Location Transport

Home > San Francisco Public Transport Information > San Francisco Public Transport Knowledge Base > San Francisco Vs. LA - which is a better?

San Francisco Vs. LA - which is a better?

I am traveling to Las Vegas and would also like to visit either LA or San Francisco. Can someone suggest which is a better place to visit, if I have to use only public transport - since I don't have driving license for US?

Public Comments

  1. Since you are using public transportation, I would definitely suggest San Francisco. It is a beautiful city, easy to get around, and plenty of cool places to go. You would have a lot of fun. The LA transportation is not as good, most people use cars to get around. They have buses and stuff....but it can take forever to get around. LA is very spread out.
  2. since you have to use public transportation i'd say san francisco. but only because LA public transportation isn't very good and everything in LA is spread out. but if you ever do get a US driver's license or find someone who could drive you around LA is definitely the place to go. i don't hate san francisco. it's actually one of my favorite cities. great place to go in the summer to escape the heat of southern california. it's just that LA is a million times better. better beaches, weather, shopping, cooler people just everything is better. it's just hard to get around if you don't have a car.
  3. For a lone traveler, SF would be best.
  4. LA's public transportation system might as well be non-existant. San Francisco's public transportation system is one of the best I have ever encountered. The buses are constant and the maps at the bus stations are easy to navigate. It is the most user friendly public transportation system I have ever used in the US. Plus, it is also very entertaining as there are quite a few charactors you will encounter! As for LA vs. San Francisco, I would also say San Francisco is better. I grew up in Southern California and find most of LA to be one of two things: run down, sleezy, and poor, or snobby, rich, and expensive. Not that it isn't an experience, especially if high end shopping is your thing, but I think San Francisco has more to offer. There is way more art, culture, and history in San Francisco, and I find that the food is way better. Plus, it is stunningly beautiful.
  5. LA IS A DISGUSTING HELLHOLE..... GO TO SF
  6. San Francisco! LA is crap.
  7. LA is the place to be
  8. Los Angeles by far! There is so much to see & do! The MTA transit system in LA has recently expanded and offers a great all day unlimited ride pass valid on both buses and subways for only $5! There are also several municipal bus systems complimenting the primary network which can get you just about anywhere. Southern California is spread out and therefore often gets an unfairly negative viewpoint but the many express and limited stop Rapid bus lines are actually quite fast for longer trips. Plus there are many commuter rail lines operated by Metrolink which connect LA with the many regional cities & attractions making up the 6 county area. You can easily reach allof the area beaches, tourist attracttions and theme parks by public transit. Best of luck!
  9. SF hands down. LA is a Zoo... SF is busy but LA is really bad.
  10. I love both San Francisco and Los Angeles. But they're kind of like Milan and Rome. At first glance, the rivalry is fierce. But they have more in common than they'd like to admit. However, public transportation isn't one of those commonalities. If you drive, I encourage you to rent a car and visit Los Angeles. It is a great city for theme parks, shopping, and beaches. However, lets not kid ourselves about the dismal state of public infastructure in L.A. Compared to BART and Caltrain in San Francisco, Los Angeles' Metrolink is a joke. It is designed only for commuters with "normal" work schedules. And the trains don't even operate outside of rush hour. For instance, if I'm going to Anaheim from Downtown Los Angeles by train -- I can only leave Union Station early in the morning and return to L.A. at exactly 4:42 PM or 5:32 PM (ridiculously inconvenient). If I'm even a few minutes late, I would have to chase buses all the way back to my hotel. And quite frankly, MTA buses are ghetto and slow. In comparison, no BART train has a wait time of more than 15 minutes. Although Caltrain is less frequent, it still runs throughout the day and night. Simply put, San Francisco has a true rapid transit system. Los Angeles does not (yet). http://www.bart.gov/stations/map/systemMap.asp http://www.caltrain.com/ Note: Since you're going to Las Vegas first, I would've suggested San Francisco anyway. Las Vegas is extremely fun, but it is also a very artificial experience. The natural wonders around San Francisco (Golden Gate Park, Lincoln Park, Muir Woods, Angel Island, The Presidio, etc.) are the perfect antidote for a Vegas hangover.
  11. SF is one of the few US cities where you will be fine using only public transit. If you tell ppl in other US cities that you ride the bus, they will think you are a homeless person. OTOH, in SF, even stockbrokers, executives, etc. use public transit. SF is like that bc it is a very compact city. LA is really spread out and without a car, you are seriously crippled.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers