"Danny Liberty" wrote in message
news:1150293121.754458.90610@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm still kind of confused with the route planning...
> By looking at the map I understand I can start from either SF or Vegas.
> Let's say I start from SF first. I rent a car there, spend a couple of
> days, then drive to Los Angeles (and maybe stop to see a few sights on
> the way?). I stay in LA for a couple more days and then drive (wouldn't
> it be cheaper than flying?) to Vegas. I would then return the Car in
> Vegas or either drive back to SF to return it (probably be cheaper to
> just pay the different drop off location fine).
> Sounds good?
Here's what I would do if I were you:
Arrive in SF. Use BART (public transpo system) while there.
Fly from SFO to LAX. It should be comparable or less than renting a car.
CA gas is about $3.20-$3.50 right now.
Rent a car in LA. A must!
Fly from LAX to Las Vegas McClellan.
Use public transpo in LV, or rent a car if you want to go to Hoover Dam.
Fly back to LA.
Leave.
This gives you the most time in the cities, which seem to be your primary
interest points. The drive from SF to LA is 8 hours. The drive from LA to
LV is 5 hours. That's 26 hours (almost 10% of your vacation time) spent on
the road for the 'straight shot' route on the interstates.
SF - 4 days (one day-trip to Santa Cruz)
LA - 5 days (one day-trip to San Diego)
LV - 3 days
steveo
|