Is a Car really needed in SF?
 

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

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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 <b>YES</b>. 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 <i>drive</i>? 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 &quot;central&quot; 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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 &quot;no left turn&quot; signs all over the place :D

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.

I like having a car in SF but then again I usually stay with friends and can park on their Twin Peaks street! I don't use it when in the &quot;city proper&quot; but have used it extensively exploring the Bay Area.

If I were staying in Twin Peaks instead of one of the more usual &quot;tourist&quot; or &quot;central&quot; areas, I too might want a car. But not if you're staying at Union Square, Cow Hollow, or Fisherman's Wharf areas. Big difference.

Just thought I'd add my 2cents. DON&quot;T RENT A CAR!!!! I live in SF now, I grew up in SF, I also lived in NYC. I would call NYC's public transportation system excellent and I would call SF's public transportation system adequate. You can get most places you would like to go as a tourist by bus/ferry very easily and therefore, I would say that you should NOT rent a car. By not renting a car, you avoid having to navigate your way around by car (which despite what people who live here say, SF is NOT the most logical city streetwise. Not to mention, I've gotten into numerous fights with my husband while driving and trying to navigate in a new city so I refuse to do it unless absolutely necessary!) and you avoid having to find parking.

Meanwhile, I say this and I generally use a car as my main mode of transportation. However, I know my way around and I also know where to park. If you truly live here, parking does not have to be that bad b/c you know all the secret parking places/areas and/or you have hawk eyes (I can see someone leaving 2 blocks ahead of me and yes, I will do an illegal U-turn to get a spot b/c if I don't do it, the spot will be gone by the time I've gone around the block) and you know to take the bus or cab it to the areas where parking is really hard to find. Someone who lives here and doesn't have access to a garage (connected to their house or apartment) may disagree with my last statement. Anyway, that said, I would rent a car only when and if you plan to leave the city proper.

Remember, San Francisco is very small (7miles X 7miles) and you can walk to a lot of places!! I would argue that you get a much better sense of a place by walking through it rather than driving the whole time.

my2cents, you really brought it all back.

My guy really lost it once in SF. Lanes just abruptedly end and he couldn't believe the double parking and &quot;I'll be back thing&quot; blocking an entire street.
We only used the car 3 days out of 8. But I loved the places we got to with the car. He refused to take it out after that because it was such a hassle getting it back anywhere that our host though permissible and/or adequate. We saw that the big, big sedan was causing him great stress. So we left it in a grassed/courtyard where he wanted it to be for the last 4 days we where there. We had many more things to do inside of SF anyway.

SF is really, to my mind, not a big city. It's like one neighborhood in Chicago, almost smaller. My guy will not drive at all in Florida, and will drive only under great duress in SF. He just hates the driving habits there and hated the signage more.

We have drived in downtown Chicago, Boston, NYC and many other places with aggresive drivers, so take that for what it is worth.

In my opinion, San Francisco is a very easy city to navigate in &amp; around in a rental car (unlike Boston, for example). Just purchase a Flashmaps and you'll be all set.

And I agree about SF's &quot;adequate&quot; public transportation -- be prepared to WAIT.

Well, wait a minute there!

I honestly don't think DRIVING in SF is much different from other large US cities. Parking can be impossible, however, and if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can sit in complete gridlock that is hard to believe. We've lived in this area for decades, but we still get caught occasionally in a traffic nightmare, where it takes a half hour to go a couple of blocks.

But the biggest difference to me is that SF is not like ONE neighborhood. It is like a bunch of neighborhoods, and you need to know how to get between them. There is often no simple or straight route from one part of the city to another, and that can make it time-consuming for a stranger to get around.

So if I were going to the usual tourist points of interest, I would not want a car in SF.

Marilyn explains it well. If you know SF a car is not a problem. If you are new to SF a car is probably a problem. I don't find driving in SF a problem (I know SF so well) but hate the driving in and out of SF. Go figure, LOL. Again, for a visitor I would suggest not having a car while seeing the areas of SF that most visitors desire to see (and with good reason of course). Than rent a car for those places where a car is needed. And most of all, have a beautiful time in San Francisco. It is a fantastic city!

I haven't found SF particularly difficult to drive in. I have it VERY difficult to park in. My company's fleet options for SF and NYC include PT Cruisers specifically for parking issues. We've tried to get them elsewhere in the country, but no-go. Only the little car for the parking-challenged cities.

I've had large, full-sized rental cars when traveling on business and had no trouble driving them in and out of the city. But, when I've traveled there for personal reasons I don't rent a car UNTIL I'm ready to head out to Napa or Monterrey. Then, I pick up at the closest Hertz (usually the one near Union Square). As I've said before, don't rent a car to &quot;do&quot; the city, but rent them for only a day or two if you are planning to go out on some side trips.

In both cases, I valet park with the hotel or turn it into the Hertz garage.

SF is not only twisty/turny with few good straight access streets, but also has extreme numbers of lane changes needed to proceed in any straight forward mode. We had maps, GALORE. And we could SEE places we could not access quickly enough to make the turn. It wasn't the parking that bothered my EXCELLENT driver at all, he could put the thing exactly where there was space. We have patient as well and there are tons of places in the USA and Europe where it is difficult to park.

But one day he just lost it and that is extremely unusal. It was the signs that really finished him off- confusing and almost contradictory. One time he said &quot;Now when we get into town this time, you count aloud how many times I have to change lanes in order to go straight.&quot; He's an engineer and it drove him nuts.

We'll take the Big Dig and I-80 over SF anyday. Actually he had an easier time driving in Italy he says.

You who know the quirks of SF and all its (to us) humorous and extemporary signage telling you want NOT to do, know what's coming up- elavation wise and &quot;dead ending&quot; wise also. There is no way that it is easy for someone who doesn't. One time near Mission, I think, we followed the map to get somewhere and ended up doing a &quot;repeat&quot; view a couple of times. Then someone told us that a street was &quot;closed&quot;. How/ why? Who knows. When we came up on barricades/ horses we did a U turn right in front of DO NOT TURN here sign. And we watched a whole bunch of others do the same thing as well. It's also the only place I've seen outside of Europe where people park all over the sidewalks and block exits routinely.

Hey, JJ, we're free spirits here. :-D

If you drive, watch out for streets on maps that become stairways - LOL. I love those.

I agree w/Starrsville. Also, it will actually be cheaper to just rent a car when you need it than to park it anywhere downtown (you'll be giving away $25-40 per day to park).

Another thing about driving in SF, the streets can be quite steep. Expect to be stopped at nearly a 45 degree angle (actually 30-something is the steepest, but it seems like 45), behind four or five cars at a stop sign, regularly. And parking is a real problem much of the time. If you know where to go you can always find parking, but then, guess what? You take public transportation from where you parked to get around the city. It really does not make sense to drive from place to place within the city. Really the only place not accessible by MUNI or BART within the city is Twin Peaks. Outside of the city, a car is a necessity. So, yes, it's nice to have a car but you will leave it parked most of the time you're in the city.

Just to clarify - I was the first responder on this post and advised against getting a rental car. &quot;It's a hindrance rather than a help&quot;.

I also suggested if they are planning to go outside the city (Napa, Sonoma, Monterrey, etc) to pick up the rental car from a downtown location rather than going back and forth from the airport (not worth the time and effort for pennies (if any) savings.

When I DO rent a car in SF, I'm headed out somewhere. I've done a drive-by (not on, of course, anymore) Lombard Street and dropped someone off at Fisherman's Wharf on the way back in to the city. I would imagine that's the kind of driving in the city most tourists getting a rental car would be doing.

Just want to make sure it's clear I'm not suggesting a tourist to get a rental car to sightsee around the city.

I have in fact driven a car around the city for a weekend, but it was a friend's car. I was out there for a wedding and I was one of the few in the group that could drive a manual transmission. I didn't really have to navigate that much - although I had a better sense of direction than my passenger most of the time and could figure out which way we needed to go next most of the time. That came in handy when we were trying to find the restaurant for the rehearsal dinner and then as we tried to find a parking place!

But, I can promise you I did use the handbrake when stopped in traffic or at a light while on a hill! :-)