Travelling in California

T

Tilluin

Molten Core Raider
135
118
My girlfriend and I are planning our US trip for next summer and are aiming to do a 3 week trip to California. The current plan is to fly into San Fran and do 3-4 days there, head to LA for a few days, San Diego for 3-4 days then possibly Yosemite for a few days before flying back home from San Fran.

We are pretty set for things to do in each city but wondered if renting a car is worthwhile or if the financial savings from taking a Greyhound make it the better option? Renting a car and dropping it at the next city (as we figure we won't need a car in the cities) seems to be crazy money for just a few days. Do you US natives / experienced Cali visitors recommend shelling out for the car to ensure we see things on the way to the next city or is the saving of the Greyhound the better option to go for as the places on route worth seeing aren't, in your opinion, worth seeing that bad? One concern is that I'd love to see the Redwoods and do a decent Yosemite trip and worry that Greyhounds etc would severely limit that?
 
Dyvim

Dyvim

Bronze Knight of the Realm
1,420
195
Ive taken the train from LA to SF, and what can i say.... best oceanview you will ever get.
Can still rent a car when you get off the train.
 
ToeMissile

ToeMissile

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
2,711
1,655
SF and SD are doable without a car, LA is too but it'll be a much bigger pain in the ass. Yosemite is pretty out of the way from the other cities. Taking a bus from SF to LA would suck balls and take at least twice as long. Not to mention less comfortable, smellier, and restricted food options. Best thing to do for SF -> LA is rent a car and take Highway 1. You'll still be able to get some redwood forest action (santa cruz mountains). Really it just comes down to budget, as 3 weeks is a good amount of time to see a large part of California.

Also, depending on what you're looking for/to do I'd say consider spreading the time out a little to some of the smaller towns along the way. Napa Valley, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Santa Barbara, etc.
 
Alex

Alex

Still a Music Elitist
14,504
7,428
Getting around SF without a car is very easy. I don't even own one. You can take the Amtrak train from Emeryville (close to SF) to LA. It's comfortable and scenic, but it'll take an entire day. The trip is over 11 hours. Once in LA, you'll need a car. Public transit is unreliable or unavailable. And the taxi fares will make you go broke.

The other good thing about the train is that it also stops in some of the smaller cities ToeMissle mentioned.

There are plenty of bus services that go to Yosemite from SF. Single day and multi-day trips are available.
 
M

mixtilplix

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,295
109
If you are going to take a bus from sf to la do not take Greyhound. There are bus charter services that run between the cities. Trip takes about 6-7 hours depending on traffic and the buses themselves are pretty clean. Megabus is one of the big ones but if you search Yelp you will find reviews for a few of these services. Also you may want to sign up for Virigin America's email list as they often have super cheap airfares between SF/LA, I am taking about 70 bucks or so.

BTW you will need a car in socal, no doubt about that. It is just too spread out to see it on transit.
 
C

ChewieTobbacca_sl

shitlord
88
0
Rent a car in LA/SoCal... it's simply way more efficient of a way to get around, especially with the sheer # of places/sights to see

Also, if you are going from NorCal to SoCal, rent a car and take the drive down the 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) or 101 (they merge in a lot of places). Everyone needs to make that drive at least once in their life. It's that good
 
OneofOne

OneofOne

Silver Baronet of the Realm
6,616
8,074
Unless you plan to actually leave San Francisco and drive around, there's zero need to get a car while there. Save yourself the money and aggrevation and use public transportation. And hell, the only reason I would even leave the city is to go north to wine country (only an hour away) or south to the Monterey Bay Aquarium (about 2 hours away).
 
S

supertouch_sl

shitlord
1,858
3
Don't waste your time in LA. It's probably the worst major city in the U.S. Go to the San Diego zoo then head directly to the Bay Area. Berkeley, Santa Cruz, Oakland, San Francisco are all amazing.
 
Nester

Nester

Vyemm Raider
4,930
3,129
I am going to SD around Xmas time, the zoo is on our list but other than that not sure how we should spend our time. Any suggestions?
 
Kovaks

Kovaks

Mr. Poopybutthole
2,354
3,142
Your also skipping some other really nice areas that i would suggest. My favorite place in all of CA is Carmel by the Sea, awesome little beach town with quaint hotels or b&bs with great food and right down the street from Monteray and Big Sur. Also Santa Barbara is beutiful. I would sugest cutting some time out of LA to hit these up and then go to SD. SF is great, lots to see and do, great food options.
 
Kuriin

Kuriin

Just a Nurse
4,046
1,020
Carmel will be magnificent in the summer. You will love Carmel and Monterey. Just remember it will be HOT!
biggrin.png
I would honestly skip Los Angeles, unless you're dead set on it. Hate the place because you can't get anywhere without driving.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,436
2,220
If you're just looking to get from SF to LA I would fly. There's like 30 flights a day between the 3 bay area airports via Southwest and Jet Blue and they are very cheap.

That is of course if you don't want to sightsee in between the places, and there is a lot of good sightseeing between SF and LA (Monterey, Big Sur, Solvang, wine country, etc. For that you would definitely need a car. Never been particularly impressed with touristing in LA unless you like theme parks.
 
G

GoingBackToCali_sl

shitlord
53
0
Nester_sl said:
I am going to SD around Xmas time, the zoo is on our list but other than that not sure how we should spend our time. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
You chose a bad time to do SD. Without the beach it's mainly the zoo or barhop. I suggest driving a hour up north to Big Bear and go snowboarding.

As for OP, as someone who has experience working in both LA and SF, don't rent a car during your time in SF. In SF, there is plenty of free parking on Mission, with easy public transportation to take if you want to do the bar-crawl around the city (highly recommend Hayes Valley.) Get a car for the drive up to LA. The 101 is fucking beautiful to drive on. Plus LA public transportation sucks and in my opinion it's kind of a ratchet place to walk on the streets.

Hit me up if you need a place to crash in SF though.
 
Regime

Regime

LOADING, PLEASE WAIT...
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
16,421
37,797
Lax enterprise kicks ass . I always get great deals there.

Rent
 
Randin

Randin

Trakanon Raider
1,924
875
ChewieTobbacca_sl said:
Rent a car in LA/SoCal... it's simply way more efficient of a way to get around, especially with the sheer # of places/sights to see

Also, if you are going from NorCal to SoCal, rent a car and take the drive down the 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) or 101 (they merge in a lot of places). Everyone needs to make that drive at least once in their life. It's that good
Click to expand...
Agreed on going 1 or 101; for the love of God, don't drive to LA through the San Joaquin Valley (can't even remember what fucking highway that is), it's a *slightly* quicker drive, but you'll want to blow your brains out an hour into it.
 
Alex

Alex

Still a Music Elitist
14,504
7,428
I-5 is quite a bit faster than the 101. By at least an hour.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,436
2,220
101 is more scenic, but personally looking at farmland never gave me the urge to "blow my brains out".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.