San Francisco without renting a car? Is it practical? (Oakland: suburbs, transit)

[sponger42]

Yes. When we visit the city (driving in from LA), the hardest part is finding a street to dump the car for the duration. Most of the interesting sights of SF are walkable, and the whole city is accessible by bus or Trolley. Staying centrally, as other's have advised, is nice, but rooms can be pricy and/or shabby. Bus connectivity of Cow Hollow isn't too bad, and prices are a bit lower. Last time we were there, we stayed 20 minutes from downtown up the line in the Mission district in a cheap lodge for around 50/room/night.

If you're planning on sampling the nightlife, check the night OWL bus routes and pick a hotel on on of them. Little Italy is a great place to wine, dine, and dance the night away, so plan on heading back to your hotel from that area when investigating the bus routes.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Newdaawn

Thanks for all your suggestions. I suspected it would be smoother without a car. It's good know you take tours to other places. When we frequently visit DC we never rent a car and use the Metro there, which is convenient, quick and clean.

Scratch off clean too. MEtro is much cleaner.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by PDF

Wouldn't SF be one of the worst places to try to drive around on vacation?

No, it's a fantastic place to drive (sans rush hour). In a few neighborhoods, it's a lousy place to park (Haight in particular), but most of the city is very accessible by car. Sometimes I'll just drive around San Francisco for a few hours just for the fun of it when I'm there. It's a beautiful city. Get a convertible on a warm, sunny day and do a chunk of the 49-mile scenic drive. Most people aren't going to do the whole thing because you see something interesting and stop along the way frequently.

Most of San Francisco is also easy to get around via transit, however, so it's completely feasible to do it without a car. If you're on a budget, get a hotel in Oakland. When I have to get a hotel, I usually do the Jack London Inn. It's a fleabag, but it's about $50-60/night rather than $200. Bit of a hike to BART, but it's practically on top of the ferries to San Francisco which is infinitely more scenic than BART is. Downside is if you're planning on being out late in San Francisco, the last ferry is at 8:25. Then you've got to take BART and either get a cab, take the seedy bus, or walk around Oakland at night.

[wooliemonster]

Driving in the Bay Area is easy, but it is effectively impossible to park in the city. Rent a car to get out of town -- lots of wonderful things just outside the city -- but take the bus, trains, and cabs in the city.

[Chava61]

Originally Posted by Newdaawn

We have never been to the west coast and are thinking about a visit to San Francisco. We'd prefer not to have a car and usepublic transportation. Is this at all practical? What part of the city would be best to stay in? Maybe we could rent one for just a few days as part of our visit. Any advice welcome

Within San Francisco one doesn't really need a car most of the time.

[mayorhaggar]

It is less practical to use a car in SF than to use public transit, especially if you aren't used to SF's parking scene. If you rent a car, you'll spend 1/3rd of your time moving slowly in traffic, 1/3rd of the time circling the block 500 times looking for a parking space, and 1/3rd of the time arguing down at the impound lot because you made the mistake of parking in a space 30 seconds before street cleaning time ended...

SF is small and walkable and you can take public transit to just about every tourist site in the city. If you have to ride Muni to work every day you will definitely get aggravated with it, but if you're using it as a tourist you won't come across many issues.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Newdaawn

We have never been to the west coast and are thinking about a visit to San Francisco. We'd prefer not to have a car and usepublic transportation. Is this at all practical? What part of the city would be best to stay in? Maybe we could rent one for just a few days as part of our visit. Any advice welcome

Unless you are planning trips way outside the city, it is very easy to have a great time using public transportation and your legs. We visited about 10 years ago for 3 days. We did have a rental car because we were heading to Reno as well. If I remember right, we never moved the car from the hotel parking. Depending how many days you plan on staying, if you really want to do, say the Wine Country you can take a tour or rent a car, from your hotel for maybe, one day.

[mr bolo]

if your just going to there a couple days, I would skip the car rental, you can get by with public transportation or taxi for a day

or rent a car for a day trip to go some place special that you might be interested in, you probably wont need a car for the whole time your there

maybe on your next trip you can rent a car and go to surrounding areas

for your first trip you should stay in the city or take a one day cruise by boat to some of the popular areas

[Kurinji]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

It is less practical to use a car in SF than to use public transit, especially if you aren't used to SF's parking scene. If you rent a car, you'll spend 1/3rd of your time moving slowly in traffic, 1/3rd of the time circling the block 500 times looking for a parking space, and 1/3rd of the time arguing down at the impound lot because you made the mistake of parking in a space 30 seconds before street cleaning time ended...

SF is small and walkable and you can take public transit to just about every tourist site in the city. If you have to ride Muni to work every day you will definitely get aggravated with it, but if you're using it as a tourist you won't come across many issues.

IA with all of this, having visited SF as a tourist with and without a car, and as a resident, with and without a car. Just yesterday, a friend of a friend's car was towed away (he must have missed the details of the parking sign), and ended up paying $600 to pick up his car from the impound.

Save the car for day trips outside of SF (such as wine country).

[MauiPartTimer]

I agree with those that say a car isn't necessary for a stay in S.F., and in fact it's what I recommend to people who plan on visiting. Some things to keep in mind:
- If you fly into SFO or OAK, you can take BART into the city
- The daily cost of a rental car + hotel parking buys a lot of cab and public transit rides
- Cabs and public transit allow you to enjoy great meals with accompanying wines and not have to be worried about a DUI
- The city is only 49 square miles and most of the things tourists want to see/do are in an area maybe 1/3 of that, so walking is another option. Note: The hills can be quite an urban hike. I take them for granted, but visitors who aren't in decent shape can be overwhelmed by them.
- A couple people have said it's a great city for driving, but not parking and I disagree. The hills, the narrow lanes, the one-way streets and the fast drivers can be a bit much for a lot of people.

Bottom line: Leave the driving to others; cabs, buses, cable cars and tour buses are here for a reason and let everyone enjoy the views. There's a helluva lot of stuff to see (natrual beauty, architecture, historic places and interest people) and tourists in cars are often too busy trying to figure out where they are and where they're going to reallly enjoy the sites.