Live in Redwood City, work in Milpitas? (San Jose, Sunnyvale: home, living in) - California (CA) - City-Data Forum

skiranger · 11-09-2007, 07:23 AM

Hi,

I'll be starting work in Milpitas soon. I don't wanna live in surburbia, I hate the big malls and I love the big city so I'm thinking - live halfway between SF and Milpitas area. I checked up Yahoo maps, it said 27 mins commute time between Redwood City and Milpitas. Is that true even for rush hour? Someone in the forum mentioned his friend taking 1.5 hours to travel each way betwn SJ and SF so I 'm thinking 27 mins of commuting time maybe bit too optimistic!

How's life in Redwood City or Menlo Park? Are these two areas any different from Sunnyvale or Mt View? Are they more 'interesting' in terms of being closer to 'city' living? I stayed a week in the Cupertino/Sunnyvale areas and I was bored to tears.

sonarrat · 11-09-2007, 07:59 AM

That's the reverse commute, you're still going to hit some traffic on 101 going through Mountain View but once you hit 237 you should be in the clear. On the downside, public transit between these areas will be almost impossible, and the only alternative route is taking the Dumbarton Bridge to 880 (not advisable), so you will be more or less chained to that commute.

They're both, in my view, pretty sleepy suburban towns. I don't think you would be any less bored there than in Cupertino.

Palindromed · 11-13-2007, 08:08 AM

I wouldn't live in Redwood City to get to Milpitas. No way. Why bother with bridge traffic and $800+/yr in tolls? And don't even think about the getting stuck on the bridge due to a wreck. Redwood City is not SF by any means. 27 minutes is too optimistic as well. Its more like 40 minutes. Don't know what to tell you other than I'd rather live within 20 minutes on the other side of the bridge... good luck.

sonarrat · 11-13-2007, 09:17 AM

You wouldn't need to take a bridge. The shortest, and fastest, way is 101 to 237.

Palindromed · 11-13-2007, 01:24 PM

I totally disagree. Shortest != fastest. After you get off the Dumbarton, take Thorton to 880. 880/Decoto is NO GOOD. 680 south from Auto Mall is available as well in case of traffic snarls - best of both worlds. Having worked in Newark in the past, I know my way around there very well and the traffic problems. 680/880 to Milpitas is a better drive than 101 hands down!

sonarrat · 11-13-2007, 01:28 PM

You're actually recommending the Nimitz? Okay.. I'll give you that the Dumbarton Bridge itself would be OK as a reverse commute, but 880 is never a nice drive.

Palindromed · 11-13-2007, 01:45 PM

The number of times I recall sitting in bumper to bumper traffic going nowhere on 101 far exceeds those of my 880 commutes. That's no fun when you got a morning staff meeting and you arrive late! Or how about that grumpy look your spouse gives you when you arrive home for dinner! If you are talking about "nice drives" on scenery, yes 101 wins. But faster is the issue and 880 is better IF you know your way around town.

sonarrat · 11-13-2007, 02:28 PM

Well, as far as scenery, I'll take my commute on 280 five days out of five.. I was under the impression that 101 South in the morning was reverse commute but 880 South was not.. for sure, 237 East in the morning is reverse commute, I remember well trying to go west in the morning starting in Milpitas at Calaveras & Piedmont, and that was not fun!

skiranger · 11-13-2007, 11:27 PM

Thank so much for all that input! I think I'm having second thoughts now about living in Redwood City due to traffic concerns

gizmo980 · 11-17-2007, 02:13 AM

Why don't you just live in San Jose? It would be a fairly easy commute (I think), and does count as a real city - may not compare to SF, but it's more "city-like" than the other towns you've mentioned. And if you want to hang out in SF on weekends, you can hop on Caltrain & be here in an hour.