store, or any other store catering to
tourists.)

If you want to spend another day outside of Rome, Assisi would be
another good trip.

Both Assisi and Orvieto can be reached fairly easily by train. Orvieto
is on a direct line, about an hour away if I remember correctly. I
never went there by train, but I think the station is fairly near the
center of town. Assisi has a few direct trains a day from Rome, but
you can also take the train towards Ancona and change in Foligno. When
you get to Assisi, you have to take a bus from the station to the
center. (There will be lots of other people making the trip, so you
shouldn't have any problem finding your way.)

Ostia Antica is on a commuter train line from Rome. If you buy a daily
pulic transport pass in Rome, it will cover the entire trip. First you
take the metro (line B) to Piramide and change to the commuter line to
Ostia Antica. There are signs when you get off the metro. (The
commuter line also makes a stop at Ostia Lido, which is the beach, so
don't get off there. I think Ostia Antica might also be called Ostia
Scavi on the signs inside the train.) Once you get off the train at
Ostia Antica, you have to take a pedestrian overpass to cross the
highway, and the archeological site is a very short distance from the
highway.

As someone else said, Florence is worth a visit mainly if you have an
interest in art and want to visit one or more of its great museums. It
is usually absolutely over-run with tourists, so I refuse to go there
myself except between November and February. However, if you want to
see the Duomo from the outside and visit just one museum, plus walk
across the Ponto Vecchio, you could reasonably consider a day trip to
Florence. In that case, reserve a time for your museum visit in
advance to avoid waiting in line.

It might be a bit crazy, but if you just want to see some gondolas and
St. Mark's Plaza, you could even make a day trip to Venice. You would
be spending about 9 hours on the train, but if you leave Rome early
and return late, you could have about 5 hours in Venice. That would
even give you a little time to take a little stroll off the beaten
tourist path, to see the quiet parts of Venice, which are the parts I
like best. I checked the train schedule and see that there's a
Eurostar train that leaves Rome at 8:55 and gets to Venice at 1:28 PM.
Then there's a Eurostar that leaves Venice at 6:32 PM and gets to Rome
at 11:05. I would stongly suggest buying a sack lunch at the station
in Rome to eat on the train, and buying another at one of the many
little shops near the station in Venice to eat on your way home. With
only five hours in Venice, I wouldn't waste any of them eating.
Besides, most of the restaurants in Venice are strictly geared to the
mass tourist trade, i.e., overpriced and mediocre quality.

The idea of taking day trips to cities like Florence and Venice may
seem outrageous to some people, but for someone who really can't spend
more than a week in Italy, I think it's better than moving around from
hotel to hotel. When you change hotels, you waste a lot of time
packing and unpacking, plus it takes a day or so to get accustomed to
your new neighborhood (where is a nice place to have a cappucino,
where do you buy bus tickets, etc.) At least when you take a day trip,
you return to a familiar room where your pajamas are ready for you to
put on.
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Giovanni Drogo

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, B Vaughan wrote:

    > 1) Spend all eight (or nine) nights in Rome.
    > 2) Make a day trip by train to Orvieto, a very pretty Umbrian hill

One can make other day trips in Lazio to places like e.g. Palestrina
(nice archeological museum in the setting of the ancient roman temple of
Fortuna Primigenia), Anagni (medieval cathedral frescoes), Cerveteri or
Tarquinia (etruscan archeological sites), Caprarola (villa Farnese),
Tuscania (two nice medieval churches) and many others. I haven't done
those by oublic transport but it should be possible, ask advice at the
Tourist Office in Rome.

    > 3) Spend part or all of one day at Ostia Antica, the ancient Roman
    > seaport, which has been preserved in good condition and in some ways

Why not also Villa Adriana in Tivoli ? Here one can definitely make a
day trip taking a train to Tivoli, visiting the city on the hill and
Villa d'Este with the famous fountains, eating something (or buying
something for a picnic), taking a bus down to Villa Adriana (a very
large archeological ground enclosing Emperor Hadrian's palace) and going
back to Rome by bus. Been there, done that.

    > Both Assisi and Orvieto can be reached fairly easily by train. Orvieto
    > is on a direct line, about an hour away if I remember correctly. I
    > never went there by train, but I think the station is fairly near the
    > center of town.

Hmm... some 100 m (in altitude) BELOW. Orvieto is on a cliff and the
station it's down in the plain. I have no idea if they have re-opened
the funicular connecting station and town. Actually I've never been
there (although I've passed through that station at high speed many
time). The only time I tried some 20 years ago (on the way Rome-Siena)
for some reason we missed the train connection and had to renounce.

    > It might be a bit crazy, but if you just want to see some gondolas and
    > St. Mark's Plaza, you could even make a day trip to Venice. You would
    > be spending about 9 hours on the train, but if you leave Rome early

If one really wants to, the way to go is to use a night train and have a
full day in Venice.

    > The idea of taking day trips to cities like Florence and Venice may
    > seem outrageous to some people, but for someone who really can't spend

In my opinion Venice can't be done in a day unless using a night train.
Florence can be reached easily

... and about day trips, it depends how one feels about other things.
When I was younger I did not mind in skipping real dinners. We used to
travel (abroad of Italy) with train rail passes, make a "base" somewhere
and do day trips, leaving early in the morning, having a fast lunch in
some self-service in a department store or on a train, buying something
to eat for supper and eating on the train on the way back and be back
even at 10 pm. One can maximize the time spent visiting if one does not
insist in fitting one's legs under a table for dinner.

Gg

"Giovanni Drogo" <> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.30.0312241024200.8767-...
    > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, B Vaughan wrote:
    > > 1) Spend all eight (or nine) nights in Rome.
    > >
    > > 2) Make a day trip by train to Orvieto, a very pretty Umbrian hill

<snip>

    > > Both Assisi and Orvieto can be reached fairly easily by train. Orvieto
    > > is on a direct line, about an hour away if I remember correctly. I
    > > never went there by train, but I think the station is fairly near the
    > > center of town.
    > Hmm... some 100 m (in altitude) BELOW. Orvieto is on a cliff and the
    > station it's down in the plain. I have no idea if they have re-opened
    > the funicular connecting station and town.

The funicular runs very frequently from the rail station up to the main part
of town. It only takes a few minutes. A bus from the top of the funicular
to the Duomo takes about 10 minutes or less. I don't remember the cost, but
the round-trip combination funicular/bus ticket was very little. Very easy
and convenient. A great daytrip possibility from Rome.

<snip>

GG

B Vaughan

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:38:49 +0100, Giovanni Drogo
<> wrote:

    >On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, B Vaughan wrote:

    >One can make other day trips in Lazio to places like e.g. Palestrina
    >(nice archeological museum in the setting of the ancient roman temple of
    >Fortuna Primigenia), Anagni (medieval cathedral frescoes), Cerveteri or
    >Tarquinia (etruscan archeological sites), Caprarola (villa Farnese),
    >Tuscania (two nice medieval churches) and many others. I haven't done
    >those by oublic transport but it should be possible, ask advice at the
    >Tourist Office in Rome.

My husband and I spent a very pleasant week two years ago visiting
Etruscan sites, including Tarquinia and Cerveteri. (At that time I
posted a trip report to r.t.e about these sites, which should still be
available on the google archive.) We made this trip by car, but I did
a quick check of public transport options. There is a small train
station in Tarquinia, but it is a long way from the town and the town
itself is a fair distance from the archeological site. I didn't see
any public transport to the archeological site, although I must admit
I didn't ask. I did, however, look around to see if there was a bus
stop and didn't see one. There is a fairly good museum in the town,
but at the archeological site, you can only look in to the tombs from
the outside through a plate glass wall. There are a limited number of
tombs that can even be observed this way. In an hour, you will have
seen everything that can possibly be seen. We were there in the
spring, but already felt the lack of any sort of shade. If you had to
wait long by the side of the road for a bus, it might be unpleasant.
On the whole, I have a feeling that it would be a long and complicated
trip by public transport and I'm not sure it would be worth it unless
you had a strong desire to see the particular tombs at Tarquinia.
(Because they're protected by glass and with a climate-controlled
environment, the paintings are fairly well-preserved.

Ceveteri is much more extensive and evocative, and you could easily
spend hours wandering around the site and entering tombs. There is
plenty of shade and a very peaceful air about the place. Most of the
tombs have no remaining art work to see, but it is interesting to see
certain architectual features, especially if you have a good guide. At
least one tomb still has the tomb paintings intact, and this one is
hemetically sealed behind glass. Once again, I didn't see any sign of
public transport at the site of the tombs, and this site is also a bit
far from any town. However, if I had to choose one of the two sites to
visit, it would be Cerveteri.

    >Why not also Villa Adriana in Tivoli ? Here one can definitely make a
    >day trip taking a train to Tivoli, visiting the city on the hill and
    >Villa d'Este with the famous fountains, eating something (or buying
    >something for a picnic), taking a bus down to Villa Adriana (a very
    >large archeological ground enclosing Emperor Hadrian's palace) and going
    >back to Rome by bus. Been there, done that.

Yes, this would be another very nice trip. I thought of mentioning it
before, but I thought it might be a little complicated for a
non-Italian speaker to manage by public transport. Again, I visited
Tivoli by car. However, I did see a bus stop very near to the Villa
d'Este and another about a five-minute walk from the Villa Adriana. We
spent the night in a little inn (called the Villa Adriana, I believe)
just outside the gate of the Villa Adriana. The inn had a very
nice-looking restaurant, but we had already eaten when we arrived, so
we didn't try it.

    >> Both Assisi and Orvieto can be reached fairly easily by train. Orvieto
    >> is on a direct line, about an hour away if I remember correctly. I
    >> never went there by train, but I think the station is fairly near the
    >> center of town.
    >Hmm... some 100 m (in altitude) BELOW. Orvieto is on a cliff and the
    >station it's down in the plain. I have no idea if they have re-opened
    >the funicular connecting station and town.

Do you know if there's a bus in the absence of a funicular? (One of my
guidebooks mentions the funicular, but this guide is about five years
old.)

    >> It might be a bit crazy, but if you just want to see some gondolas and
    >> St. Mark's Plaza, you could even make a day trip to Venice. You would
    >> be spending about 9 hours on the train, but if you leave Rome early
    >If one really wants to, the way to go is to use a night train and have a
    >full day in Venice.

The problem with the night train is that once again, you have the
packing and unpacking and the hotel checking in and out before and
after your trip. At least if you return to the same hotel, you won't
have the problem of reorientation to the neighborhood.
    >> The idea of taking day trips to cities like Florence and Venice may
    >> seem outrageous to some people, but for someone who really can't spend
    >In my opinion Venice can't be done in a day unless using a night train.
    >Florence can be reached easily

Actually, my husband and I have several times made day trips to Venice
from a similar distance (Le Marche) just to see specific art shows,
but we usually also have a little time left over to see a bit of
Venice. When my sister and her family visited me last summer, we made
a sightseeing day trip to Venice. While certainly it isn't ideal, for
someone who just wants to see Venice, it's feasible.

We ate on the train in both directions, and had about five hours to
see the city. We took the slow vaporetto up the Grand Canal, and got
off at St. Mark's Plaza. After seeing the Basilica, we took a long
walk, stopping along the way to have an ice cream. (It was a very hot
day.) Then we visited the Ca' Rezzonico, a lovely 18th century palazzo
with restored grand ballroom and with some nice art work and period
furnishings on display. Instead of an expensive gondola ride, we rode
a traghetto (a gondola ferry) across the Grand Canal so that my
American relatives could at least experience a gondola for a few
minutes.

All in all, apart from the heat, we had a very pleasant visit. We
spent about fifteen minutes hanging around a bridge in a quiet part of
town, watching a moving van boat loading furniture from a house,
partially blocking the canal, and the ensuant traffic jams. There was
a gondola with some tourists aboard stuck in the traffic for about ten
of the minutes we were watching. I was wondering if they would get a
partial refund or if they would get a little extra time for their
ride.

I also saw two tourists (husband and wife, I think) with too much
luggage trying to get over two of Venice's many little bridges with
steps up and down. They each had a fairly large rolling suitcase and a
fairly heavy backpack. The woman was just too overloaded to pull the
suitcase up the steps, and her husband couldn't manage to haul both
hers and his. He had to leave his bag unattended while he went back to
help his wife. On the second bridge he decided to try to do it in one
trip, pulling both suitcases and carrying his heavy backpack. His
knees actually buckled halfway up the steps. At that point, they were
very near me and I offered to help, but he declined. He would just
have had the same problem within a few yards anyway. Another example
of why you should pack light.

    >... and about day trips, it depends how one feels about other things.
    >When I was younger I did not mind in skipping real dinners. We used to
    >travel (abroad of Italy) with train rail passes, make a "base" somewhere
    >and do day trips, leaving early in the morning, having a fast lunch in
    >some self-service in a department store or on a train, buying something
    >to eat for supper and eating on the train on the way back and be back
    >even at 10 pm. One can maximize the time spent visiting if one does not
    >insist in fitting one's legs under a table for dinner.

I can manage very nicely eating on the train as long as I can find
some nice light food and fruit. On our day trip this past summer, we
prepared our lunch at home before setting out and bought our supper at
a shop near the station in Venice.

I enjoy a nice meal in a good restaurant, but as I said before, that's
hard to find in Venice anyway. The one thing I can't bear is to eat a
meal standing up. We sometimes take short trips with a friend who
almost always suggests just getting a slice of pizza or a panino when
we're out. Aside from the fact that a panino from a bar just doesn't
satisfy me either in quality or quantity, I don't feel as though I've
had a meal if I've consumed it on my feet. At least on the train, one
is usually seated.
-----------
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Steve

I recommend you check out this web site: http://www.slowtrav.com/italy/
They also have an active forum for Italian only questions

Steve

(Ksu93dlv) wrote in message news:<>...
    > I know it's kind of novel for this newsgroup, but I actually have a question
    > related to European travel. I'm sorry to interrupt all the off-topic debates
    > going on here, but if anyone can help me I'd appreciate it.
    >
    > I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll have
    > no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the US).
    > I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't want
    > to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    > there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    > really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    > perhaps one between Venice and Rome?

Jenn

In article <>,
(Ksu93dlv) wrote:

    > I know it's kind of novel for this newsgroup, but I actually have a question
    > related to European travel. I'm sorry to interrupt all the off-topic debates
    > going on here, but if anyone can help me I'd appreciate it.
    >
    > I'm putting together a trip to Italy for the Spring and it looks like I'll
    > have
    > no more than about ten days total (including 2 for flying to and from the
    > US).
    > I dont' want to cram too much into our trip, but at the same time I don't
    > want
    > to limit myself to just one city. Rome sounds like a must-see (though I know
    > there are a lot of must-sees in Italy). Venice is the other city we would
    > really like to see. Would it be too much if we tried adding a third city,
    > perhaps one between Venice and Rome?


I wouldn't -- but then we didn't even do Rome until our 3rd or 4th trip

Get a good book and really look it over and decide which experiences you
most want -- if it is Rome and Venice then do 3 nights[ 2 days] in
Venice and 5 nights [4 days] in Rome -- and plan a day trip or two near
Rome to vary the experience e.g. we have rented a car for a day and done
the Etruscan tomb sites north of Rome -- or you could do a very long
tour to Pompeii -- or visit Villa Adriana [site of heaven in the recent
HBO version of Angels in America] etc.

Less is more -- and Rome is a town with such varied delights that 5
nights is way too short.