Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am planning a trip to Europe sometime next year, probably in May or June 2012, figuring booking things earlier might make a huge difference in the cost.
I have been perusing maps and guide books like Lonely Planet, and I have sketched out the following as a route I'd be interested in taking, though I am somewhat naive as to whether it is feasible to see in roughly twenty-one days. I have done some cursory study of services such as EuRail which provide intercontinental transit for a baseline price plus reservation fees (if the deal was still valid when I book, something like their 17 day flexipass), so I think I could get around.
Here's my travel plan having consulted a few train, bus, and ferry routes:
NYC > MAD
Madrid
Valencia
Barcelona
Ibiza
Pisa (via Ibiza ferry) OR direct to Rome (via BAR > FCO on Ryanair/budget airline)
Florence
Vienna
Prague
Berlin
Amsterdam
AMS > KEF
Reykjavic
KEF > NYC
Obviously flying between someplace like Barcelona and Rome would cut down on transit time and give me more opportunity to explore Europe, and for roughly the same cost as a ferry (as of today's fares).
Biting off more than I can chew for three weeks? I'd very much like to see Spain and Italy, primarily, not a whole lot of desire to do France, and I think working my way north through the Czech Republic and Germany to Amsterdam is wise, especially with deals airlines offer now for a layover in Iceland.
Roughly ten cities in the span of twenty days, I'd want to spend at least two days in each of the following: Barcelona, Rome, Florence, and Prague or Berlin, depending on what kind of sights my research comes up with. I feel like a day and a half in places like Madrid, Ibiza, Amsterdam, Reykjavic, etc., sounds about right.
Giving time for travel, what do you think? Any input on travel in the continent? Are night trains suitable for sleeping to save on hostels? Recommendations for budget providers of in-continent transit?
Feasible, yes. Desirable - only in the eyes of the traveler. If you like like travel lag, unexpected delays, a required serious matrix of reservations, etc. - you can do it. My preference is to smell the roses and not try and just punch off a high number of city/country visits nearly so quickly. That is just my preference.
I could spend a week each in Vienna, Amsterdam, Prague and Berlin and barely scratch the surface. I suspect Italy, Spain and Iceland are similar in my tastes. It just depends on what you want from your travel "experience".
Blitzing through centuries/thousands of years of civilization in two day shots is not going to give you much exposure to the vast and wonderfully varied delights of Europe. JMHO
There's only nine travel days in there, so that leaves you at least 9 days without travel. Pefectly feasable. You might even do a couple of the longer runs on overnight trains, and have more time to see the sights. One day in each of those cities will be enough to absorb the atmosphere and see the highlights.
The advantage of doing it that way, is that in the future, you can pick the place you like best and go back and spend your whole three weeks there. It widens your choices and assures you will find a place that suits your fancy.
Totally feasible, but only you know what type of traveler you are. We went to Europe in 2008, rented a car and drove from Paris to Bruges, Amsterdam, Munich, Venice, and Rome all in a 2 week time period. We felt like we had more than enough time in each city and the itinerary was perfect for us. Neither of us is one to sit in one place for a week so if that's you, I say go for it!
I often chided people who wanted to do the shotgun approach to Europe and try to visit each and every country, until someone in this forum set me straight and said "hey, this may be the only time I get to go to Europe in my life". I'm spoiled, I got there several times a year - for work, for pleasure, etc. For me it's as routine as traveling to the next state.
I understand that now, and at least you have 3 weeks. I've seen people try to put that schedule together in 10 days, crazy. So, if this is your once in a lifetime trip to Europe go for it. If your plan in life is to go to Europe every couple years, then just pick one country at a time and save the rest for future trips. Really - you will appreciate it more by just exploring one cultural center at a time and getting to know it.
Roughly ten cities in the span of twenty days, I'd want to spend at least two days in each of the following: Barcelona, Rome, Florence, and Prague or Berlin, depending on what kind of sights my research comes up with. I feel like a day and a half in places like Madrid, Ibiza, Amsterdam, Reykjavic, etc., sounds about right.
Giving time for travel, what do you think? Any input on travel in the continent? Are night trains suitable for sleeping to save on hostels? Recommendations for budget providers of in-continent transit?
Night trains can work for sleeping to save on hostels, just don't plan on sleeping very well. This can wear you down on a trip like yours.
For the most part I agree with Dd714 and Mak802, I like to keep moving and also, you sometimes do not know what you prefer until you get there. Once you know, you can always go back. And if you can't go back again for a long time, well, at least you spent a day there.
On the other hand, I simply can't imagine going all the way to a great city like Rome and spending just 2 days there. (But of course that's my personal preference.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.