On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:31:57 +1000, "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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
It is always hard to know just what a poster has in mind. Does he want to
swim, to sunbathe, or is he intrigued by the so-called Southern California
beach culture? In area area between L.A. and Santa Barbara, one can
watch surfers, all sorts hanging out on the beaches, etc. I think for someone
wanting a small dose of Southern Cal, and who does not have a car, either
Santa Monica area or Santa Barbara offer the most. I'm not sure I could
entertain myself for two weeks, as a tourist, in either locale -- I'd do a week
in these two places and then head up to San Francisco for the other week.
You can get around S.F. nicely without a car -- I've done it for 10 days. A
bus runs directly from Santa Monica to S.B., thus bypassing the nastier parts
of L.A. |
