ashoebri

Hi everyone this may seem like a stupid question but is a car needed in San Francisco? I live near Toronto and a car isn't needed if you visit there. I was just wondering how good the transit system is or if it's just better to have a car. Any thoughts? Thanks

starrsville

NO!!!
It's a hindrance rather than a help.
And, you'll waste money on parking that can be better spent on other things

P_M

If you are staying in the city, you are much better off without a car. Public transportation is good in SF, and a lot easier to manage than traffic and parking.

JJ5

My guy wouldn't listen to me and got a very large rental car. We stayed in a kitchenette type weekly rental and the owner had a heck of a time finding a place to park this baby. He would be waiting for us when we were out so that he could manipulate some area for us.

But we went on a short wine tasting drive and did a few things outside of the city, so I guess we did use it. But if you are staying only within the city itself, I would say forget it.

Marilyn

Absolutely depends on whether you will remain in SF for your entire trip (no car) or want to do some day trips such as Muir Woods, the coast, the Napa Valley (car very handy).

BigJim

I agree that it depends on what you're planning to do and if you're planning to stay in the city. S.F. is one of THE WORST cities as far as the parking situation. SOME parts of the city do have parking garages and lots, so if you don't mind paying a hefty some for parking, then it's not a problem to have a car.

J_Correa

I would only rent a car on any days you plan to leave SF to go to the redwoods, check out some wineries, head down the coast, etc. For the days you plan to be in SF proper, I wouldn't bother with a car.

ashoebri

Thanks guys for your input I think we might rent for 1 day to go to Muir Woods.

Gekko

People on this forum like to argue about this topic -- whether or not visitors "need" a car in San Francisco.

I visit SF often and say YES. SF's public transportation is just semi-okay, but a car is better (perhaps I'm spoiled by NYC's public transportation). And a car is great for seeing Sausalito/Tiburon as well as the Marin Headlands (not to mention wine country).

Even within the city, I like having a car. Seacliff? Lincoln Park? The famous 40 mile drive? You won't see some of the best sites without a car.

Perhaps if one is just visiting for a short weekend and staying in a "central" location, one can do without a car. But that wouldn't be my choice.


(By the way, I live in Manhattan and do not own a car.)

SAB

This question comes up on this board frequently and opinions vary--with Gekko usually chipping in his emphatic yes. My standard response is: do you NEED a car--no; is it nice to have one--yes. I live in SF and although the public transit system cannot compare to NYC--you can get everywhere by bus or some other form of public transit. You can't get everywhere fast, but most of the standard tourist places are easily accessible. Do I drive in SF,yes; is it more convenient than taking public transportation, yes; is it more expensive, definately yes; can it be more frustrating, yes--last night it took me 30 minutes to find a parking place in my neighborhood after having paid $25 to park downtown. BTW Gekko --it's the 49 mile drive.

Patrick

Getting around in SF without a car will be even easier than in Toronto -- I've done both.

Even when we've had a car in SF, we leave it parked most of the time and take public transportation instead. Of course, if you want to get out of the city, a car would be nice, but it certainly isn't necessary within the city.

travlsolo2

Would it be logical/possible/convenient to take public transportation (a tram or something?) from the airport to "downtown", spend a couple days there, and then go back out to the airport and rent a car for a couple days?

P_M

It is not necessary to go to the airport to pick up a rental car. They have offices in town as well.

When I was there we did not have a rental car during the time we stayed in SF. When we left SF to drive to Reno, we picked up the car just a few blocks from our hotel.

zooey91

I'd lean towards saying yes (not needed, but desirable if you want to explore anything other than the union square/north beach/chinatown/fisherman's warf areas). The public transportation here can get you to many places, but you often have to endure long waits and extremely crowded spaces (not to mention irate drivers).

But a word of warning: SF drivers are some of the worst. They often aren't paying attention to where they're going; when they are paying attention, they're often trying to close the space in front of them to prevent you from changing lanes.

So if you do drive here, stay on your toes. For that matter, be aware when crossing the street on foot too!

Jim

BigJim

"It is not necessary to go to the airport to pick up a rental car. They have offices in town as well."

Research this carefully beforehand if you're going to do it. Most of the time, the airport locations have MUCH better rates. But if it's only a few dollars difference, it might not be worth the hassle to go back to the airport.

starrsville

If you are just renting for a day or two the difference may not be significant. The last time I picked up and returned at the Hertz near Union Square. The difference from airport rates were insignificant, especially considering transportation from the city to airport two times.

J_Correa

The Bay Area has a public transportation system called BART which goes from the airport to downtown SF(amoung other places). When in SF, the public transportation system is called MUNI. Both have terrific web sites where you can find the info you need.

P_M

BigJim, I've often found the opposite to be true, since there's usually a surcharge to pick up a car at the airport. However, I do not remember specifically if that's the case in SF.

LoveItaly

Hi ashoebi, your question certainly is not stupid, it is a good question.

I am not a fan of public transportation except for BART, the ferries and taxi's.

If you are not leaving SF I would think not having a car would probably be relaxing. But as others have said, if you want to see parts of SF and beyond than you would need a car. I would personally visit SF that you can visit without a car and then get a rental for the rest of your time in SF and the area as parking is very expensive in SF.

Have a wonderful visit!

my2cents

If you do opt for renting a car I would get a small one -- better options for street parking. Whenever DH and I drive into SF we allow an extra 30 minutes just to find parking within 5 or 6 blocks of where we're going! And I agree with Zooey911 on her assessment of driving in the city. Because of hideous traffic and a shortage of parking, drivers seem to get more frustrated and aggressive and do stupid things -- lots of double parking, gridlock (when they get stuck in an intersection after their light turns red) and U-turns in the middle of the block to snag a parking space. And don't even get me started on the one-way streets and the "no left turn" signs all over the place

I grew up in Los Angeles, and I'm no wimp when it comes to driving in big cities, but I do like to warn visitors who may not be accustomed to it because it can be a little intimidating to some people.