bachslunch

Am planning future US trip possibilities, and it's clear that some destination cities are ones you can visit comfortably and see the sights solely with walking and public transportation while in others you absolutely need a car. I've traveled to several cities and done research on some others and it looks like this is how they might come out:

Walking/public transport sufficient: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco/Oakland, New Orleans, Seattle, Portland (OR), Salt Lake City, Washington (DC), Atlantic City, Providence

Has some public transportation and walking friendliness, but a car is very useful: Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tampa, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, Portland (ME)

Need a car: Miami, Los Angeles, Phoenix, St. Petersburg (FL), St. Louis, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Sarasota

Don't know/can't tell: Savannah, Charleston (SC), Baltimore, Annapolis, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Key West, Atlanta, Nashville, Memphis, Kansas City, San Antonio, San Diego, Austin

Would very much like some feedback on the correctness of my observations, as well as info on the cities I'm not sure of. Am leaning towards those destinations where a car is not needed.

tchoiniere

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

djkbooks

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.

NeoPatrick

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.

Andrew

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.

abram

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.

mp

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.

ElendilPickle

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

djkbooks

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.

fmpden

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

tekwriter

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!

Daniel_Williams

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!

WannabeinaMontserrat

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.

Shandy1977

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.

kelliebellie

Detroit - absolutely must have a car.

jent103

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

cheryllj

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.

Ceidleh

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.

d_claude_bear

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.

RaymondLuxuryYacht

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!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>