The big debate - fast vs. slow travel
Sep 9, 2018, 1:19 pm
#46
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,038
Not sure I mentioned worthiness, just that it is unlikely you will retain as much from your travelling experience if you are constantly moving around.
The human brain simply does not retain information if it is bombarded with it.
There's also a basic mathematical argument here; given a total trip duration X, the amount of time spent at locations (L) is directly affected by the number of locations as that creates travel time (T). If you're spending a week in Russia doing Leningrad, Moscow, Kazan, Omsk, Irkutsk, Vladivostok (for example), 90% of your time will be spent going between the locations, not *at* the locations.
It's not a value judgement at all. However, if you won't retain much from the travel by moving around so much, it does raise the question of the return on the (substantial) dollars involved.
The human brain simply does not retain information if it is bombarded with it.
There's also a basic mathematical argument here; given a total trip duration X, the amount of time spent at locations (L) is directly affected by the number of locations as that creates travel time (T). If you're spending a week in Russia doing Leningrad, Moscow, Kazan, Omsk, Irkutsk, Vladivostok (for example), 90% of your time will be spent going between the locations, not *at* the locations.
It's not a value judgement at all. However, if you won't retain much from the travel by moving around so much, it does raise the question of the return on the (substantial) dollars involved.
Except of course that’s not what I’m talking about. Going to London once for a week for instance I would argue won’t give one nearly the exposure of going 50 or a hundred times for a day or so each. In the latter case, as I do, you can focus on a different neighborhood for a number of trips then another. And see one or two things each time, either new or revisiting things.
Sep 9, 2018, 6:05 pm
#47
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 628
One has to live within the constraints imposed on one by the world - plane and train schedules, time to queue for any museum entrance, etc. These constraints will be what they will be, and planning for such constraints (and possible delays and snafus) is absolutely necessary. But what one does with an hour (or even less) in that museum can be memorable, and in a good way. The goal is not to be fast or slow, but to enjoy on one's own terms.
Sep 9, 2018, 9:32 pm
#49
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FSD
Programs: BAEC, Delta SkyPesos, VS FC, SQ KF, AA, HHonors
Posts: 1,884
I have and will do what I must to accommodate the schedule and wishes of travelling companions (if applicable). Left to my own devices, I prefer to savor a place a bit. That means a typically American itinerary to "do" London, Edinburgh, a bit of the Scottish highlands, and Dublin in 10-14 days seems triply expensive, rushed, and shallow - to me.
I am unable to do isolated resort properties. By day two, I am bored to tears by having "drinking, pool, buffet, and beach" as my only options. Of course, if I had a comely SO, there would be a more entertaining fifth activity that might hold my interest, but "if wishes were horses," you know.
Now in China, I only have Friday evening - Sunday afternoon at my leisure to sightsee due to class schedules. Last weekend in Nanjing required a more intensive sightseeing schedule than I am used to. Fitting in breakfast, gym time, and exec lounge cocktail hour (the view of the Yangtze from the Hilton Riverside is an attraction in its own right) gave me time to visit four sites. By the final one (the Presidential Palace), I was mentally phoning it and physically done.
I am unable to do isolated resort properties. By day two, I am bored to tears by having "drinking, pool, buffet, and beach" as my only options. Of course, if I had a comely SO, there would be a more entertaining fifth activity that might hold my interest, but "if wishes were horses," you know.
Now in China, I only have Friday evening - Sunday afternoon at my leisure to sightsee due to class schedules. Last weekend in Nanjing required a more intensive sightseeing schedule than I am used to. Fitting in breakfast, gym time, and exec lounge cocktail hour (the view of the Yangtze from the Hilton Riverside is an attraction in its own right) gave me time to visit four sites. By the final one (the Presidential Palace), I was mentally phoning it and physically done.
Sep 9, 2018, 10:01 pm
#50
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: YVR
Programs: UA Premier Platinum
Posts: 3,759
I've had the opportunity to some long trips that enabled me to have many experiences that simply wouldn't be possible on a shorter trip. That was nice, but those trips also entailed personal and financial sacrifices to be away from home and work for so long.
I've taken many short trips and while they fell short of the longer trips, if I hadn't done them it would have meant simply not seeing those places. I'm glad I got to have a small taste of 30+ countries that way and have filed away a few of them for future, longer trips.
Sep 10, 2018, 12:09 am
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,775
A simple analogy: skim a text book in 15 minutes. How much did you retain?
Now take the same text book, chapter by chapter, doing the assigned exercises. How much did you retain now?
If all you're doing is running around like a headless chook, you might as well just use Google Earth/Streetview and Tripadvisor.
Now take the same text book, chapter by chapter, doing the assigned exercises. How much did you retain now?
If all you're doing is running around like a headless chook, you might as well just use Google Earth/Streetview and Tripadvisor.
Sep 10, 2018, 5:46 pm
#52
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP, HH Diamond, Owner of 2,000 TWA shares
Posts: 812
Speak for yourself. I spent years working in the concert industry, where we would be in a different city or country every day. I have no problems recalling the finest details of things that happened and people I met in many of these places. If anything, the constant stimulation my brain received had a beneficial effect. We all have different stimuli. We all have different preferences. I like spending as much time in a location as needed and then move on. I can relax at home.
Sep 12, 2018, 10:27 am
#53
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,271
The debate over fast vs. slow travel is not new and you can find plenty of those who favour one over the other in any travel forum. As a quick answer I would say I prefer slow travel but in fact, there is always a caveat that has to be added. It assumes you will continue to be interested in the place where you are 'slow travelling' and that is not a given. I never understand how anyone can think that they can know before hand how long a place will hold their interest. Do they have a crystal ball?
For that reason, I prefer to travel without a plan. That means that I stay in a place until I am ready to leave. That may be one day or it may be considerably longer. Travel for most people (non-business obviously) means an escape from their everyday lives and responsibilities. The ability to get up in the morning and say, 'so what do I feel like doing today?' I never understand why people want to self-impose an itinerary and give up that freedom to choose. It seems totally contrary to the initial intention to me.
Those who adopt a 'wing it' approach to travel, never have to ask themselves, 'should I travel fast or slow'. The question simply cannot make any sense for them. You travel to A and stay until you are ready to leave. When you are ready to leave you decide whether to go somewhere else or go home. You repeat that simple process until either your time available or your funds available run out. Travel can be as simple or complex as you choose to make it. I prefer simple.
The only reason I say that I prefer slow travel is that I find I usually want to spend more than just 1 or 2 days in a place because I have not yet run out of things of interest to me, to see and do. But I have found myself in a place and ready to leave after just one day. Las Vegas comes to mind. At the other end of the scale, I once went to a place expecting to perhaps spend a week and ended up staying for 7 years. When people I met there would ask me what made me decide to stay, my honest answer was that I had never decided to stay, I just hadn't decided to leave yet. Granted, not everyone has the luxury of that much time available. LOL
The question of whether fast or slow travel is preferable assumes you are going to have a plan/itinerary. In my opinion, that is the wrong place to start from. The question should be 'why am I restricting my own freedom on my vacation?' We live in a society where everything is scheduled. So when it comes to a vacation, the natural thing to do therefore is to plan a schedule for that too. To change that thinking requires a paradigm shift to thinking that we should not schedule our free time as that means it is no longer free time. That's a shift most people can't make.
For that reason, I prefer to travel without a plan. That means that I stay in a place until I am ready to leave. That may be one day or it may be considerably longer. Travel for most people (non-business obviously) means an escape from their everyday lives and responsibilities. The ability to get up in the morning and say, 'so what do I feel like doing today?' I never understand why people want to self-impose an itinerary and give up that freedom to choose. It seems totally contrary to the initial intention to me.
Those who adopt a 'wing it' approach to travel, never have to ask themselves, 'should I travel fast or slow'. The question simply cannot make any sense for them. You travel to A and stay until you are ready to leave. When you are ready to leave you decide whether to go somewhere else or go home. You repeat that simple process until either your time available or your funds available run out. Travel can be as simple or complex as you choose to make it. I prefer simple.
The only reason I say that I prefer slow travel is that I find I usually want to spend more than just 1 or 2 days in a place because I have not yet run out of things of interest to me, to see and do. But I have found myself in a place and ready to leave after just one day. Las Vegas comes to mind. At the other end of the scale, I once went to a place expecting to perhaps spend a week and ended up staying for 7 years. When people I met there would ask me what made me decide to stay, my honest answer was that I had never decided to stay, I just hadn't decided to leave yet. Granted, not everyone has the luxury of that much time available. LOL
The question of whether fast or slow travel is preferable assumes you are going to have a plan/itinerary. In my opinion, that is the wrong place to start from. The question should be 'why am I restricting my own freedom on my vacation?' We live in a society where everything is scheduled. So when it comes to a vacation, the natural thing to do therefore is to plan a schedule for that too. To change that thinking requires a paradigm shift to thinking that we should not schedule our free time as that means it is no longer free time. That's a shift most people can't make.
Sep 12, 2018, 3:12 pm
#54
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SJC/SFO
Programs: WN A+ CP, UA 1MM/*A Gold, Mar LT Tit, IHG Plat, HH Dia
Posts: 6,285
Here's an anecdote about fast vs. slow travel.
Late last year DW and I were in Petra, Jordan, when we chatted for a bit with a fellow English-speaking traveler at a cafe in the middle of the afternoon. We had arrived late the night before, spent from early morning through early afternoon hiking the ancient ruins of Petra, come back out of the canyon for a late lunch, and were awaiting a van ride to another city for the evening. She was in Petra for a whole week. She'd spent the morning in her hotel room reading a book, had now wandered into town to spend the afternoon sipping tea at a sidewalk cafe, and had no fixed plans for the evening.
If we'd had our druthers we'd have stayed in Petra longer than our brief 20 hour visit. 2-3 days seems ideal to me. But certainly not a whole week! The scarce time I have available for travel is too precious to arrange such that "sip tea at a sidewalk cafe" is the highlight of the day. I'll enjoy it when I can travel more slowly than I do now, but not that slowly.
Late last year DW and I were in Petra, Jordan, when we chatted for a bit with a fellow English-speaking traveler at a cafe in the middle of the afternoon. We had arrived late the night before, spent from early morning through early afternoon hiking the ancient ruins of Petra, come back out of the canyon for a late lunch, and were awaiting a van ride to another city for the evening. She was in Petra for a whole week. She'd spent the morning in her hotel room reading a book, had now wandered into town to spend the afternoon sipping tea at a sidewalk cafe, and had no fixed plans for the evening.
If we'd had our druthers we'd have stayed in Petra longer than our brief 20 hour visit. 2-3 days seems ideal to me. But certainly not a whole week! The scarce time I have available for travel is too precious to arrange such that "sip tea at a sidewalk cafe" is the highlight of the day. I'll enjoy it when I can travel more slowly than I do now, but not that slowly.
Sep 13, 2018, 9:52 am
#55
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,508
It's interesting that the majority of responses here mention how many cities can you see in a trip or how many days in a city can you spend in one trip. My favorite thing do do is rent a car and drive around. I spent 5 days in Italy and other than the airport didn't step foot in a major city. Concentrating only on how many cities or how many museums you check off in a city leaves a lot out of seeing/experiencing a country. I did the Rome/Florence/Venice trip a few years back as well and the driving around part was a lot more fun. Your mileage may vary of course.
Sep 13, 2018, 10:03 am
#56
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,271
Here's an anecdote about fast vs. slow travel.
Late last year DW and I were in Petra, Jordan, when we chatted for a bit with a fellow English-speaking traveler at a cafe in the middle of the afternoon. We had arrived late the night before, spent from early morning through early afternoon hiking the ancient ruins of Petra, come back out of the canyon for a late lunch, and were awaiting a van ride to another city for the evening. She was in Petra for a whole week. She'd spent the morning in her hotel room reading a book, had now wandered into town to spend the afternoon sipping tea at a sidewalk cafe, and had no fixed plans for the evening.
If we'd had our druthers we'd have stayed in Petra longer than our brief 20 hour visit. 2-3 days seems ideal to me. But certainly not a whole week! The scarce time I have available for travel is too precious to arrange such that "sip tea at a sidewalk cafe" is the highlight of the day. I'll enjoy it when I can travel more slowly than I do now, but not that slowly.
Late last year DW and I were in Petra, Jordan, when we chatted for a bit with a fellow English-speaking traveler at a cafe in the middle of the afternoon. We had arrived late the night before, spent from early morning through early afternoon hiking the ancient ruins of Petra, come back out of the canyon for a late lunch, and were awaiting a van ride to another city for the evening. She was in Petra for a whole week. She'd spent the morning in her hotel room reading a book, had now wandered into town to spend the afternoon sipping tea at a sidewalk cafe, and had no fixed plans for the evening.
If we'd had our druthers we'd have stayed in Petra longer than our brief 20 hour visit. 2-3 days seems ideal to me. But certainly not a whole week! The scarce time I have available for travel is too precious to arrange such that "sip tea at a sidewalk cafe" is the highlight of the day. I'll enjoy it when I can travel more slowly than I do now, but not that slowly.
That another person chose to spend time sitting drinking tea and people watching does not mean you only staying 20 hours was the right thing for you to do. Do you see you are ignoring your own mistake while suggesting the other person made a mistake you wouldn't make? How is one any better than the other? Staying too many days or too few days is equally as wrong. The idea is to stay as many days as you need, no more and no less. You think her staying 7 days was wrong. But wrong for who? You can't assume it was wrong for her. You say 'if we'd had our druthers' but in fact you could have had your 'druthers'. Instead you chose to give away the freedom to 'have your druthers' by following an itinerary and then in your story, ignore that while trying to suggest someone staying 7 days made a bigger mistake than you did somehow. In fact, as I've said, she may have made no mistake at all. The only person we know made a mistake for sure, is you.
The 'scarce time' is always trotted out as justification for having an itinerary. 'I need to make best use of my time'. But what is best use? Quantity and quality are two different things as you know. Wasting a day by staying longer than you need to see and do all of interest to you is certainly not what you want to do when you have 'scarce time'. But spending an additional day if you remain interested is not wasting a day is it?
As the saying goes, 'you can see a little of a lot or a lot of a little.' Most people tend to take that saying as being about denigrating seeing a little of a lot (quantity) in favour of seeing places in more depth (a lot of a little, quality). I disagree with that way of viewing it. What matters is whether each day you have available to you is well used by you or not in terms of what interests you about travel. If you enjoy a museum visit for example, visiting 2 museums in 1 place makes no difference than visiting 1 museum in each of 2 places. Both are equally good use of your time. It is only if there is no second museum you are interested in visiting in A that it makes sense to move to B where there is another museum for you to visit. There is no value in moving to B, in and of itself.
Quantity has no value in travel in terms of how many different places you visit. It is only use of time that has value to you when you travel. If you use each day to the full, doing and seeing things that interest you, then that day has been well used and could not have been better used by moving to somewhere else. You cannot get more than 100% value out of a day by moving.
That in fact brings us to another issue. Moving from place to place. Travel time is mainly wasted time. Yes, you observe things from the car or train window (air travel is 100% wasted time in this regard) but you are using up time from your total available. If you had not left Petra to go to B, that day(or whatever portion of it) you spent moving could have been spent in Petra, doing and seeing the things you admit could have held your interest there for that day. The saying that is applicable here is 'less is more'. In travel, the less you move, the more time you have available to see and do things. But again, that presumes there are things to see and do that interest you. So what we should be doing is moving only when we run out of things to see and do. Again, no sooner and no later than that.
Going back to the museum example, seeing 1 museum in each of 2 places is equally as good as seeing 2 in only 1 place as I said. But spending time moving to see a second museum when you don't have to is not best use of time. In that case, 1 in each of 2 places is NOT equally as good. The time spent moving could have been used seeing a third museum or doing something else of interest to you.
The typical phrase people use when they plan an itinerary is that they 'want to see and do as much as possible'. But somehow this gets translated into 'as many as possible' without regard to how you can decide how many ARE possible. You could not see/do all that interests you in Petra in one day and yet you only stayed for one day. That was bad planning obviously. But how were you to know you would need more time? The answer is, you couldn't know, no one really has much chance of knowing beforehand without a crystal ball. The only way to get it right every time is to simply not plan.
Doing research and having a list of places you would like to visit makes sense but it doesn't mean you have to try and get to all of them in one trip. Ticking names off a list is not efficient use of time, Efficient use of time is not wasting any more of it moving than you have to. Ideally, best use of time is to go to one place and stay there until you have to return home. That would be the most efficient and best use of time provided that one place has enough of interest to you. Moving can only mean wasted time and should be done as infrequently as possible.
It is not about 'slow travel vs. fast travel'. One is not better than the other every time and really is only about quantity. What people should be looking at is 'best use of time' and the answer to that is to spend as much time as you need in each place and waste time moving only when necessary, no sooner and no later.
Sep 13, 2018, 3:48 pm
#58
Moderator: SAS
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: BLL & CPH & ZRH
Programs: LX, SK EBD (*G)
Posts: 3,152
Longer.
I very much dislike the discover XY in one day mentality of a lot of people. I recently did this in Stockholm on a long layover and boy did I hate being a viator vulgaris. I threw the last self respect I had into the bin and took a hop on hop off bus and boat tour and while I enjoyed the city I was reminded why I hated that kind of voyaging so much.
I like staying at a place for at least a week - two weeks. Even longer if possible. I like gettingg to know the hotel staff as well as the locals and learn from their culture and experience their everyday life. This is where you meet those kind of people that will teach you a lesson in living or something else that will stay with you and not just having a list of landmarks in front of which you want a picture taken of you.
While the above example is more for cultural and experience holiday travel I do also like staying longer for just relaxation travel in a resort. Once again you get to know the hotel staff better which will open doors to unexpected insights and experiences. Another major thing in that kind of travel is that I do like not knowing what day it is anymore. I sadly can’t force myself to do this but I manage to achieve this when under huge stress (many working hours and few sleep and no time to think fo it) or absolute relaxation (no need to think of it, not even automatically). This always reminds me of holidays when i was a kid and never knew what day it was during holidays... Fond times...
Which I also do like is comming back to the same place where you met other licals or some hotel staff. I actually did this for more than ten years for the Robinson Club Nobilis in Belek, Antalya, Turkey. I have been to this hotel longer than all of the managment and rotating staff and the local staff I know most of by name and vice versa. It was always amazing coming back to this hotel (as I basically also grew up a bit in it). It’s actually kind of sad thinking of it right now, but I did experience the deterioration of turkish politics nearly first hand as I was in contact with the local staff a lot, which is also the reason why I and my family have not stayed at it in the last year.
So in my opinion I very much prefer staying at a place for as long as possible to really get to experience and learn and getting to know all about it.
I very much dislike the discover XY in one day mentality of a lot of people. I recently did this in Stockholm on a long layover and boy did I hate being a viator vulgaris. I threw the last self respect I had into the bin and took a hop on hop off bus and boat tour and while I enjoyed the city I was reminded why I hated that kind of voyaging so much.
I like staying at a place for at least a week - two weeks. Even longer if possible. I like gettingg to know the hotel staff as well as the locals and learn from their culture and experience their everyday life. This is where you meet those kind of people that will teach you a lesson in living or something else that will stay with you and not just having a list of landmarks in front of which you want a picture taken of you.
While the above example is more for cultural and experience holiday travel I do also like staying longer for just relaxation travel in a resort. Once again you get to know the hotel staff better which will open doors to unexpected insights and experiences. Another major thing in that kind of travel is that I do like not knowing what day it is anymore. I sadly can’t force myself to do this but I manage to achieve this when under huge stress (many working hours and few sleep and no time to think fo it) or absolute relaxation (no need to think of it, not even automatically). This always reminds me of holidays when i was a kid and never knew what day it was during holidays... Fond times...
Which I also do like is comming back to the same place where you met other licals or some hotel staff. I actually did this for more than ten years for the Robinson Club Nobilis in Belek, Antalya, Turkey. I have been to this hotel longer than all of the managment and rotating staff and the local staff I know most of by name and vice versa. It was always amazing coming back to this hotel (as I basically also grew up a bit in it). It’s actually kind of sad thinking of it right now, but I did experience the deterioration of turkish politics nearly first hand as I was in contact with the local staff a lot, which is also the reason why I and my family have not stayed at it in the last year.
So in my opinion I very much prefer staying at a place for as long as possible to really get to experience and learn and getting to know all about it.
Sep 13, 2018, 5:26 pm
#59
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,656
Amazing how my kids are perfect in the the airplane, but I barely survive the drive to the airport.😄 We do a yearly drive to Aspen, and I would happily take the long flight to SYD or MEL with the same kids, even in coach.
Sep 14, 2018, 12:09 am
#60
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Programs: Frontier Gold, DL estranged 1MMer, Spirit VIP, CO/NW/UA/AA once gold/plat/comped gold now dust.
Posts: 38,151
Given the low amount of vacation time in the U.S., most people are initially forced into the fast mode if they want to see things and not just throw in the towel and go to Orlando, Las Vegas, Myrtle Beach, Cancun, etc., time after time. It's hard to get both time and money at the same time earlier in life, but OTOH if you wait too late you could have uncertain health, physical limitations or get set in ways. You could even become one of those people who virtually lives on cruise ships and doesn't want to disembark for port calls. 
As a practical matter I think the see-a-place/know-a-place can be a false choice. How about seeing a lot of places and then picking the ones to explore further?
There's also no one-size-fits-all as far as the people part of a trip. I once went to New Orleans with two people who got into this bit about staying in bars and chatting up locals until 5:30 a.m. I had neither the stamina nor the extroverted personality to support that kind of thing, but they thought their approach was the more normal (or noble?) vs. doing touristy things centered on sights, etc.
I also remember being on a backpacker trip in Sandakan, Malaysia, to the lower Kinabatangan (incredible, endangered place). Others were of the slow school and talking about going to Tawau next, while I was the oddball in going to Brunei from KK and then flying to Bangkok. Using miles, as it happened then.
As a practical matter I think the see-a-place/know-a-place can be a false choice. How about seeing a lot of places and then picking the ones to explore further?
There's also no one-size-fits-all as far as the people part of a trip. I once went to New Orleans with two people who got into this bit about staying in bars and chatting up locals until 5:30 a.m. I had neither the stamina nor the extroverted personality to support that kind of thing, but they thought their approach was the more normal (or noble?) vs. doing touristy things centered on sights, etc.
I also remember being on a backpacker trip in Sandakan, Malaysia, to the lower Kinabatangan (incredible, endangered place). Others were of the slow school and talking about going to Tawau next, while I was the oddball in going to Brunei from KK and then flying to Bangkok. Using miles, as it happened then.