Brits seeking advice for USA trip

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:43:55 +0200, "Sjoerd"
wrote:



I made the mistake of taking a holiday in LA and not renting a car. To make
a long story short: I ended up hating LA. There is almost no public
transport, people in LA don't walk (that's why they are all fat there), and
in general there is little to do or see in the city.

Funny, I was just out there two weeks ago and had no trouble getting
around by bus and they also some sort of light train/subway system
now, though I didn't take it. Though I hate LA for other reasons.


Go to New York, which is so much nicer, or if you insist on the West Coast,
visit San Francisco which is also OK for a day or two.

San Francisco is OK for a lot more than a day or two and is one of the
nicest 3 or 4 cities in the US, unlike LA.


But honestly, the only part of the US where one could have a nice time for
more than 2 days without a car is the city of New York.


Complete nonsense as are most of your posts. Boston is great, so is
Washington, Seattle, Denver and a bunch of other cities I could name.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:31:57 +1000, "Julie"
wrote:


"Doug Weller" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:43:55 +0200, Sjoerd wrote:

[SNIP]

But honestly, the only part of the US where one could have a nice time
for
more than 2 days without a car is the city of New York.

I'd say Boston or Chicago have enough for more than 2 days and you
wouldn't
need a car -- and that is only the cities. Ah, and South Beach in Dade
County was mentioned, that would be fine.

Doug

Definitely don't go to LA unless you are hiring a car.

Good advice, but bypassing it entirely is a much better idea.


San Francisco is easy to get around by Public Transport but I doubt you
could spend 2 weeks there.

True. A week at the most.


I've not been to NYC but I know others who have and they certainly didn't
need a car whilst there. In fact it cost them a fortune to park the car
whilst they were there.

Absolutely true. NY is the only city in the US that I know of where
it costs more to rent a car on the weekends (because all the natives
don't have cars and rent them to go wherever they want to drive on the
weekends). I live in the NYC suburbs and, at most, drive to one of
the shopping centers where I can pick up the mass transit into the
city when I go in. Finding a cheap place to stay might be a
challenge, though.


Can't help you with beaches to lie around on. Do you really want to spend
all that money to lie around on a beach? There must be closer and cheaper
beaches than the US. Maybe you could go to Hawaii.


I don't know why anyone would want to lie on the beach during the
summer here, but Florida or, for that matter, the Jersey Shore outside
of NYC would be much better bets, especially the latter since the
weather in Florida during the summer is a real bear. The Cape outside
of Boston would be another good bet.

Sjoerd wrote:

I made the mistake of taking a holiday in LA and not renting a car. To
make
a long story short: I ended up hating LA. There is almost no public
transport, people in LA don't walk (that's why they are all fat there),
and
in general there is little to do or see in the city.


In some areas (namely Beverly Hills) the police will even stop and question
you if you are walking around


Go to New York, which is so much nicer, or if you insist on the West
Coast,
visit San Francisco which is also OK for a day or two.


Am I one of the few that finds San Francisco highly over - rated? It's okay
for a coupla days, but I find the place generally pretty squalid because of
the large and aggressive homeless population....and as far as food goes
Chicago or New York are just as good (I will admit that I loathe Kalifornia
in general, so maybe it's just my prejudice...).


But honestly, the only part of the US where one could have a nice time for
more than 2 days without a car is the city of New York.


Chicago has a great public transportation system - I've lived here 26 years
without a car (don't even have a driving licence anymore). Boston and
Washington DC are two other cities that have good urban transit systems, as
does San Francisco....

--
Best
Greg

"Julie" wrote:
Definitely don't go to LA unless you are hiring a car.

San Francisco is easy to get around by Public Transport but I doubt you
could spend 2 weeks there.

Then you don't know much about this city. Take a look at the San
Francisco page at the site at Right in the sig.

San Francisco has no fewer than six excellent beaches, one nude, with
comfortable sand. Three are on the ocean and two on The Bay.

The big one at the ocean has great waves but a very dangerous
undertow. Swimming in the cold water is ill-advised. Several people
are killed each year.

The problem with our beaches is that they're in the worst weather this
city has to offer. We have very few good beach days. Our surfers and
sailboarders wear wet-suits.
__________________________________________________ _________________
NEW PAGE: Remembering Ronald Reagan: Let Us Remember Lest We Forget
http://geocities.com/iconoc/Articles/rReagan.html#t
__________________________________________________ ___________
A San Franciscan in 47.335 mile² San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net

Doug Weller wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:43:55 +0200, Sjoerd wrote:

[SNIP]

But honestly, the only part of the US where one could have a nice time for
more than 2 days without a car is the city of New York.

I'd say Boston or Chicago have enough for more than 2 days and you wouldn't
need a car -- and that is only the cities. Ah, and South Beach in Dade
County was mentioned, that would be fine.

Washington DC has much that can be done without a car - weeks worth! But not
a beach.

-s-
Julie
**********
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

Trying to be nice...LA is a litle nicer than Gary, Indiana
"Gregory Morrow" wrote in
message link.net...

Sjoerd wrote:

I made the mistake of taking a holiday in LA and not renting a car. To
make
a long story short: I ended up hating LA. There is almost no public
transport, people in LA don't walk (that's why they are all fat there),
and
in general there is little to do or see in the city.


In some areas (namely Beverly Hills) the police will even stop and
question
you if you are walking around


Go to New York, which is so much nicer, or if you insist on the West
Coast,
visit San Francisco which is also OK for a day or two.


Am I one of the few that finds San Francisco highly over - rated? It's
okay
for a coupla days, but I find the place generally pretty squalid because
of
the large and aggressive homeless population....and as far as food goes
Chicago or New York are just as good (I will admit that I loathe
Kalifornia
in general, so maybe it's just my prejudice...).


But honestly, the only part of the US where one could have a nice time
for
more than 2 days without a car is the city of New York.


Chicago has a great public transportation system - I've lived here 26
years
without a car (don't even have a driving licence anymore). Boston and
Washington DC are two other cities that have good urban transit systems,
as
does San Francisco....

--
Best
Greg

"PTRAVEL" wrote in message
...

"Matt Robinson" wrote in message
news:xPMzc.95$J4.0@newsfe5-win...
Hi, I'm a 23 year old from London looking to go to L.A. for a couple of
weeks this summer with my best friend. We were thinking about grabbing a
cheap hotel around town, taking in the sun, the sites, heading to the
beaches, and enjoying a little bit of the night life.
However as much as I'm looking forward to it, the more I've started
researching, the more I'm starting to wonder if this is all such a good
idea
as neither of us drive and therefore don't plan on hiring a car - and it
sounds like in the US there is much more of an emphasis on driving than
public transport? In London you can live quite easily with just using
buses,
trains and the subway, but I'm wondering if that's possible (and safe)
in
LA. So any tips or advice along those lines would very helpful,
including
suggestions for places to stay around town that could cut down our
travel
issues, while still being in nice parts of town.

Of all of the cities in the US, Los Angeles has the worst public
transportation system. It has a subway (underground), but its reach is
still quite limited. There is a public bus system, but it is unreliable
and
the busses run infrequently.

I am sorry but that's just not true. LA's public transportation problem is
that it's a huge area covered by different municipalities. To get from one
place to another often requires long bus rides and several transfers.

Additionally, virtually everyone in LA who can
afford one has a car -- you will meet a very different class of people on
the busses. There are some bus routes on which gang activity is a
problem.

It is not impossible to get around LA without a car, but it is quite
difficult. You might consider taxis as an alternative.

"Los Angeles" is really a huge metropolitan area comprising a number of
cities. It sprawls throughout a huge basin, i.e. there really isn't a
central section. Areas that visitors would want to see include Santa
Monica
and Venice, which are beach communities, West Los Angeles (the Getty
Museum,
restaurants, Melrose, Sunset Blvd., clubs, etc.), Beverly Hills, and
Downtown (the Music Center, Museum of Contemporary Art), Pasadena
(restaurants and museums), Universal City (Universal Theme Park, Burbank
Studios Tour, which is nearby).

I lived in Los Angeles for more than 20 years (I left the area last
summer).
I can't imagine getting around without a car.

Additionally, how feasible in that part of the country is it to take
the
odd day excursion out of the city by train or coach and explore some of
the
quieter surrounding areas (providing there's stuff worth seeing)? For
instance just grabbing a train down the coast for a change of scenary,
that
sort of thing?

There are trains that run up the coast (Santa Barbara and the area around
Hearst Castle are worth visiting), and down (San Diego and Tiajuana,
Mexico,
though I'd recommend avoiding the latter). However, train service in the
US
is far below what you're used to in Britain. Amtrak is the US passenger
rail service -- I believe it has a website with schedules.

Any advice, tips, places to stay and most importantly places to
definitely avoid would be really useful.

--

"Sjoerd" wrote in message
...

"Matt Robinson" schreef in bericht
news:xPMzc.95$J4.0@newsfe5-win...
Hi, I'm a 23 year old from London looking to go to L.A. for a couple of
weeks this summer with my best friend. We were thinking about grabbing a
cheap hotel around town, taking in the sun, the sites, heading to the
beaches, and enjoying a little bit of the night life.
However as much as I'm looking forward to it, the more I've started
researching, the more I'm starting to wonder if this is all such a good
idea
as neither of us drive and therefore don't plan on hiring a car - and it
sounds like in the US there is much more of an emphasis on driving than
public transport? In London you can live quite easily with just using
buses,
trains and the subway, but I'm wondering if that's possible (and safe)
in
LA. So any tips or advice along those lines would very helpful,
including
suggestions for places to stay around town that could cut down our
travel
issues, while still being in nice parts of town.
Additionally, how feasible in that part of the country is it to take
the
odd day excursion out of the city by train or coach and explore some of
the
quieter surrounding areas (providing there's stuff worth seeing)? For
instance just grabbing a train down the coast for a change of scenary,
that
sort of thing?
Any advice, tips, places to stay and most importantly places to
definitely avoid would be really useful.

I made the mistake of taking a holiday in LA and not renting a car. To
make
a long story short: I ended up hating LA. There is almost no public
transport, people in LA don't walk (that's why they are all fat there),
and
in general there is little to do or see in the city.

So much bad information on the net. There is plenty to see or do in LA.
There are plenty of public transportation. But it's inconvenient because it
has to cover a huge area.


Go to New York, which is so much nicer, or if you insist on the West
Coast,
visit San Francisco which is also OK for a day or two.

But honestly, the only part of the US where one could have a nice time for
more than 2 days without a car is the city of New York.


Oh please. There are plenty of places in the US to have a nice time for
more than 2 days even without a car.

Sjoerd

"Gregory Morrow" wrote in
message link.net...

Sjoerd wrote:

I made the mistake of taking a holiday in LA and not renting a car. To
make
a long story short: I ended up hating LA. There is almost no public
transport, people in LA don't walk (that's why they are all fat there),
and
in general there is little to do or see in the city.


In some areas (namely Beverly Hills) the police will even stop and
question
you if you are walking around


Total nonsense. Me and hundreds of people walk around Beverly Hills
everyday without a side way glance from a police.


Go to New York, which is so much nicer, or if you insist on the West
Coast,
visit San Francisco which is also OK for a day or two.


Am I one of the few that finds San Francisco highly over - rated? It's
okay
for a coupla days, but I find the place generally pretty squalid because
of
the large and aggressive homeless population....and as far as food goes
Chicago or New York are just as good (I will admit that I loathe
Kalifornia
in general, so maybe it's just my prejudice...).


I think you are one of the few who finds SF over-rated.


But honestly, the only part of the US where one could have a nice time
for
more than 2 days without a car is the city of New York.


Chicago has a great public transportation system - I've lived here 26
years
without a car (don't even have a driving licence anymore). Boston and
Washington DC are two other cities that have good urban transit systems,
as
does San Francisco....

--
Best
Greg

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:48:11 GMT "Gregory Morrow"
wrote:

:Sjoerd wrote:

: I made the mistake of taking a holiday in LA and not renting a car. To
:make
: a long story short: I ended up hating LA. There is almost no public
: transport, people in LA don't walk (that's why they are all fat there),
:and
: in general there is little to do or see in the city.

:In some areas (namely Beverly Hills) the police will even stop and question
:you if you are walking around

I lived in LA for a while (just south of BH) and walked thru BH on occasion.
Was never stopped by the police for that.

Was ticketed once for bicycling thru a stop sign in LA - a motorcycle cop
chased me down.

[ snipped ]

:Chicago has a great public transportation system - I've lived here 26 years
:without a car (don't even have a driving licence anymore).

If you live in the city near an L line.

Many busses do not run 24*7.

Does the Ravenswood line (brown?) run 24*7 yet? Or does it still shut down at
night?

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com