Jenji1921

Hi there

As a couple, we are planning a trip to the US in September 2011 flying from London to Las Vegas and then taking a road trip to San Francisco.

Having looked at the options available - there are way too many! Ideally we would like to take a day going to the Grand Canyon and then head towards LA, maybe even San Diego making our way up the coast stopping at Santa Barbara, Monterey, Carmel and yet still visiting Yosemite.

So many places to see - with a timescale of about 7 days travelling and then spending 5/6 days in San Francisco.

If anyone can give any tips / advice it would be appreciated.

Thanks!

tovarich

I would not spend too much time in LV.It's a tourist trap.My suggestion would be:
LV-G.Canyon-Lake Powell- Bryce canyon-Zion n.park-Death valley(Stovepipe wells)-Mono lake-Tioga pass-Yosemite-S/Francisco.It seems a lot but you will experience the major nature wonders of the area.Paul

emalloy

You might find it more cost/time effective to fly in to Las Vegas, rent your car and do the route tovarich suggests for Grand Canyon,Lake Powell, Bryce and Zion back to Vegas, then turn in your car and fly to San Francisco. You would probably not need a car in San francisco and with drop off fees, parking there gas, etc. the cost would be about the same and you would have more time to visit the National Parks.

janisj

Sorry --but 7 days is not long enough for Las vegas, the Grand Canyon, San Diego, LA, Santa Barbara, Monterey and Yosemite before ending up in SF.

That would be like traveling from Inverness to Skye to Edinburgh to York to Cardiff to Bath to Windsor before ending in London.

You basically have to make some tough decisions/cuts. Do you more want to see the Grand Canyon/San Diego/LA and possibly Santa Barbara -- or -- the Central Coast (San Simeon, Big Sur, Monterey, Carmel) and Yosemite?

Which option you choose would decide the best way to do it (driving all the way or flying one leg)

easytraveler

I agree with emalloy that you should consider flying out of Las Vegas and not driving out of there. Airfares from Las Vegas to SF or LA are relatively inexpensive - if you book early enough.

A drive would take up too much of your precious time. Furthermore, if you pick up a car in one city and drop it off in another, the drop off fees could be quite large.

Jenji1921

Thanks for your comments. There is so much to see and really not enough time! Flying may be an option but we really like the road trip idea.

wetwillie05

The Las Vegas Visitors bureau will hate me, BUT... Why do "Vegas" at all? Flying in there puts you a 5 hour (minimum) drive to anywhere else. (Except Death Valley, @ 3.5 hr, but from THERE you are still 6-7 hours to any other place you would want to go) Guaranteed- you'll be over Las Vegas in 12 hours, unless you are a raver, in which case seeing "natural wonders" probably don't hold much excitement.

If I were you I would start my trip where you seem to really want to be... in San Francisco. You can go to Yosemite from there, maybe over to Sequoia, then possibly down to Joshua Tree, then back up the California coast (Big Sur!) on return to San Francisco for flight back home. About 1300 miles or a little over 108 miles per day average driving over 12/13 days.

An alternative: skip Joshua Tree, and head west from Sequoia or Yosemite, to the central coast near Gilroy and on into Monterrey, then down the coast (Big Sur!) to L.A. and fly home from there. About 950 miles for only 79 miles per day average.

Don't make the mistake so mant folks do whe visit the Western USA. It's BIG, and you could endup spending huge chunks of realy good time just driving a car. Believe, me you'll get your fill.

You can't go wrong picking 3 "must see's" and concentrating on them. It is lovely here!

My 2¢
Cheers, Bill

gail

Your second paragraph has me totaly confused. First you say Las Vegas, Grand Canyon (which is not a day trip from Las Vegas, despite what tour operators may tell you - they go to West Rim which is not the view you are expecting). Then you mention 6 days in SF - but throw in San Diego, LA, Santa Barbara, Yosemite - this is all impossible to do in the 7 days you have prior to SF.

The US west is huge and spread out - with some nice things to see along the way sometimes - but at times just huge distances to drive (and we drive on the wrong side of the road, perhaps increasing your time or making it more important not to drive for 12 hours at a stretch because of fatigue/concentration).

You are going to have to prioritize. Is it essential you spend 5 days in SF? How important are seeing cities, coast, National Parks?

With this amount of time you could see Las Vegas, Grand Canyon, perhaps Bryce or Zion and then drive to ONE California city for 2-3 days.

Or you could fly to one California city, drive up or down the coast, stopping and seeing cities, coast, National Parks along the way.

You are talking about only 10 days when you subtract the flying time from London.

easytraveler

jenji: maybe this will help your planning a bit.

The entire British Isles is 121,674 square miles.

California alone is 163,707 square miles.


There's nothing wrong with wanting to drive around the West, but you have very little time and that's where the problem lies.

Both wetwillie and gail have given you very good posts. Please do consider narrowing down your choice of destinations and please do consider some amount of flying between major destinations in order to conserve your time for actual and active "touristing". You really do not want to spend the bulk of your time here driving 6,7,10, 12 hours between destinations, especially over the desert which is what the drive from Las Vegas would be.

Jenji1921

Thanks - all valid points to be considered.

Jenji1921

Having had a rethink it seems that Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon will be missed out this time around - so now thinking of flying into San Diego and then hiring a car from here to drive the coastal road to San Francisco - stopping en route.

I am thinking this is a lot more achievable given the time frame.