to rent or not to rent....

[elegantelbow]

Poll to rent or not to rentMy last car rental was last month when I went to Austin. I rented a car for three days. I'd booked the car through Yahoo Travel. They told me that the cost would be $63 for the whole three days + $34 in taxes. Fine, $97. But, somehow, the bill came out to $261. That's because the "supplemental insurance" that I was required to buy cost about

Comments

[7ghent]

If you're staying in a relatively metropolitan city where taking a taxi is a viable option, it's really not worth the hassle. Taxis almost always end up being cheaper for intra-city transportation.

[ilcylic]

Last car rental I had was to drive to Las Vegas from San Diego. Well worth it.

But my regular insurance covered the rental, and I made sure to buy my own gas, and I had unlimited mileage.

-Ogre

[jkrissw]

I've done that sort of thing when I was living in San Diego and traveling to Arizona and back. Saves wear & tear on one's own vehicle.

[coffegrl]

it depends entirely where that new place is. I rented one on my last trip (to Kissimmee/Orlando) and it was well worth the money.
I also have one reserved for my trip to Fargo next week.
When I've been to Seattle, San Fran, or other large metro areas I don't bother.
You can decline the insurance they try to push on you, and it is always cheaper to fill the car yourself before you return it.

[lovelybones]

I drove our rental car from Alabama to North Carolina and back. Seemed worth it. ;)

[anda]

Ah. I've always had USAA (which covers rental cars, unless I misread terribly) and declined the rental insurance, and always always decline their gas - their price is usually even more expensive than the gas station just outside the airport