I’ve heard mixed opinions about renting a car in the US. For major cities like NYC, Chicago, or San Francisco—can public transport cover most things, or is a car still useful?

Why not be specific and tell us where you plan on going? Then we can really answer the question.

I had no difficulty getting around the cities you named without a car, especially NYC. I would go so far as to say you're probably better off without a car in those cities. Same for Boston.

If the cities you named are the only places you're going then you'll be fine. In most other parts of the US, not so much. Please don't assume that all major cities have good public transportation because sadly, that isn't always the case.

More details please.

And much depends on what you want to see/do in different cities. Even in car-centric Los Angeles, it's possible to reach main tourist sights using public transportation and the occasional Waymo/Uber/Lyft. Where you stay in a city can become an important consideration.

Those three specific cities you would be fine without a car and using public transportation (plus rideshares, taxis, tours, etc.).

For some cities you need a car... Los Angeles for one.

I would never rent a car in those cities. I can't even imagine it in NYC. I did rent a car in San Francisco once but only on the day I was leaving to drive north to wine country.

So far I rented a car 4 times in the United States. In South-west-Central Florida, the car worked out ok. In the Los Angeles area, the parking situation was too tight. I would have been better off using taxis, uber, Lyft, or public transportation. In the Miami, Florida area, I rented a car. The parking situation in some places was too tight. I would have been better off without the rental car. I did not rent a car in Savannah, GA or in Charleston, SC. I drove a rental car between the two cities. I got screwed on the cost because I didn't buy gas for the car just before returning the rental car. In certain big cities you will be fine without renting a car. In the cities you mentioned, you will be fine without a car.

Sorry (born and bred in Los Angeles) I disagree. You'd spend a *fortune* using taxis, uber, lyft and public transportation is not so great in LA. It's HUGE!

suze, do you still live in L.A.? A lot has changed in the past few years.

And driving involves significant costs beyond the daily rental rate. Overnight parking in many hotels can equal the daily car rental rate. Street parking isn't always easy to find and meter rates are as much as $2/hour. Parking at places like LACMA, Hammer, Broad, Getty Center can be as much as $25. The average cost of gas in L.A. is $4.50. It all adds up. A day pass for all L.A. public transportation is $5.

In cities like NYC, Chicago, and San Francisco, I do not think a car is necessary at all. Public transport plus walking and ride-sharing usually covers everything. In fact, driving can be more of a hassle due to traffic, parking costs, and restrictions.

No, I live in Seattle now. And I drive my car daily. I could not do what I want to do without one. My friends who do live in Los Angeles all have cars.

Well, most people who live in L.A. also want/need a car to get to work, grocery shop, pick up kids, run errands, etc., but those are not the things tourists do. A visitor may choose to accept the overall costs of a car rental in exchange for the perceived flexibility or because of far-flung things on their itinerary (say, Disneyland and Huntington Library and Getty Villa), but it really is possible to see most of the top tourist sights without a car from a well-chosen lodging location.

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/los...transportation

https://www.latimes.com/travel/list/...t-things-to-do

NYC has excellent public transportation and we always just use it when we visit. The same goes for Chicago.

However, I think LA would be a challenge depending on where you wish to visit. Just Disneyland? No problem.

I don't want to argue with Jean. But I would say renting a car is a necessity for a tourist who wants to cover things. Yes I know it can be done differently as I have public transit "warriors" I want to call them here in Seattle who manage to make public transportation work for them in LA. I can only say I would never try to visit or live in Los Angeles myself without a car. Just seems like setting yourself up for difficulty when there's such an easy answer.

Don't want to rent a car... go to New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, on and on. So many options. But for me, not Los Angeles.

Same like I say do NYC or Boston without one. But if you want to explore the New England states and get up to Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire,Maine a car is super benefical. Necessary really.

In NYC and Chicago, you really don’t need a car. Public transport will take you almost everywhere, and driving usually isn’t worth the hassle. San Francisco is much the same, though having a car helps if you want to take day trips outside the city. If you are staying just in the city, you can skip the rental.

Do be aware that the traffic in Los Angeles is probably the worst in the country. And then there is parking to consider as well as is the high cost of gasoline.
I have a friend that used to live there and I asked him about renting a car if we decided to be tourists and he said definitely not.

We use Uber all the time when we go into downtown Chicago. I am able to park in a spot and my son‘s condo building. Then we use
Uber and just go. The cost is very reasonable. You don’t have to worry about parking and you don’t have to worry about paying fees.

We have taken an Uber before when we were in Raleigh, North Carolina, and have gone to see the Duke and university of North Carolina campuses from downtown. Again the cost is not that high.

however, if you want to take a car, then consider an app which I think they probably have there called Spot Hero. You download the app and add some credit card information and then you put it an address in and you’ll get a wide variety of places you can go park that are very inexpensive. Here you can get public parking that would be pretty high, but you’re gonna be paying a heck of a lot less.

The bottom line is it’s up to you and in my opinion, it would be better not to get a car for Los Angeles.

In the US, it really comes down to the city and your specific route. In places like NYC, Chicago, or San Francisco, renting a car is usually more of a headache and a money pit than it's worth. Between public transit and rideshares, you can pretty much get anywhere you need to go as a tourist without the stress of driving.

I spent a lot of time in LA area, would say half tourist half local because I had a second home there.
We could do a lot with public transportation and our bicycles. LA is great for cycling and it is easy to bring bicycles on buses or metro.
Being based on Santa Monica, we could explore areas without a car from Malibu to Manhattan beach, from Ocean to West Hollywood (inc. Farmers mkt or LACMA).
Beyond this area, it was really too difficult, both because of time spent on public transportation and not feeling safe. So, we had to rent a car for part of the time spent there.

Ok. Thanks for your input.

I would rent a car for the entire time. No way would I try to "do" Los Angeles without one.