Commute from Oakland to Palo Alto (San Lorenzo: live in, work, drive)

[Rs732]

I'm going to try the commute myself if it's too horrendous than I might have to consider other options. Maybe,working in Oakland or moving to the outskirts of SF near the 101.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Rs732

My commute during peak hours is already 75 mins to 90 mins,and traffic is just as bad on the 101. Thus,it sounds like my commute might be the same but closer to the 90 minute mark. My job is fairly flexible,so I won't be doing much commuting during peak hours in the morning. Hmm,maybe I'll stay with a friend that lives in Oakland for a couple of days,and see how the commute is for myself. Maybe,outer SF might be more doable?

San Mateo would not be much of a difference than living in San Jose. I miss being in walking distance from places to dine,night life,etc...

As one (early 30's male) who lives in downtown San Mateo and rarely drives (I walk, bike, or take the train pretty much everywhere), you can do most of the things you can do in walkable parts of Oakland or in many SF neighborhoods. You have pretty much any amenity you need in downtown, so if that's your hold up, maybe you should take a look? I used to visit my brother via BART in Berkeley/Oakland when he lived there for a few years (he recently moved), and I'm in SF pretty often (at least once a week).


Now, it's not a cheap area (cheaper than Palo Alto/Menlo Park...but pretty much everything else is...) - but if you can afford it, it's a great area. And is an easy enough commute to PA. If your job is near Caltrain, that is ideal, but 280 is a pretty easy drive (although, it's more clogged than it used to be). I used to work at Stanford and commuted from there for ~5 years before changing jobs to a position in SSF.


Redwood City is worth a look, too - similar amenities, and its downtown has come a long way from where it was.


Oakland is going to be a hellish commute and is not worth it. I used to live in Alameda when I first moved to the region, and commuted to Stanford...I couldn't take it, and that was in recession-era traffic of 2010! A "good" day (I'd always leave after 9 AM) would be ~1 hour and 15 min one way. That has to be much worse now. Good luck today...


SF to PA commute, while doable, is kind of annoying. I lived in the Inner Richmond area for a bit while working at Stanford, and I never enjoyed the commute. I actually drove more when I lived in SF than I do in San Mateo. The reason for this is because there is no good public transit option to PA from that part of SF. I would have to get myself down to 4th and King, and that was like a 30-45 min bus ride, or a 30 min bike ride...I could almost drive to PA in that time, so I'd just drive. Although, traffic has gotten considerably heavier since this time, so I imagine the commute is more like an hour (at least) now (Park Presidio -> 19th Ave -> 280 -> Sand Hill).

SF is great to live in, but you'll find yourself driving a lot if you live there...you could have a more "urban life" in a peninsula downtown by comparison. Odd to think about, I know.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Rs732

You worked in San Mateo and lived in Oakland, and the commute was about 60-75 mins?

Yup. That was a few years ago. When I started it was 40 minutes in the morning and 50-60 in the evening. And it kept escalating each month. Getting out of Hayward is at least 20 minutes. When I worked there it was 30 minutes in the AM and 45 in the PM.

[calicoastal]

Originally Posted by Rs732

I'm bored and tired of living here. San Jose lacks a lot of everything unless you're into dinning at chain restaurants that you have drive across town to visit. Also,a majority of my friends still live in SF/Oakland.

My point was, there are closer places to to your job than Oakland that are just as walkable, not necessarily where you are now in San Jose (e.g. San Mateo, Palo Alto, Burlingame, even SF). But if you want to live near your friends, that's a different motive for moving that you didn't mention before.

Anyway, good luck, I'd be interested to hear what your commute experience is. Perhaps if you time it right it will work out for you.

[04kL4nD]

Honestly, as nice as Oakland is, I just don't think the commute from PA is worth it. How old are you? Do you want to go out drinking every night after work? I'm 32 and winding down in my need to go out and be a social butterfly after work, so after a long day and sitting in traffic, I hardly go out during the week anymore, whereas when I first lived in JLS I'd go out after work pretty regularly for a bite to eat or a drink.

I know San Mateo isn't quite as hip or exciting, but it's still a lot better than other options like Hayward, San Jose, Fremont, Sunnyvale, etc. Redwood City isn't half bad either, but San Mateo is clearly a much bigger step up.

I think you should put the commute to the test, but don't do it just once or twice- it's too small of a sample size. Also, remember that traffic is actually a bit lighter now since school is out, so you're not sharing as much freeway space with people who will return to the grind in the Fall.

[SportyandMisty]

Just live in Palo Alto and bike to work.

[artemis78]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Honestly, as nice as Oakland is, I just don't think the commute from PA is worth it. How old are you? Do you want to go out drinking every night after work? I'm 32 and winding down in my need to go out and be a social butterfly after work, so after a long day and sitting in traffic, I hardly go out during the week anymore, whereas when I first lived in JLS I'd go out after work pretty regularly for a bite to eat or a drink.

I know San Mateo isn't quite as hip or exciting, but it's still a lot better than other options like Hayward, San Jose, Fremont, Sunnyvale, etc. Redwood City isn't half bad either, but San Mateo is clearly a much bigger step up.

I think you should put the commute to the test, but don't do it just once or twice- it's too small of a sample size. Also, remember that traffic is actually a bit lighter now since school is out, so you're not sharing as much freeway space with people who will return to the grind in the Fall.

This is an important point--it's actually considerably lighter on 580 through Oakland this time of year (can't speak to that stretch of 880 since I don't drive that regularly enough to compare). You'll need to test it in September to get a true sense of it.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

As one (early 30's male) who lives in downtown San Mateo and rarely drives (I walk, bike, or take the train pretty much everywhere), you can do most of the things you can do in walkable parts of Oakland or in many SF neighborhoods. You have pretty much any amenity you need in downtown, so if that's your hold up, maybe you should take a look? I used to visit my brother via BART in Berkeley/Oakland when he lived there for a few years (he recently moved), and I'm in SF pretty often (at least once a week).


Now, it's not a cheap area (cheaper than Palo Alto/Menlo Park...but pretty much everything else is...) - but if you can afford it, it's a great area. And is an easy enough commute to PA. If your job is near Caltrain, that is ideal, but 280 is a pretty easy drive (although, it's more clogged than it used to be). I used to work at Stanford and commuted from there for ~5 years before changing jobs to a position in SSF.


Redwood City is worth a look, too - similar amenities, and its downtown has come a long way from where it was.


Oakland is going to be a hellish commute and is not worth it. I used to live in Alameda when I first moved to the region, and commuted to Stanford...I couldn't take it, and that was in recession-era traffic of 2010! A "good" day (I'd always leave after 9 AM) would be ~1 hour and 15 min one way. That has to be much worse now. Good luck today...


SF to PA commute, while doable, is kind of annoying. I lived in the Inner Richmond area for a bit while working at Stanford, and I never enjoyed the commute. I actually drove more when I lived in SF than I do in San Mateo. The reason for this is because there is no good public transit option to PA from that part of SF. I would have to get myself down to 4th and King, and that was like a 30-45 min bus ride, or a 30 min bike ride...I could almost drive to PA in that time, so I'd just drive. Although, traffic has gotten considerably heavier since this time, so I imagine the commute is more like an hour (at least) now (Park Presidio -> 19th Ave -> 280 -> Sand Hill).

SF is great to live in, but you'll find yourself driving a lot if you live there...you could have a more "urban life" in a peninsula downtown by comparison. Odd to think about, I know.

I'll add to this, OP:

Visit all of the cities around Palo Alto, particularly their downtowns. You'll find many are pretty active and have many of the amenities you would find in an Oakland or SF neighborhood. And you'll be much closer to work (this is a really big deal if you want to maintain a good QOL). You might even be able to walk/bike/take the train - all better/easier than driving through traffic (especially if you have to cross a bridge).


I love Oakland and SF - but I'm not sure they are worth it if your job is in PA.

But only you can be the judge of this. Check out Mountain View, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Mateo (downtown, but look at Hillsdale, too - an up-and-coming area), Burlingame (downtown). The further north you go on the peninsula, the easier it is for you to get to SF (Caltrain/BART) and Oakland (BART).

None of those cities are cheap - but if you're open to living in SF, price must not be a big issue for you. Bad assumption?

[04kL4nD]

Mountain View is crazy expensive, Palo Alto is even more expensive, and Menlo Park is kinda meh for what you get. I think San Mateo is more interesting and fun than Burlingame, but it all comes down to preferences. OP never said where they wanted to live in Oakland though, so that would help narrow it down. If they want Uptown, I could see living in Mountain View if money isn't that big of an object. If they want Rockridge, I could see Burlingame working. If they Temescal, nothing on the peninsula comes to mind. If they want Fruitvale, RWC would work.

As for the City? Well, you have way more options and choices, but anywhere in the Avenues is going to be pretty different than any lively areas of the Peninsula, aside from the Inner Richmond/Sunset where it's more walkable.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Mountain View is crazy expensive, Palo Alto is even more expensive, and Menlo Park is kinda meh for what you get. I think San Mateo is more interesting and fun than Burlingame, but it all comes down to preferences. OP never said where they wanted to live in Oakland though, so that would help narrow it down. If they want Uptown, I could see living in Mountain View if money isn't that big of an object. If they want Rockridge, I could see Burlingame working. If they Temescal, nothing on the peninsula comes to mind. If they want Fruitvale, RWC would work.

As for the City? Well, you have way more options and choices, but anywhere in the Avenues is going to be pretty different than any lively areas of the Peninsula, aside from the Inner Richmond/Sunset where it's more walkable.

I agree with your post, especially the bolded.

But if the OP is actually considering living in SF (more expensive than all of those places except for maybe PA and Menlo Park), then he/she should at least look at them.


There's a reason I chose downtown San Mateo (even after living in SF for a while) when my job was in PA. It is a great compromise on location (near SF, near silicon valley jobs, fairly easy to get to the East Bay), cost, and liveliness/walkability.

But I don't know the OP's preferences.