Best City/state for a first time solo visitor to the US

Travel Forums North America Best City/state for a first time solo visitor to the US

Page
Last Post
1. Posted by puma_085 (Budding Member 15 posts) 2y 1 Star this if you like it!

I am a 36 year old guy from Austria that is planning to visit the states in 2022 or 23. It depends on how the situation with the pandemic turns out.

My interests are vast and cannot be covered in one trip I am aware of that. So I hope that I will be able to visit the states more than once in my life.

I am interested in big cities, like New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco. As a history buff I am also into us cities with historical significance like Waschington DC. Big natural sights like the Rocky Mointains would also be on bucky list.

Budget wise 2 to 3 weeks should be realistic.

Which city or state according to my interests would you guys recommend as the best starting point for a newbie concerning US state travel?

Would be pleased hearing a few tipps.

Thanks for the help in Advance

2. Posted by zzlangerhans (Travel Guru 564 posts) 2y 1 Star this if you like it!

Unless you're visiting in winter I would rent a car and make a driving loop through Boston, Philadelphia, New York City, and Washington DC. More than enough stuff there for three weeks and a chance to see some rural areas as well. If you need to go in winter I would consider doing California instead.

3. Posted by leics2 (Travel Guru 6795 posts) 2y 2 Star this if you like it!

I'd advise much the same as Zzlangerhans though I'd use the train rather than drive. You certainly don't want to take a car into the city centres, imo.

You might think about getting the train from New York to Philadelphia & Washington then taking the train to Boston (the most 'historical' US city I've visited) maybe stopping off in e.g. New Haven (Yale + lots of history in the surrounding area...a surprising number of small-town cemeteries with graves dating back to the 1600s) and renting a car to explore some Connecticut, New York state and Massachusetts countryside & small towns (I can recommend Sturbridge Old Town outdoor museum).

Alternatively...or as well....you could take the train from Boston to Chicago, one of my favourite US cities with some interesting architecture and 'historical districts'.

Train times, routes & fares: https://www.amtrak.com/home

To be frank, other than the tar pits I found LA to be pretty much devoid of what I consider 'history' (or interest), with a rather poor public transport infrastructure. You might feel otherwise, of course. SF is a fascinating city (though it has a pretty grim and glaringly obvious homelessness/poverty/drug use issue) with some lovely historical architecture (use the cable cars to see all the 'Victorians').

Think about long-distance trains too. You might think of taking the California Zephyr from Chicago to San Francisco? Or the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle? Lots of other options...see link below. Book well in advance if you want a sleeper cabin.

https://www.amtrak.com/routes.html

4. Posted by puma_085 (Budding Member 15 posts) 2y Star this if you like it!

Thanks a lot for the replies. Taking a car would also be interesting but I have to agree with leics2 that taking a train is the better option. The options Amtrak destinations are really amazing. So many vast posibilites.

@ leics2 I think so to. LA is not the first destination to think about when it is about History or historical sights. Concerning general interesting stuff though is not that bad. Visting a study tour in Hollywood would be quite cool for me as as movie fan. Or taking a stroll on the Santa Monica Pier could also be quite nice. Not sure about swimming though. I have readthat the Pacific is quite cold in California.

San Franciso would have many more things to offer when History or cultural stuff is concerned. thanks for teh warning about the darker sights of SA. I was ware about the homeless issues but it is new to me that the drug problems are going rampant.

5. Posted by Skanderbeg (Budding Member 8 posts) 2y 1 Star this if you like it!

I have lived in 9 U.S. states and traveled to all 50. I myself do not like cities; however, for an optimum combination of cities and natural wonders, I recommend California, where you have both big cities and some wonderful national parks, especially Yosemite and Sequoia.

6. Posted by leics2 (Travel Guru 6795 posts) 2y 1 Star this if you like it!

>I was ware about the homeless issues but it is new to me that the drug problems are going rampant.

Drug/alcohol problems and homelessness are very often related, everywhere. But, from my own experience, SF's homeless are more visible to the casual visitor...and visible in much larger numbers....than in e.g. Boston, Chicago or even NYC.

I must stress that I'm not suggesting homeless people automatically pose a direct threat to visitors. I'm a (cautious) late-middle-aged solo female traveller and haven't experienced any such problems myself but I do find it distressing to see so many homeless, mentally ill and/or disabled people living and/or begging on city streets in one of the richest countries in the world.

7. Posted by puma_085 (Budding Member 15 posts) 2y Star this if you like it!

leics2 I see. thanks a lot for the further information about that matter.

@ Skanderbeg Thanks a lot for your answers as well. I have to agree that the vastness of California is really impressive.

8. Posted by 55vineyard (Full Member 188 posts) 2y 1 Star this if you like it!

The homeless may be more visible in San Francisco than LA partly due to geography (LA is very spread out and the homeless are all over, no longer just on Skid Row) and partly due to the fact that in early fall, LA conducted major "sweeps" of the homeless in Venice (Boardwalk and Pier), Echo Park and Elysian Park and the West LA VA (Veterans Affairs)sidewalk. Also parts of MacArthur Park but that area is so sketchy even in daytime that a tourist is highly unlikely to go there unless by mistake.

I think LA is a great place to visit with a car, we do have public transportation but it can be very good in some areas (Downtown and Hollywood, mid-Wilshire corridor)and difficult if not impossible to visit other places (Six Flags Magic Mountain takes several hours and 2-3 transfers to reach and that is one way). Most of the public transport is buses as compared to the Metro lines.

I think for history and ease of getting around via public transport and Amtrak, the East Coast is probably a good bet. For nature, hard to beat the National Parks in Arizona and Utah, and of course Yosemite. When to visit the NPs depends on time of visit.

9. Posted by nicolaitan (Inactive 1040 posts) 2y 1 Star this if you like it!

the described train loop in the northeast not only visits great cities but also allows the option for day trips to surrounding suburban and scenic rural areas depending on season

10. Posted by puma_085 (Budding Member 15 posts) 2y Star this if you like it!

Quoting 55vineyard

The homeless may be more visible in San Francisco than LA partly due to geography (LA is very spread out and the homeless are all over, no longer just on Skid Row) and partly due to the fact that in early fall, LA conducted major "sweeps" of the homeless in Venice (Boardwalk and Pier), Echo Park and Elysian Park and the West LA VA (Veterans Affairs)sidewalk. Also parts of MacArthur Park but that area is so sketchy even in daytime that a tourist is highly unlikely to go there unless by mistake.

I think LA is a great place to visit with a car, we do have public transportation but it can be very good in some areas (Downtown and Hollywood, mid-Wilshire corridor)and difficult if not impossible to visit other places (Six Flags Magic Mountain takes several hours and 2-3 transfers to reach and that is one way). Most of the public transport is buses as compared to the Metro lines.

I think for history and ease of getting around via public transport and Amtrak, the East Coast is probably a good bet. For nature, hard to beat the National Parks in Arizona and Utah, and of course Yosemite. When to visit the NPs depends on time of visit.

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. Yes it seems logical that LA is better to visit with a car. it is good to know that are some parts ofLA that are pretty good without a car but when I I would be in California I wanted to see more than only LA. The state has many great things to offer than just one city. It has also lots of great natural sights like the Yosemite-National park.

It will be had to decide if I will pick the east or west coast. Best options are equally attractive to me to be honest. I think it will depend on the time of year I can take the trip. If I can go in autum or spring the east coast would be great. But if Winter is the only option to go California would be much better concerning weather.

Because if I am mistaken the weather in the eastern unite state states has similar cold winters than here in Austria, maybe even colder. Not the bes weather for exploring things.

in Winter the climate of California seems way more attractive.

[ Edit: Edited on 19 Dec 2021, 13:03 GMT by puma_085 ]

Page

Last Post

To reply to this thread, please login or join