We are looking to spend our honeymoon in California in June 2006. We have 17 days and want a mix of resting and travel. We though of having a couple of nights in Chicago on the way there or back. But would like to include San Fran, Las Vegas, Grand Canyon and Yosemite Park. Is this too adventurous? Anu suggestions? Is the coastal railway between San Fran and LA a better alternative to driving??

The "coastal" railway is not coastal beyond San Luis Obispo, it misses the most dramatic part of the coast, which is the Big Sur region (Cambria to Carmel). All together, maybe an hour or two of a six to eight hour trip is along the coast by train. Driving is a much more scenic option.

Thanks for that info - that was really useful. Do you think that we are trying to fit in too much with a stop in Chicago en-route from the UK?

Have you really looked hard at a map and thought about the distances involved?

Let's start at the Grand Canyon (in Arizona) and go to Las Vegas, NV. That's about 275 miles of driving (443 km), FYI.

Vegas to Yosemite National Park, CA, is 400 miles (644 km).

Yosemite to San Francisco is almost 186 miles (almost 300 km).

The scenic route from San Francisco to Los Angeles is a bit under 400 miles (644 km).

The western US is a huge geographic area. I might consider forgetting the national parks and doing a California driving tour exclusively, along with a few days in Chicago on the way back to the UK. Start with SF, then a day trip to the Wine Country, then start heading down the coast. Explore the greater LA area for a couple of days, pamper yourselves on one of the nicer beaches in south Orange County, then finish up with a nice stay in San Diego. Fly back to Chicago, whoop it up, then fly back to the UK.

Another wrench in the works that I foresee is the time of year you're traveling. Coastal southern California has its foggy season in June (the infamous "June Gloom"), where the marine layer socks in the coast during the morning hours. This usually burns off by the afternoon, but it can make sightseeing a challenge in the morning.

But that shouldn't be a real problem. And this is only one possibility. Others will say to do the Grand Canyon and Yosemite and forget the rest-- and that could be magical too.

Coming from the UK I think you are trying to do too much. Our distances here are greater and you are probably spending too much time traveling and not enough time to stop and smell the roses.

I would skip Chicago (a great city) and head straight to San Francisco. There is plenty to see there along with Napa Wine Area and then Monterey Peninsula (Carmel, Pacific Grove) then maybe over to Las Vegas. You can see a lot of Big Sur area by taking a leisurely drive from Carmel...down and back...as the real scenic area is not far south from there.

Yosemite gets crowded in the summer as everyone heads there at one time it seems. If you do Yosemite, have a room booked and be prepared for a lot of people.

Yes, don't underestimate the distances between these places.

I was talking with someone from London about visiting there with my boys. I asked if Stonehenge was far from London. She replied, oh, it's really far. About as far as Phila. from DC.

I laughed. I told her that we were used to driving out west, and that 3 hours is not considered really far to Americans.

We have spent 7 days doing SF-Yosemite-
Big Sur alone. If you want to really spend some time around around LV, Grand Canyon and some more national parks in southern Utah, that's easily another 7-8 days, minimum.

I wouldn't include Chicago. You've enough to keep you busy out west.

I'm a Californian who spends most of my holidays in the UK so a bit of perspective here.

SF, Yosemite, LV, Grand Canyon, LA and the California coast in 2.5 weeks. Think of London > Dover > Land's End > North Wales > the Lake District > Inverness -- all by car in 16 days.

Not much fun. Especially when you want some down time.

I'd do open jaw into SF and out of either LA or LV. The reason I say SF at the front is because it is one of the few CA cities where the public transport is good and you don't want a car. Fly into SF and spend at least 3 days. Get over the jet lag and explore this fabulous city. Then pick up your car on your way out of town.

From there your route depends on whether you fly home from LA or LV. But generally SF > Monterey/Carmel/Big Sur > Yosemite > LV > Grand Canyon > LA.

And even this is an ambitious itinerary for your time frame. If it were me, I would drop Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon and maybe add San Diego. But if Las Vegas and the Grand Canyon are "musts" for you, I'd drop LA and do SF/Carmel/Yosemite/LV/Grand Canyon and return from Vegas.

Map perception goes both ways. I recall a couple friends of mine from California planning a trip to England, who, looking at the map of England had factored in two days to get from London to York.

BigNose-Despite what everyone else is saying, I do think this is a doable plan, as long as you don't expect to explore anything too thoroughly. Take a look a driving times:
San Fran to LA =1 day
LA to Grand Canyon = 1 day
GC to Las Vegas = 1/2 day
Las Vegas to Yosemite = 1 day
Yosemite to San Fran = 1/2 day

That's a total of 4 days of driving, leaving 13 days to explore. If you subtract out a couple days in Chicago, that leaves you 11 days for the big loop through CA/AZ/NV.

You say you want to include San Fran, Las Vegas, Grand Canyon and Yosemite. Assuming you're just passing though LA, you've got 11 days to see the other 4 places. I'd give yourself 4 days total for GC and Vegas, and split the other 7 days however you like between Yosemite and San Fran. Plenty of time to not only see a bit of each place, but also relax a bit too. But the only way you'll get to relax is if you force yourself to, rather than make a long list of things that you *must* see in each location. To me, it sounds like you're more interested in going to each place rather than exploring in-depth. If this is your first and maybe only trip in your lifetime to the U.S., then by all means try to get to all four places, plus Chicago if it works out.

BigNose: I'm glad you are getting suggestions, and as you are new here I'll offer a suggestion for your posts:

Use a better title.

"Help Please" -- just too vague. I would imagine each post here is either asking for help, or offering some suggestions, so yours does nothing to prompt people to look at it, other than curiosity.

You probably clicked on the states you are traveling thru when you created this thread ... but that only helps catalog this thread for search purposes. You should try to use a clear yet concise title in order to attract the attention of those who can help: eg "Need routing suggestions for trip to include LA, Chicago, GC, Yosemite"

Good luck in whatever plans you eventually decide, and best wishes to both of you.

OK, here is something different. I would fly into San Francisco and plan to spend *several* days there, which would include a one day tour of the wine country, an overnight tour to Yosemite. These can be arranged in San Francisco. No car needed. Rent a car for a couple of days and drive down the coast from San Francisco to Monterey or Carmel and from there drive down to Big Sur and back as a day trip. You can fly to Las Vegas pretty cheaply on Southwest or another cut-rate airline, especially if you take BART to the Oakland airport from SF and fly from there. You can drive from Las Vegas to the Grand Canyon, and then back to LV to fly back to San Francisco. Do not skimp in San Francsico, it is a lovely city and worth some time. Someone else can chime in here and comment on my idea of driving from LV to the GC. I am not too confident on ahat.