US -- good public transportation vs. need-a-car

Definitely add San Diego to the list of cities where you definitely need a car.

Key West, if staying just there, you don't need a car but to visit other keys, it is needed

It's better to have a car in Atlantic City. You can survive without one, but having one is better.

We were glad we didn't bother renting a car for Las Vegas, though we stuck mostly to the strip and the occasional bus ride downtown.

Better to have a car in Portland, ME. No subway, just buses, and not tourist friendly. The city itself is very walkable if you're staying downtown, but there are scenic drives in every direction.

We've spent a week in Savannah twice. Didn't need a car.

When we drive to Baltimore, the car stays in the hotel garage, except when visiting relatives.

This is always a difficult subject and not everyone will agree with everyone else's assessment, but I think you're pretty much on target with your two main lists, bachslunch.

Of course, nearly any city (with the exception of NYC, in my opinion) you can gain some advantages with a car over relying on public transportation, but you can sure do well without in many of them. And as always, WHERE you stay can make a lot of difference in how important it is to have a car.

Case in point, tchoiniere, although we had a car for our last stay of a week in San Diego, we sure could do a lot without one. We stayed right downtown (in an apartment). We could take the train/tram to Old Town, we walked a lot of places and could take a trolley to more. We could walk 2 blocks and then take a ferry over to Coronado. While there were places we did take the car and we enjoyed being able to do so, we sure could have done quite well without one!

On your "don't know list", bachslunch, I think you can do quite well (if you don't really need to go outside the main city) without a car in Savannah, Charleston, Baltimore, and Key West. I'm not so sure of some of the others, we've always had a car in all of those, although I must admit in Kansas City we hardly used the car and did quite well with public transportation. We did an unlimited ticket on one of those open top bus things and really used it a lot.

Destinations like Sante Fe are tricky. You don't really need one right in Sante Fe, but if you want to visit Taos, or anything outside the city -- which seems a necessity on a trip there, a car will be pretty necessary.

Check out Google's Transit site, www.google.com/transit to map out transit connections in various cities, including several that you mention. I use it all the time for Portland, OR.

We also found San Diego a very easy place to vacation without a car. We stayed near Balboa Park, so walked there, and used the bus and taxis to get other places.

As Manhattanites we're always interested in this question - our recent trip to Texas (Dallas, Austin and San Antonio) made us conclude: Dallas - definitely need a car, although we stayed outside of downtown and rode the very nice light rail line into downtown Dallas - fast cheap and scenic. Austin - very easy to visit there w/o a car - walkable and a nice combination of free streetcar and busses. San Antonio - just OK to visit w/o a car - except for the the immediate downtown/business district/Riverwalk, it's actually pretty spread out.

You don't need a car in Santa Fe if you want to stick with the plaza area and Canyon Road. There is public transportation, but I haven't used it, so you might want a car if you want to visit Museum Hill. And, as NeoPatrick said, you definitely need a car if you want to go outside the city.

Albuquerque has public transportation, but you'd want a car to get around.

Lee Ann

Please note that Boston, for one, requires special attention. Way too many hotels have "Boston" in their name that are not actually even in Boston much less nicely/conveniently located. It's also best not to be farther than you'd like from a subway station. There are buses all over, but I've never been able to figure them out, and I'm a huge fan of buses and have used them in every other city we've visited.

Boston is one of those "very walkable" cities, if your hotel is well located.

Denver seems surprisingly missing from any list. I personally think it belongs in the Walking/Public Transport group -- and very bicycle friendly.

I thought the same thing myself about Denver being missing, but I'd say to put us in the second category, "Some Public Transport but Car Useful," mainly because the best parts of what to see in Denver are outside the city. Yes, you can use the bus/light rail to get to specific parts of the city and the downtown is very small and walkable, but once you've spent an afternoon here, you need to drive and see some Rockies!

From personal experience one city I would remove from your "need a car" list to "has *some* public transportation and walking friendliness, but a car is very useful": MIAMI

I don't deny Miami's spread out and one could certainly "do more" with the car. But I had a lovely visit, staying Downtown... using the Metromover, as well as the S,C and K buses to South Beach, allowing me to enjoy downtown and South Beach attractions...all WITHOUT renting a car. And had a good time!

First of all, scratch Atlantic City off your list. It is a horrid place, particularly if going to Vegas. The only reason you would need a car in Veags is if you are going to the Dam or out of town to the Red Rocks area. Key West you don't need a car. However, what I would do is rent a car in Miami, drive out to Key West & drop it off there. Atlanta, you certainly need a car. Savannah & Charleston you don't, however if you want to visit some plantations & such, it would be helpful. Another place where you would not need a car (that is not on your list) is New Orleans. You might also be interested to Washington DC as well.

Here is what I can suggest based on my experience:

Charleston- If you are staying in the Historic District you can do fine without a car... cabs between airport and hotel. I hardly ever use my car when staying in there. If you are outside the Historic District, however, you may want one.

Baltimore- I'd get a car. In my opinion, the Inner Harbor is the only part of this city worth visiting... I've been about a dozen times the last few years. You can walk around the Inner Harbor without a car, no problem, but you'll want a car to go anywhere else.

Key West - If you are staying near the main area for visitors, you can walk without a problem. Some hotels or resorts are a few miles away from all the action, however, so a car would be needed then. I also found parking to be a pain in Key West.

Atlanta- I found their public transportation to be just fine. I could get anywhere I needed to go.

Nashville- Get a car. Many nice attractions are outside the main downtown location and driving is much easier than any other option.

San Diego- I was there for 4 days, staying in the Gaslamp Quarter. I got everywhere I needed to go using the trolley. It was no problem at all. Yes, there are a few places you need to drive to... but I went to Coronado, Sea World, the Zoo, Old Town, Midway.... a bunch of spots just using the trolley and bus system. I was very pleased with it and people were great at helping me know where to go, which bus to get on, etc.

Detroit - absolutely must have a car.

Nashville and Memphis both definitely need a car if you care to go anywhere outside the immediate downtown area (and you do ).

To combine what Wannabe and Shandy said about Atlanta: I would put in the "has public transporation, but a car would be helpful" category.

Depending on where you stay, most of the main tourist attractions (aquarium, CNN, High Museum) are easily reached via public transportation.

But a car is useful to get to the sites outside the city, like Stone Mountain, and gives you a lot more options for shopping and dining.

Agree you should scratch Atlantic City off your list unless you just want a quick day trip from Philadelphia (you can take the train or bus).

If your reason for a visit is not gambling and you simply want to go to the beach or walk on the boardwalk, there are dozens of shore towns along the New Jersey Coast that are far better. You can take a public bus to get to most of them (from NYC or Philadelphia), but would recommend a car so you can see several shore towns over your trip.

I agree with the comments about San Diego. To a visitor, there are "two San Diegos."

You could easily spend 3-5 days in SD housed in the downtown, midtown, or uptown areas and fill your days with wonderful things to do without a car. Going to Tijuana (which I don't consider worthwhile thing) is better done without a car.

If you consider a LaJolla an important part of the visit, you might want to get there by car (although there is a bus route convenient to downtown--it just takes a while). Solana Beach, Encinitas, etc. (farther north, along the coast) can be reached by the Coaster train, but it has few, commuter-time-based trips each day and none on Sunday.

You can easily get your fill of sights and sounds in Las Vegas without renting a car. There's so much to see and do on the Strip that you wouldn't need to go elsewhere. The monorail and the various inter-resort trams will help you get around, and walking along the Strip is as much a visual treat as walking through Times Square. True, you'd need a car if you want to see sights outside the city, such as Hoover Dam, but I'm sure you don't have expectations that there'd be public transportation to take you there anyway.

I agree with the other comments about my hometown of San Diego: you could really go either way. A car would free you to see lots of things (one of my favorites is to drive south along the coast all the way from Oceanside to Cabrillo National Monument at the tip of Point Loma); but you can easily get around by trolley and bus to the major sights (downtown/Gaslamp, Balboa Park/Zoo, Embarcadero, etc.) if you stay somewhere central.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Check out my new travel blog, STRICKLANDIA
Travel tips, news, deals, stories and more
www.stricklandia.com - updated daily!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Salt Lake City - if you want to see only the sights right in the few blocks of downtown, or are willing to bus to some of the ski resorts (infrequent in summer), yes you can walk/public trans.

However, if you want to go anywhere else - you must have a car.

There is NO public transportation between SLC and Park City.

I think the comment about "Two San Diegos" and the ones about other cities as well, will nearly always be true of ANY city.

What city will a car NOT allow you to explore more and get to more outlying areas, do scenic drives, etc. I can't think of one (although I suppose NYC might fit that description).

So obviously the original question does require a bit of "what and how much do you want to see there and how much of the surrounding area?"

The reason the "two San Diegos" idea is particularly apt for visitors to SD is because of the large distances involved (it is southern California, you know!). Many people planning to visit SD want to see the northern coastal areas or the eastern desert/mountain areas as well. Unlike most eastern and midwestern urban locales, you can easily go 20-30 miles in those directions and still consider yourself to be "in" SD. In particular, LaJolla, Del Mar, etc, even the Wild Animal Park in Escondido (25 miles north of "SD") are sometimes (but not always) part of the plan.

So it really does matter which SD (or perhaps both) one is interested in. A car is a liability (not an advantage) for the more "downtown" attractions: Zoo, baseball at Petco Park, the Gaslamp, Old Town, Little Italy, Hillcrest, even Sea World, etc.

Definitely need a car and a good map in Kansas City. We're spread out all over the place!

The availability of mass transit is very important to me in choosing a destination, and I usually exclude from consideration anyplace where I cannot get around without renting a car or hiring a taxi for every trip. I would therefore exclude from consideration the city where I live, Indianapolis. We are widely considered to have the worst public transit of any major city, and it simply is unusable outside of downtown. It is typically an hour, sometimes more, between buses on many routes, and most of the system shuts down at about 9:30 at night (before dark in the summer!). So if you take public transit to an evening event, you are stranded until morning. For those of us who want to be free of cars and driving, Indianapolis is off the list.

Long Beach California has great and clean public transportation. There are a lot of neat places to visit...Queen Mary, Shoreline Village, The Pike and alot of neat/nice/ elegant resataurants that are in walking distance if you are staying in the downtown area. We usually stay at the Hyatt. The Aquariam is within walking distance and also on their public transportation stops. A car would be useful if you want to see more of the beach areas and Los Angelos. Hope this helps you in planning your trip.

I live in the Memphis area and a car is definitely needed. There is not any public transport that you can rely on, and if you plan to leave the downtown area, you will need a car. Many people do not realize that Memphis, unfortunately, has a high rate of violent crime, so please be very careful. There is a downtown trolley that only runs in the immediate downtown area, but even it sometimes does not run on Sundays.