‍

We were recently taking a train from Amsterdam to Brussels, to catch a flight the next morning from Brussels back to the US. We had been traveling for a bit over 2 months, and had spent the last 3 weeks in the Netherlands, staying in Utrecht, the Hague, and Leiden, with a final week in Amsterdam.

We got into a conversation with a couple in front of us from the US. They had been traveling for the last few weeks, and had a long list of the places they had visited on their trip. Last night was Amsterdam. They had arrived the previous afternoon on a train from Germany, checked in to their hotel, had dinner, walked around in the city near their hotel in the evening, checked out in the next morning, and we now headed south to check Brussels and Bruges off of their list.

That conversation made me think about different travel philosophies. About taking a series of quick focused visits to different places versus longer stays at fewer places where you take time to wander around and see a place in more depth. It made me think about how long someone should visit a particular destination.

What's the optimal duration of a visit? Spending a few hours in the evening walking around central Amsterdam is obviously too short to really experience the place, but a person could get a fast impression that would be lasting and memorable. A few hours to experience the canals, the housing, the whole sense of place, that would leave someone with a vivid mental picture that would be a lasting experience. A person could use that type of short experience to better understand a place.

Like visiting Manhattan for an long afternoon and evening. Get off the train and walk around midtown, loop up through the southern end of Central Park, Times Square, maybe catch a cab to Greenwich Village or battery park. You’d leave the next morning with a vivid mental picture of the city that would help round out your experience of the world. But you would also have just scratched the surface. Like sitting on top of one of the red tour buses on its route past the major attractions. You can say you visited for a few hours, saw a lot, but that’s about it. You can’t really get any deeper knowledge or understanding of a place from that kind of brief visit.

So the question becomes how long should you visit a particular destination. What’s the minimum time needed to make the visit worthwhile. The answer will be different for each person. Some may want to quickly experience the main attractions, others may want to add a tier of more subtle experiences. And that can extend out indefinitely depending on what you’re looking to get out of your travels.

We used to allocate three or four days when visiting a new place. Arrive after lunch on the first day, and check into the accommodations in the afternoon. Take two or three full days to look around. Then leave the morning of the last day. We could cover a lot of ground with that schedule. The departure day usually consisted of a three or four hour plane or train journey to get to an entirely new place where we would do the same routine again.  

‍

On one trip we flew into Zurich and visited the Alps in the Bernese Oberland in Switzerland for a 4 nights, Bern for 3 nights, drove to Geneva and caught a high speed train to an apartment in Paris for 3 nights, then a high speed train to Amsterdam for a 4 nights on a houseboat, before flying to Tallinn for 4 nights. We covered a lot of ground, saw an incredible amount, but looking back it was bit too rushed. We had been to Paris and Tallinn before, so the sightseeing pressure was off in those cities, but we still had a list of things we wanted to see and do on this trip, which created some pressure to keep to a schedule.  

Of course, it was an amazing experience for which we are profoundly grateful. We covered a lot of ground, and had a wide range of amazing experiences. The memories will last us a lifetime.  

We left planning to eventually return to Switzerland and stay much longer. Settle in for a few weeks. The longer the better. Renting a furnished place for a month usually gets you a descent discount, and gives you the time to get in sync with the life in the place. It would be a less ambitious agenda with minimal stress. The freedom to wander around and do what you feel like each day. More relaxing. Less pressure. More enjoyable. Different from the fast sightseeing trips.

Maybe the slow trips work better for us now because we are older. Traveling too fast is becoming too much work. Days where we checkout and travel to the next destination use up a lot of energy, and we don’t have the stamina we used to. And now we have more free time to spend on a longer trip. Less pressure from work and kids in school. The luxury of not having to squeeze everything into a short fast trip during the kids school vacations. Now we can travel off season, when the crowds are gone, lines are shorter, the restaurants have seating available, the prices are lower, and the pace is slower.  

There must be some sort of calculation that gives you the optimal time you should stay in a specific area. Like adding up the number of pages in a travel guidebook devoted to the place, multiply that by the number of hours that you have spent browsing sites on the internet to dig deeper, add the number of local restaurants and some additional points for the day trips or hikes that you want to take, and divide by the daily cost of a monthly apartment rental. Maybe a programmer can come up with a viable algorithm. Too many factors to calculate.

What we usually do is spend some time learning about an destination, find the things that interest us, figure out how long we need to stay to see what we want, add some time for afternoons sitting at cafes, then add 50% or so to that amount, or maybe 75%. It's not a very formal process. But it seems to work for us.

Part of the calculation depends on what you are trying to get from the experience. Slowing down to match the pace of an island beach village takes a different effort than exploring the history of Vienna. And each can take a while to accomplish.

Maybe the best approach is to think of your initial visit as a trial run at living in the location, and determine what duration would give you an adequate experience of the resident life. Smaller places could work at two weeks. Or maybe you need longer to slow down and get in sync with local life. Others places may seem like you need two months, but for some reason you sync up pretty quickly.

Maybe it depends on how different the lifestyle is from your home life. The pacing, the scale, the environment. Going from living in a big western city to a foreign big western city may not require much time to adjust. Going from big western city to a rural seaside village could take you a while to get in sync.

So, choosing between slow travel and fast travel basically depends on your goals, preferences, and circumstances. Let's compare some issues to brainstorm how to determine which approach is right for you at a specific destination:  

• The first  question is usually about budget. How much can you spend to visit the destination? Slow Travel can be more economical if you stay in one place longer, since you can usually find better rates for long-term accommodations, and can cook your own meals. Fast travel can involve more costs for transportation and require more expensive short-term accommodation options. But in the end the overall cost can even out since you will travel for a longer period as  a slow traveler, so the cost can end up being basically the same.

• How much time do you have available to travel? Do you have work, family, or other commitments that limit the time you can be away from home? Can you get around any limitations? For example, can you work while you are on the road?
• What are your Personal Preferences about traveling? Do you enjoy leisurely exploration, learning about a destination at a more relaxed pace, or a focus on hitting major highlights and seeing as much as possible in a short time, and don’t mind a busier schedule. This also involves the pace of Life at the destination. A destination with a slower, more relaxed pace may take longer to visit, since life moves at a slower pace.  

• Do you prefer to plan out trips in detail, or are you more flexible and spontaneous? Fast Travel usually requires more planning and a need to stick to a schedule to maximize your itinerary, while slower travel usually gives you more flexibility to change plans based on what you discover along the way and explore unplanned opportunities.

• What kind of Travel Style do you prefer?  Fast Travel can mean frequent changes in location and is best suited for those who enjoy a high-paced, energetic travel experience, but it can be tiring. Slow Travel suits people who prefer to settle into one place and avoid the stress of constant changes in locale.

• What types of accommodations do you prefer? Fast traveler usually means stays in a hotel, which provides a more predictable and consistent experience, and a decent level of comfort. Slow travelers usually rent a furnished apartment and settle in, but the level of quality and overall experience can be unpredictable, since these rentals are usually offered by private parties.  

• What kinds of activities and attractions do you like? Does the destination require you to spend a longer time to fully engages in those activities? For example, does it take half a day to get to an attraction that you want to visit? That means a longer stay may be necessary.

• Are there any special events, festivals, or seasonal activities that you’d like to experience. This may influence the ideal duration of your stay. But that can impact your budget, since events can attract large numbers of travelers. We like the Fringe Festival in Edinburgh which takes place for most of August, but lodging prices are crazy t that time of the year.

• How about  your health? Are you in good health and able to manage the duration of your stay. Look at factors like local healthcare services and any health precautions.

• What is the nature of your desired destination? Fast Travel is great for destinations with numerous major attractions or when traveling between multiple cities or countries. Slow Travel works well in destinations where there’s a lot to explore at a  relaxed pace, such as regions rich in culture and history. Also factor in the Size and Scope of the destination. In a large city or region, you might need more time to explore. For smaller towns or villages, a shorter stay might suffice. Or a longer stay if you are seeking a slower experience. Transportation options within the destination also matter. How easy will it be to get around? Well-connected areas might allow you to explore more efficiently, while more remote places with limited transport options might require more time.

But ultimately, the preference for slow or fast is about what aligns best with your travel goals and personal style. If you value depth over breadth and prefer a more relaxed approach, slow travel might be your choice. If you want to see and do as much as possible in a short time and don’t mind a hectic schedule, fast travel is the way to go.

And both approaches can be just as rewarding.  

‍