Also perhaps invest in An italy Lonely palnet book or borrow it from the Library. That will give suggested itiinareies /routes within your price range.
Here's a direct link for a Busabout Italy specific package - only a three day one though.
http://www.busabout.com/Italy/3Day
I was there in 1999 on a bus tour. I would suggest Rome, defiantly, several days.
Pompeii should be a whole day but skip Naples. South of there Sorrento was nice and you can take the boat over to Capri, which is touristy but the Blue Grotto is worth it.
Venice you must see, but it is horribly expensive. You can stay on the mainland and go over for the day/evening.
You HAVE to see Florence, it is one of the most beautiful places on earth. Words just cannot describe.
Pisa is a tourist trap. I called it the Gatlinburg of Italy.
I would also endorse visiting Assisi. The architecture is amazing, which it is all over the country. I wish I had had more time to spend in Tuscany, it was truly beautiful.
That must have been pretty bad, then, Truman. ::) Because Gatlinburg is tacky, tacky, tacky...
I don't know anything about Italy, but I've also had great experiences with hosteling - it's a wonderful way to have more $ to spend on seeing things and trying wonderful food and I never spend any time in the hotel anyhow if I can help it.
I also think you would like to learn a little Italian - just listen to the basic tapes or disks from the library. I feel much better/more comfy about being in Germany because I know a few basic phrases and can figure out signs without much trouble.
Happy Trails!
The only problem I would have with hostels is leaving bags there and of course, bedding. What with the bedbug infestation that's going around these days.
Heh, as I said in my threads on my trip to Paris, the trouble with learning some basic phrases, is that if you ask in the local language, they answer you in the same. :laugh: I didn't find that helpful. However, since I know Spanish fairly well, it usually impresses the locals into thinking I'm just not another American tourist who only knows English and thus are more inclined to help me.
Plus, bedbugs can show up in the fanciest of hotels. I don't know if rates are a consideration for them.
Yes, that's very true Katie. I've yet to experience bed bugs and I've stayed in (admitadelly on one or two) GROTTY hostels!!
But as Lynne says, sometimes you provide your own sleep sheet/sleeping bag or you can rent.
Or quite often in the hostel rooms that are private (Cal and I often stay in a private room in Hostels for example) the bedding is part of the price like it would be in a hotel.
The good thing I find about hostels though is the company i.e maybe travelling partners who can you our travel with you or just give you advice and helpful tips and so on as well as the social element. It's really fun to meet new people of a variety of ages and learn about them and what they are doing with themselves! Also gives you a rest from the monotony of spensing all your time with your travel partner!!
I don;t mean so much the workers in the hostels but the other travellers giving the tips...
Well that's certainly something to consider then. We have done hostels and not done the social thing but thats easier to do when you have private rooms in the hostels.. when you stay in dorms that social chit chat is harder to avoid.
We use them a lot though as it allows us to actually see and do things we couldn't do if we stayed in hotels. We've always enjoyed the experience and not felt we missed out by having the chaper accomodation - quite the opposite in fact.
When I think hostel and chatting with fellow travelers, instead of getting great conversation I always think I'll end up like this guy
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMQM4m2qpwA[/youtube]
Ah, I love traveling with my sister. ::)
I sent her 4 possible tours with a few options each for trips and she turned her nose up at every single one and never once made an offer to do the research herself.
Then she said, "Oh that trip's too long, I only have X amount of days this year because I'm going on this trip and that trip and you know, October's better for me."
I held my temper and very nicely wrote back that perhaps we should wait for 2012 then, when she has more time and we can go earlier in the year.
I didn't tell her that I would be damned if I was going to be rushed through a trip to Italy because SHE didn't have enough days and to take a chance on cold and rain later in the year because that time was more convenient for HER. >:( >:( >:( >:( Last trip we waited later than I wanted to and ended up in Paris in the rain and cold. I want to see Italy when it's warm.
I'm more than happy to go on my own without her and I might just do that.
Ah, I love traveling with my sister. ::)
I sent her 4 possible tours with a few options each for trips and she turned her nose up at every single one and never once made an offer to do the research herself.
Then she said, "Oh that trip's too long, I only have X amount of days this year because I'm going on this trip and that trip and you know, October's better for me."
I held my temper and very nicely wrote back that perhaps we should wait for 2012 then, when she has more time and we can go earlier in the year.
I didn't tell her that I would be damned if I was going to be rushed through a trip to Italy because SHE didn't have enough days and to take a chance on cold and rain later in the year because that time was more convenient for HER. >:( >:( >:( >:( Last trip we waited later than I wanted to and ended up in Paris in the rain and cold. I want to see Italy when it's warm.
I'm more than happy to go on my own without her and I might just do that.
Also in Sienna there is a Basilica to the intestines of St. Catherine of Sienna, but her noseless head is in another one.
You can get a gelato any time of the night!
Shouldn't you wait till the weekend to take the girls into town for one of those? ;D
:laugh:
I will always love a good Brokieism!
and you can get a gelato any time of the night!
HAs your sister replied Del?
Yes, she said spring of 2012 was OK with her. And to put a cap on the time, the Fates agreed. I went to the Renaissance Faire last weekend and the woman who read my Tarot cards told me I'd be taking a trip next spring. :o
Well, if you did go to Italy alone, you'd probably have fun (maybe more fun than you'd have with your sister! ::)).
I was kind of thinking the same thing. :(
If you want to see Rome, which I highly recommend, don't lock yourself into an 11-day rental.
I am one of those people who does not tire of my own company.
Same here. That's a good sort of person to be. :)
BTW, this might sound nationist or sexualist or something, but IMO there are a lot of spectacularly beautiful Italians.
OK, I'm planning my solo sojourn through Italy as I write.
I am going for 3 weeks and I will be staying in convents and monasteries along the way, taking the train to each city I want to see.
I am thrilled that I am going to be on my own.
Now, since I'll be schlepping from train station to train stations, I will have to travel as light as possible. Maybe just living out of a rollaboard. To keep my load light, instead of taking the normal books and magazines for the flight and winding down at night, I've decided to invest in a Kindle.
I know very little about them. Can anyone enlighten me about the ones with wi-fi/wireless 3G capability and what that means in laymen's terms? /color]
Thanks.
I'm going to sound Ludditish, but I don't have wireless at home, so what does that mean if I buy something that has wireless potential? The Kindle 3G had access all over Italy, so I expect the Kindle Fire will as well.
I never worried about shoes before while traveling because I was just in one city. I wore everyday shoes with insoles and I was perfectly fine. This time, i decided maybe since I'm traversing an entire country, I need to get some serious walking shoes.
>:(
Why do they all look so ugly? Nothing screams "tourist!" like hideous walking shoes and athletic sandals and hiker-like boots. Do normal shoes that are also sturdy and comfortable and stylish not exist?
Ballet flats and what I used to call "Nixon shoes" (those little Mary Janes, usually made in China) are great for house wear, but people with flat feet in particular need to be careful about wearing them for much walking or being on your feet for a long period of time.
a pair of Keens, but they look almost hiking bootish,
I got an answer from a convent in Venice this moring and I THINK it says something to the effect that my e-mail is my confirmation, but I'm not sure.
You are gonna stay in a convent? :o :-X ;D ;)
If you are willing to type in the Italian, I am willing to confirm your translation of the letter!
Also, I don't know if you happened across this site but it gives you a little comparison and some outside confirmation of your place. It listed several convents so at least you could decide if you wanted to double book. If you heard back from them it is probably enough - they probably just don't have the resources to do the full hotel-style reservation confirmation or translation. Italy can be very homey and personal which can be a good thing!
http://www.monasterystays.com (http://www.monasterystays.com)
The convent said this:It's just what you thought. "for a reservation an email confirmation is enough. Payment is not required until arrival. Greetings, Sister Francesca"
Carissima ,
per la prenotazione basta inviare conferma via e-mail . Si paga all ' arrivo .
Saluti . Suor Francesca
Any help would be appreciated!
Just booked my flight.
Hey! Whaddaya trying to say!?! >:( ;)
It's not like I'm going to wear white or anything.
And it's just in Venice.
I'm staying at a monastery in Florence. ;D
Yay, congrats! :)
It's such a great feeling to do that, isn't it?
Only that someone should warn the nuns--and the monks in Florence, I guess--to be prepared for lightning strikes. ... ;D
Are you sure that convent in Venice isn't like a "nunnery" as Shakespeare used it in Hamlet? ???
Actually, that does sound like it could be kind of a neat place to stay. :)
Are you saying I should "get thee to a nunnery"? >:( ;)
If their god can't protect them from me, I can't say much for their god's protection. ;D ;) :laugh:
I find monasteries and convents romantic. And they are reputed - by people who have been to Italy - to be clean and safe. Not that much cheaper than a cheap hotel mind, but a step up from a hostel and you get some ambiance unlike some local hotels which look horrible cheesy low-end modern.
:laugh: Actually no. I'm so incredibly terrified of flying, I always feel like I've signed my own death warrant when I book a flight for myself. If I change seats, I'm instantly worried that I might have gone from a plane crash survivor seat to a dead one. I've been unable to sleep well for days making these plans.
I was trying to suggest that you might want to avoid one. ;D ;)]
Two words: Collateral damage. ;D
One would hope they would be clean and safe. Seriously, do you get breakfast, too? Like, even, coffee and a pastry, or sumpin'?
:( I'm sorry to hear this. :(
You are so bad! I'd be measuring myself for a lightning rod if I were you. :laugh:
Me, too. I expect to be heavily drugged throughout the flight. It's an awful conjunction of loving to travel, but being terrified of flying. It makes each trip a combination of hell and heaven.
I used to be terrified of flying, but as I got older, I became more philosophical about risking my life in a plane. That helps. That, and Xanax. :)
:laugh: Actually no. I'm so incredibly terrified of flying, I always feel like I've signed my own death warrant when I book a flight for myself. If I change seats, I'm instantly worried that I might have gone from a plane crash survivor seat to a dead one. I've been unable to sleep well for days making these plans.
I used to be terrified of flying, but as I got older, I became more philosophical about risking my life in a plane. That helps. That, and Xanax. :)
I guess I've gotten more philosophical about it. I just tell myself there's usually no help for it: In most cases, if I'm going to go most places that I want to go in the time I have available, there is no other alternative but flying. The possibility of disaster is always in the back of my mind, but I just try not to dwell on it. I'm fatalistic about it: If there is a disaster I will die, and there's no point worrying about it because nothing can be done about it. And if there isn't a disaster, I'll get to be somewhere I want to be and/or with people I want to be with. :)
I'm not especially claustrophobic, but it's the idea of being crammed for hours in a cramped little seat inside a giant tin can where you can't see anything that bothers me more than the possibility of disaster.
And I actually like flying in small planes, where you can actually see the world spread out like a map beneath you. :)
But also, if I started worrying about plane crashes whenever I flew, I'd have to start worrying about car crashes whenever I drove or rode in a car. Statistically speaking, I believe the latter are more likely.
I'm not big on flying, but that's because of the inconveniences and discomfort, not fear. I'm like you -- I figure I'll just leave my fate to Fate.
But also, if I started worrying about plane crashes whenever I flew, I'd have to start worrying about car crashes whenever I drove or rode in a car. Statistically speaking, I believe the latter are more likely. Even if you argue that, per mile flying or driving, flying is more dangerous (the statistics are somewhat unclear), it's not MUCH more dangerous.
The stats are 1 in 100 of being in an automobile accident.
But that includes fender benders.
In the US, each year there are about 40,000 deaths per year in automobile accidents vs. about 200 in air transport. To put this in perspective, the chance of dying in an automobile accident is about 1000 times more than winning a typical state lottery in a year.
If we ignore property and bodily damage and focus on fatalities only, we should look at fatality rates per passenger mile traveled. This require some research. You can go to the National Transportation Safety board website (http://www.itsasafety.org) to do some research or look at a summary table here (http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskcompare.htm). According to the latter, each year in the US 1 out of 6800 drivers dies in an auto accident. The rate for airline passengers is 1 in 1.6 million. The same table shows that per passenger mile, air travel is safer by more than a factor of two. I doubt this last figure; I think it should be about 100x safer, because I guess we drive and fly the same number of miles (give or take a factor or 2-5) per year, yet fatalities are 200 times higher for autos than for airlines.
Because either way -- even if car travel is marginally safer -- it's all relative. If you're terrified of flying, for fear of dying in a crash, you should be at least pretty scared of driving. for the same reason.
Yes, and the vast majority of airplane accidents involve small private planes, which you're not flying in.
Look, the statistics are complex. Here's another take, found in about five seconds of googling:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99845.htm (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99845.htm)
There may be counterarguments. I'm not going to take the time to google extensively to try to get to the bottom of it.
Because either way -- even if car travel is marginally safer -- it's all relative. If you're terrified of flying, for fear of dying in a crash, you should be at least pretty scared of driving. for the same reason.
Yeah, I've read those numbers before, but the numbers are already skewed if they're comparing airplanes to cars. They'd have to compare 80+ cars to one airplane to get comparable numbers. e.g. 68,000 killed in traffic fatalities...were they all in one car? A bus?
But again, let's talk survivability. How many cars simply crashed and people walked away, versus how many planes crashed and people walked away? That's what I'm interested in.
The statistics I quoted referred to deaths, not accidents. Humans killed, not vehicles crashed.
I know, but that's not what I'm interested in comparing.
Odds are based on cars on the roads. How many are those per year? Compared to how many airplanes and people in the air during the same time? It's not really comparable.
That's what I mean by the numbers being skewed to begin with.
Well, you can be interested in comparing whatever you like. But the number of cars on the road at any given time, or people in a plane or planes in the sky -- all that stuff is an irrelevant distraction.
Simple deaths per mile traveled (per person, not per vehicle) is the relevant statistic if you're going to talk about the safety of car travel vs. air travel. And then, to make it even more relevant, subtract the air deaths that take place in small private planes if you're not going to be flying in one because, as I said, they're responsible for the vast majority of deaths.
Those numbers aren't skewed. They're very clear cut. They're the ones you use to figure out, say, if you're traveling from Dallas to Newark by plane vs. by car, which trip is more likely to kill you.
Look at it this way. Put as many planes in the sky as there are cars on the road and then tell me if the stats on deaths in plane accidents go up.
Of course they would. Because there would be more people traveling in planes. Yet still, fewer people would die than die in planes than die in cars. Because proportionately, you're still less likely to die in plane travel than car travel. Cars are more dangerous than planes.
You seem to think I'm getting confused by the fact that people spend more time in cars than they do in planes. Don't worry, I get that. That's why we're not talking total deaths per year. We're not talking total accidents or total vehicles or anything else. We're talking deaths per mile traveled.
If you travel 100 miles in a car, any car, anywhere, at any time, regardless of how many cars on the road or how many people in your vehicle or anything else, you are more likely to die than you are traveling 100 miles in a plane.
Let's try it another way. For simplicity sake, let's say 10 people travel in planes a year, and they each travel 10 miles. So altogether, that's 100 miles. Let's say (hypothetically) that out of those, 1 person dies. Now let's say 100 people travel in cars every year, and they each travel 100 miles. Altogether, that's 10,000 miles. If cars and plane were equally dangerous, then 100 of those people would die, because altogether people are traveling 100 times more in cars than in planes.
But in fact, according to statistics, more than 100 people would die. Because there are more deaths per mile in cars.
Now let's try it still one more way: If people spent exactly as much time in planes as in cars, if there were exactly as many planes as cars, as many people in them, or however else you'd like to equalize it, more people would die in cars.
Plane travel seems more dangerous because you're in the air. But in fact, it's less.
You keep not connecting the dots. Of course they would, so then that means planes are not proportionately safer, there's just fewer of them flying than cars driving. Put as many planes in the sky as cars on the roads, or put as few cars on the roads as there are planes in the sky and see what your numbers tell you then.
:laugh:
No, no no, I really really read your posts.
It's just you make statements and then try to qualify them, but to me, the qualifiers don't detract from the original fact.
You did it again here with this:
Yes, more people per year die in cars now, and the fact that there are more cars on the road is one factor. But it's only PART of the reason.
I agree. It is a factor. But to me, it's the MAIN factor that the stats are skewed. To me, nothing else will make plane to car deaths per mile stats comparable until that is adjusted.
Yes, and the way they "adjust" it is by calculating the statistics in deaths per mile rather than deaths per year. Simple math. And so much easier than putting a million more planes in the sky or taking a million cars off the road.
But it's not adjusted. Deaths per mile based on what? The current air and car traffic. And that's already not equitable.
Does anybody know whether or not it's true that more accidents involving planes happen on the ground than in the air? ???
I guess that question doesn't really help here, does it? 8)
When you say "on the ground," do you include planes that were in the air until something went wrong, but weren't actually damaged until they made contact with the ground?
But if you mean planes that are moving around on the tarmac, then I'd say no.
You mean like jumping out of a plane in flight without a parachute? It isn't the fall that kills you, it's the abrupt stop?
Sorry for OT here, I'll keep it short:
What the hell happened to your avatar, Katherine?
Is it The Mummy Came upon a Bear or sumpn?
I can't make out what it is, even with glasses.
And my attempt at the topic:
Statistics about car crashs vs. plane crashs don't make much difference. Fear isn't always rational (or even mostly not retional). I don't care how few planes crash, I'm just afraid the one I'm sitting in could be the exception of the rule (when it gets shaky, for me it's the turbulances that get me, otherwise I'm doing okay).
When I was a kid, I was terrified that someone was going to break into my parents' house and attack me. Never mind that that had never, ever happened (and hasn't since) in the middle-class suburb where I lived, that the odds against it were astronomical. Every night, I lay there watching the door of my room, waiting in terror for an intruder to appear.
OT, but this was a strange coincidence. I was reading about the Bucklin family just the other day. Very tragic.
Back to air safety, I think the vast majority of plane deaths involve little private planes. A couple of years ago, a family my sons knew from school lost four members -- father and three sons -- flying a small plane with the father piloting.
Statistics about car crashs vs. plane crashs don't make much difference. Fear isn't always rational (or even mostly not retional). I don't care how few planes crash, I'm just afraid the one I'm sitting in could be the exception of the rule (when it gets shaky, for me it's the turbulances that get me, otherwise I'm doing okay).
Doctors have written me preemptive antibiotics, but they do nothing for a virus.
Great trip! I've been to most of those places, and they are fabulous. Wait until you ride the road to Positano. Quite the harrowing adventure.
Is your guide in Rome by any chance with Rome Walks tours? Is his name Greg? I know this would be a huge coincidence, but I had a guide named Greg who was American and had lived in Italy for years. He was great.
You are going to go to Italy and have a wonderful time. Meet lots of interesting people, and see a whole country, that
has beauty and culture to share.
And don't forget the food. ... The food. ... ;D
I'm back! ;D
I never got sick! :)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v728/Jovieve/OstiaAntica2.jpg)
Despite the one thing I could not control and was a disappointment - the weather - it was a marvelous, life-perspective changing trip.
I instantly got a couple of traditions going the minute I landed:
1) eating gelato in every city I was in
2) getting lost
In each city I was in, I spent on average 2 hours lost.
Italy, like France and England, put street signs on the corners of buildings. Unfortunately, especially in Italy, they don't tend to put them on EVERY street corner. You could walk a quarter mile before seeing a street sign and realizing you were on the wrong street.
So a lot of those hours were spent in frustration, precious touring time lost while being lost. But I did see some truly magical places while lost - a row of blooming orange trees on the Via Consular in Rome and almost anywhere on the islands of San Polo, Dorsoduro and Cannregio in Venice.
I also had adventures - missing trains, getting on wrong trains, getting ripped off by taxi drivers, bus ticket sellers and postage stamp sellers, not having a ride to catch my train (I didn't realize the Monday after Easter is a holiday in Italy) sitting in the warm sun in the square of the town of Pienza wondering how the heck I'm going to get to Siena to catch my train to Rome with no bus service in a town with no taxi drivers. Sitting on the train 15 minutes outside of Rome one evening while coming back from a day trip to Pompeii, wondering why we're not moving. Eerily, like my train trip to Chicago, they made announcements as to why we were stopped, but they didn't say them in English and no one in my class spoke English or Spanish. I understood 3 words "Person", "ambulance" and "50 minutes". So either the train hit someone who needed an ambulance or someone ON the train needed an ambulance. We sat on the track for 2 hours before making the final 15 minutes into Rome.
I'll post more as I go through more of my pictures.