I am trying to plan roughly a week with a few city days and two or three days somewhere quieter, but I would rather not rent a car.
My filter so far is pretty simple: direct train or bus from the city, somewhere we can stay near the center of the small town, and hikes or scenery reachable on foot or with local transport.
It seems easy on paper until the “nature” part turns into three buses and a taxi. For people who travel car-free, do you usually choose the destination around transport first rather than choosing the prettiest place and solving transport later?
3 replies
I’d narrow by transport first, then scenery. If the connection is awkward, the nice landscape loses a lot of value because you stop wanting...
I’d narrow by transport first, then scenery. If the connection is awkward, the nice landscape loses a lot of value because you stop wanting to go anywhere.
This is why I look for places with one obvious base town. If I can walk to food and then take a simple bus or train to the nature part, the trip feels much calmer.
Do you mean you avoid places with no proper center at all? I’ve stayed in lovely spots that were basically a road and a view, and they were...
0 replies
The “solve transport later” method is how you end up in a taxi explaining your life choices. I’d rather pick the easier base and keep the hi...
The “solve transport later” method is how you end up in a taxi explaining your life choices. I’d rather pick the easier base and keep the hike scenic instead of the bus route.
1 reply
I usually choose the transport first. The prettiest place is great until it takes half the day to get there and back.
I usually choose the transport first. The prettiest place is great until it takes half the day to get there and back.
Same. A car-free trip is much nicer when the train or bus is part of the plan instead of a puzzle you solve later.