Att 2 - Final Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan — San Mateo City Council, September 22, 2026

Central
El Camino Real
Multimodal Plan
AU G
2026

STUDY FUNDED BY THE METROPOLITAN TR ANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC)

PRIORITIZED UNDER THE MTC TRANSIT PERFORMANCE INITIATIVE Cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City Frequently Used Terms
El Camino Refers to El Camino Real, State Route 82
Central Cities Refers to San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City (always listed in this order)
Central El Camino Plan Refers to Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan List of Figures
Figure 1.2. Policy Framework Themes 2
Figure 1.1. Coordinated GBI Approach 2
Figure 1.3. Countywide Initiative Motivators 3
Figure 1.4. Plan Partners 5
Figure 1.5. Central El Camino Plan Study Area 6
Figure 2.1. Trip Origin and Destination on El Camino Real by City 13 Figure 2.2. Average Trip Length in the Central Cities 15 Figure 2.3. Mode Share on El Camino Real by City 16
Figure 2.4. Collisions Along El Camino Real 19
Figure 2.5. Injury Collisions by Mode 20
Figure 2.6. Killed/Serious Injury (KSI) Crashes 20
Figure 2.7. Bus Speeds on El Camino Real (6AM to 7PM) 26 Figure 2.8. Anticipated Housing Units and Jobs along El Camino Real 28 Figure 2.9. Anticipated Job and Population Growth 28
Figure 5.1. Caltrans Project Development Process Timeline 89 Figure 5.2. Caltrans Process Approach 91
Appendices
Appendix A: Community Engagement Reports
Appendix B: Placemaking Action Plan
Appendix C: Phase 2 Alternatives and Evaluation
Appendix D: Existing Conditions
Appendix E: City of San Mateo Business Survey and Parking Analysis Table of Contents
Introduction ————————————————————————————————————— 1
Grand Boulevard Initiative 1
Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan 5
Next Steps 10
Planning Context —————————————————————————————————— 11
El Camino Real of the Past and Present 11
Understanding the Challenges 17
Policies and Previous Planning Efforts Influencing El Camino Real’s Future 29 Community Engagement ————————————————————————————— 31
Phase 1: Listening to Understand the Corridor 34
Phase 2: Discussing Alternatives with the Community 35
Phase 3: Communicating the Path Forward 37
Vision for Central El Camino Real ————————————————————————— 39 How the Vision Developed 40
Alternatives 47
Bike Connectivity 71
Spot Improvements + Placemaking Opportunities 73
Next Steps ————————————————————————————————————— 89
Caltrans Project Development Process 89
ii CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN iii Introduction
Introduction
1 Grand Boulevard Initiative
The Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI)
is a long-standing, multi-agency
partnership led by SamTrans.

GBI seeks to transform El Camino Real (State
Route 82) into a cohesive, multimodal “Grand
Boulevard” that better serves the communities
of San Mateo County. Established in 2006, GBI
brings together cities, countywide and regional
agencies, Caltrans, and community stakeholders
to align transportation, land use, and placemaking
strategies along the 25-mile corridor. GBI was
relaunched in 2025 backed by funding from
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
and local matches. The recent shifts in state and
regional policies towards safe, sustainable, and
equitable mobility have created a strong alignment
between the goals of GBI and cross-jurisdictional
priorities, introducing an opportunity to advance
the implementation of the Grand Boulevard Vision.

At its core, GBI envisions El Camino Real as a safe,
vibrant, and accessible corridor where people
of all ages and abilities can travel comfortably,
supporting a balance of walking, bicycling,
transit, and vehicle travel while enhancing
economic vitality and community identity.

Off-street bicycle lanes along
El Camino Real, where present,
encourage safe, multimodal travel.

El Camino Real and Emmett Avenue
(Belmont)
GBI Action Plan

COUNTYWIDE VISION & POLICY FRAMEWORK
Future Countywide Project
Initiation Document (PID) led in
partnership between Caltrans,
SamTrans, San Mateo County
Transportation Authority, and local
jurisdictions

CITY-LEVEL DESIGN & CONTEXT REFINEMENT
Local Corridor Studies
Central El Camino Plan

SUBAREA EFFORTS
SAFETY
Eliminate fatal and serious injury
collisions through a Safe System,
injury- prevention approach
The GBI Action Plan
establishes a clear policy
framework centered on
three core themes.

MOBILITY
Transform El
Camino Real into a
complete street that
supports walking,
biking, and transit

IMPLEMENTATION
Create a coordinated,
countywide process
to deliver
improvements
efficiently
Countywide Corridor Vision
GBI reflects the need for a coordinated, corridorwide approach to planning and implementation.

While individual cities have advanced local corridor
plans over the past two decades, El Camino Real
functions as a continuous state highway crossing
multiple jurisdictions. As such, consistent design,
policy alignment, and implementation strategies are
critical to achieving meaningful improvements. As
shown in Figure 1.1, the GBI Action Plan establishes
this unified framework and is the first step in the
Caltrans Project Review process, a countywide
Project Initiation Document (PID) led in partnership
between Caltrans, SamTrans, San Mateo County
Transportation Authority, and local jurisdictions.

The GBI Action Plan establishes a clear policy
framework centered on three core themes:
safety, mobility, and implementation. These
themes are shown in Figure 1.2 and supported
by specific actions, including prioritizing
vulnerable roadway users, advancing corridorwide bicycle and transit improvements, enhancing walkability, and establishing a coordinated
Caltrans project development process.

Figure 1.1. Coordinated GBI Approach
Figure 1.2. Policy Framework Themes
Click to
learn more
about GBI!
1 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 2 Introduction
Narrow and obstructed sidewalks along El Camino
Real limit accessible pedestrian space and create an
uncomfortable walking environment.

El Camino Real and Belmont Avenue (San Carlos)

KEY MOTIVATORS
for a Countywide Initiative

SAFETY DISPARITIES
El Camino Real sees a
disproportionate share of severe
and fatal collisions, especially
involving pedestrians and cyclists.

Although El Camino Real
represents a small share of
roadway mileage, it accounts for
far more serious injuries than
other county streets.

GROWTH PRESSURES
The corridor is a focal point for
future housing and job growth,
with tens of thousands of new
residents and employees
expected within a half-mile of El
Camino Real over the next
decade. This growth will demand
a shift toward more
space-efficient travel
modes.

NEED FOR A CONSISTENT

MULTIMODAL FRAMEWORK
Existing roadway design remains
largely auto-oriented and
inconsistent across jurisdictions,
creating barriers for walking,
biking, and transit. A unified
design framework is needed to
provide a seamless user
experience across the
corridor.

ALIGNMENT WITH

REGIONAL GOALS
The GBI vision supports broader
regional and state policies,
including greenhouse gas
reduction, transit-first principles,
equity priorities, and Complete
Streets requirements (such as
Caltrans DP-361, DP-372, and
DP-403).

The need for GBI is driven by
several interrelated challenges
and opportunities along El
Camino Real.

Collectively, these motivators
underscore the importance of a
coordinated, countywide effort
to redesign El Camino Real as a
multimodal corridor that
balances mobility, safety, and
community goals.

Figure 1.3. Countywide Initiative Motivators

1. Caltrans Director’s Policy 36, Road Safety. February 15, 2022. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safetyprograms/documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf

2. Caltrans Director’s Policy 37, Complete Streets. December 7, 2021. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/esta/ documents/complete-streets/dp-37-complete-streets-a11y.pdf

3. Caltrans Director’s Policy 40, Transit. February 6, 2026. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportationplanning/documents/division-transportation-planning/transit-planning/dp-40-transit-policy-signed-v2-a11y.pdf 3 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 4 Introduction
The Central El Camino Real Multimodal
Plan (referred to as Central El Camino
Plan) is a subarea planning effort
within the broader GBI framework,
focused on advancing a corridor vision
and developing design alternatives
for key segments of El Camino Real.

Led by SamTrans in partnership with local
jurisdictions, this effort serves as a preProject Initiation Document (PID) study that bridges city-led planning and the
Caltrans project development process.

Plan Partnerships
This effort is led by SamTrans in coordination
with the other partner agencies listed
in Figure 1.4. Funding for this effort was
provided by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), with a local match from
SamTrans, and local funds from Redwood City.

MTC prioritized the Central El Camino Plan
under their Transit Performance Initiative.

Purpose and Role within GBI
The Central El Camino Plan functions as a
visioning and alternatives development effort
that translates the countywide GBI framework
into corridor-specific design concepts. The plan
study area includes El Camino Real between
Peninsula Avenue and Brewster Avenue in the
cities of San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, and
part of Redwood City, as shown in Figure 1.5.

Key purposes include:
↘ Establishing a shared, multimodal vision
for the Central corridor segment
↘ Defining cross-section concepts
and modal priorities consistent with
GBI and Caltrans guidance
↘ Developing and refining design
alternatives for further study
↘ Informing the countywide Caltrans PID
with multiple alternatives to evaluate and
advance complete street improvements
into environmental clearance and design
Project Goals and Outcomes
The Central El Camino Plan is focused
on improving El Camino Real for people
walking, biking, and taking transit by:
↘ Creating a cohesive multimodal corridor
with continuous, connected facilities
↘ Advancing meaningful transit
priority treatments, such as transitonly lanes where appropriate ↘ Establishing low-stress bicycle facilities
that connect to the surrounding network
↘ Enhancing walkability, safety, and
access to destinations and transit
The primary outcome of the project
is the development of feasible
corridor design alternatives that:
↘ Reflect community priorities
and technical constraints
↘ Align with Caltrans policy (e.g., DIB 94
modal priority guidance4) and build
upon previous planning efforts (refer
to Chapter 2 for more details)
↘ Can be advanced into the countywide
PID for formal evaluation
This effort represents an early phase in
the Caltrans project development process,
laying the groundwork for subsequent
analysis during PID and Project Approval &
Environmental Document (PA&ED) phases.

Figure 1.5. Central El Camino Plan Study Area
42nd
Peninsula Ave.

Hillsdale Blvd.
5th Ave.

Brittan Ave.

Ralston
F St.

Crystal Springs
Edgewood
28th
Brewster Ave.

Monte Diablo Ave.
36th Ave.

Ave.

Rd.

Rd.
84 84
92 92
92 280
280
101
101
101

SAN MATEO

BELMONT

SAN CARLOS

REDWOOD CITY
0 0.5 1 Miles
El Camino Real
Central El Camino Real Multimodal Plan

4. Caltrans Design Informational Bulletin 94, January 16, 2024. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/
design/documents/dib-94-010224-a11y.pdf
Figure 1.4. Plan Partners
5 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 6 Introduction
Project Process
The Central El Camino Plan used a multistep process to develop and refine corridor alternatives, integrating technical analysis,
interagency coordination, and community
engagement to ensure that proposed designs
respond to both existing conditions and
future needs. Given the corridor’s evolution
from a regional highway to a multimodal
urban spine, and the resulting mismatch
between its current function and autooriented design, the study placed particular emphasis on addressing safety, accessibility,
transit performance, and placemaking
challenges. The alternatives development
process was designed to translate these needs
into feasible, policy-aligned design concepts
that can advance into the Caltrans project
development process for further evaluation
and future selection of preferred alternatives.

Governance and Coordination
Development of the design alternatives was
guided by a coordinated governance structure
involving the Project Team, which included
SamTrans and participating cities (San Mateo,
Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City),
and Caltrans as the owner and operator of
the corridor. Ongoing collaboration with city
staff ensured that alternatives responded to
local priorities, land use context, and existing
planning efforts. In addition, coordination with
Caltrans established alignment with current
state policies and design guidance, including
Complete Streets principles (DP-37 and SB9605
), safety-focused design standards (DB36), and transit-supportive directives (DP-40).

Engagement with city leadership, including
city managers and elected officials, provided
strategic direction and helped balance corridorwide objectives with local considerations. This coordinated approach ensured consistency
across the multi-jurisdictional corridor while
recognizing variations in segment conditions
and community priorities. It also positioned
the resulting alternatives to be feasible within
the Caltrans project development framework.

Multimodal connections to transit are
key to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Caltrain Station at El Camino Real and Ralston
Avenue (Belmont)

5. California Senate Bill 960, September 27,
2024. Planning, Complete Streets Facilities,
Transit Priority Facilities. https://leginfo.
legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_
id=202320240SB960
7 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 8 Introduction
Community Engagement
Community engagement was a key
part of the alternatives development
process, occurring in two phases
between 2025 and 2026. Phase 1
focused on understanding corridor
conditions and key issues. Through
more than a dozen activities
(pop-ups, walk audits, workshops,
and a multilingual map-based
survey), the team collected over
800 location-specific comments
and engaged more than 500
community members. This
validated known challenges, such
as safety concerns, uncomfortable
walking conditions, and unreliable
transit, while capturing new
perspectives from corridor users.

Phase 2 focused on reviewing
draft alternatives with the public.

Community members evaluated
cross-section concepts and preferred
design approaches. More than 700
survey responses and over 1,000
total interactions gave feedback
on tradeoffs between transit,
bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle
improvements. Engagement showed
strong support for safer crossings,
wider sidewalks, continuous bicycle
facilities, and more reliable transit,
while documenting concerns
about parking and vehicle
capacity. This process ensured
community priorities informed
the refinement of alternatives.

More information about community
engagement can be found in
Appendix A. The City of San Mateo
self-funded additional engagement
with businesses along El Camino
Real and a detailed parking study.

Results can be found in Appendix E.

Phase 2 engagement at
the San Carlos Library.
(San Carlos)
Technical Development of
Design Alternatives
The technical development of design
alternatives built upon the combined inputs
of existing conditions analysis, agency
coordination, and community feedback. Initial
concepts were developed as a set of cross
sections organized around modal priority:
transit-focused, pedestrian-focused, and
bicycle-focused alternatives. These concepts
were tailored to the eight distinct segments of
the corridor, reflecting variations in roadway
width, land use context, and existing conditions.

The alternatives were designed to address key
corridor challenges, including high collision
rates, limited pedestrian space, lack of bicycle
infrastructure, slow and unreliable transit
speeds, and future housing and job growth
needs. They also incorporated guidance from
Caltrans Design Information Bulletins (DIB 94
and DIB 89-02), as well as standards from the
Highway Design Manual and California MUTCD,
ensuring consistency with state requirements
for Complete Streets and separated bikeways.

Each alternative aligns with Caltrans, C/CAG,
County, and Local plans and recommendations,
and were evaluated using a multi-criteria
framework that includes the following: ↘ Alignment with Caltrans Policy ↘ Alignment with Local Policy ↘ Effect on People Walking ↘ Effect on People Biking ↘ Effect on People Riding Transit ↘ Effect on People Driving and Parking ↘ Effect on the Environment ↘ Addressing Community Input This evaluation and subsequent community
feedback informed a refined set of three
corridor-wide alternatives for advancement.

The City of San Mateo retained one additional
alternative that maintains existing cross section
with spot improvements. These alternatives
represent different approaches to balancing
transit efficiency, pedestrian and bicycle
comfort, and roadway operations, and will be
further analyzed during the Caltrans project
development process to assess feasibility, safety
outcomes, and implementation considerations.

Next Steps
SamTrans will lead the Caltrans project
development process that will involve
further analysis, design, engagement, and
evaluation of potential changes, including the
identification of a preferred design alternative
estimated to occur in 2027 to 2028. Depending
on funding, construction could begin on
some segments in the early 2030s. In parallel,
incremental improvements to El Camino
Real will continue to be pursued by Caltrans,
SamTrans, SMCTA, and cities. More details
on Next Steps can be found in Chapter 5.

The Grand Boulevard Initiative will
track progress toward advancing project
designs, facilitating public engagement,
and advancing key performance
indicators. For more information and
updates on the Grand Boulevard Initiative,
please visit: samtrans.com/gbi.
9 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 10 Planning Context
Planning Context
2 El Camino Real of
the Past and Present
El Camino Real, owned and
operated by Caltrans, is a
regionally important corridor.

Stretching north into San Francisco and
south into Santa Clara County, the corridor
has evolved over centuries, from Indigenous
travel routes connecting Ramaytush Ohlone
communities, to the Spanish mission road
system, and ultimately into a paved state
highway. The later construction of US101 and Interstate 280 shifted El Camino Real away from its historic role as the
Peninsula’s primary regional highway.

El Camino Real was designed as a highway and
has remained largely unchanged for decades.

El Camino Real and Hillsdale Avenue in 1963 (San Mateo) Photo Courtesy of Norton Pearl Photography / San Mateo
County Historical Association
11 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 12 Planning Context
As regional vehicle traffic moved to the
freeway network, El Camino Real shifted its
purpose from a regional highway oriented
towards moving cars to a more locally
focused street serving commercial hubs
and downtowns. Within the Central Cities,
the corridor functions as a continuous
urban spine connecting neighborhoods,
businesses, schools, civic destinations,
and transit hubs across San Mateo,
Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City.

The full Central El Camino Real Needs
Assessment is included in Appendix D.

Today, El Camino Real serves many roles
simultaneously. The study corridor spans
approximately eight and a half miles in the
study area and contains eight segments with
varying width, land use, and urban character.

Much of the roadway remains designed
to prioritize vehicle throughput, generally
consisting of four to six travel lanes with
limited pedestrian space and minimal bicycle
infrastructure. Refer to Chapter 4 for more
details on existing cross-sectional elements
for each segment of the study corridor.

People traveling on El Camino Real tend
to use the street to access destinations
within the same city or in an adjacent city,
as shown in Figure 2.1. This demonstrates
the street’s role as a local connector and
underscores the opportunity to shift trips
to travel by bicycle, walking, and transit for
shorter trips. Some trips travel elsewhere
in the county, and only a small portion
of trips (under 15 percent) use El Camino
Real to travel outside of the county.

Today, El Camino Real in San Mateo has
six travel lanes and narrow sidewalks.

El Camino Real north of 24th Avenue (San Mateo)
Figure 2.1. Trip Origin and Destination on El Camino Real by City Within the
Same City
Between
Adjacent Cities
Elsewhere
in County
Elsewhere
in Region
San Mateo
Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
Percentage %
44 13
37 34
22 42
23 22
25 31
32 29
8 14
8 14
Trip Origin and Destination on El Camino Real show that trips are most often within the same city or between adjacent cities. Replica, 2024.
13 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 14 Planning Context
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
San Mateo
Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
Private Vehicle Transit Commercial Walk/Bike
89%
87%
87%
87%
8%
2%
11% 2%
10% 3%
7%
1%
5% 1%
Figure 2.3. Mode Share on El Camino Real by City
The share of person trips demonstrates that travel by private vehicle (including carpool) is the most dominate mode today. Source: Replica, 2024.

At the same time, the corridor functions as
one of the county’s most important transit and
commercial corridors. SamTrans’ bus Route
ECR operates along the full length of the
study area and is one of the highest-ridership
bus routes in San Mateo County. Much of the
corridor runs parallel to Caltrain, with several
stations located directly adjacent to El Camino
Real or within a quarter mile. The surrounding
land use context ranges from low-density
residential neighborhoods to higher-density
mixed-use and commercial districts, notably
bisecting or directly connecting the historic
downtown cores of the Central Cities.

The average trip length in the Central Cities
ranges from six to eight miles, as shown in
Figure 2.2, which is typically served by transit or
vehicle. The largest share of trips on El Camino
Real are made by car, around 88 percent,
followed by transit, hovering around 9 percent
of trips, with the breakdown by city shown in
Figure 2.3. Very few trips today are made by
walking and bicycling, due to the lack of safe
and accessible infrastructure for these modes.

Existing sidewalks are uncomfortable and
stressful due to lack of shade and proximity
to high volume, high speed vehicle traffic.

State law,6 regional planning, and local
planning efforts increasingly identify El Camino
Real as a focus area for future housing and
mixed-use growth. Priority Development Areas
located throughout the corridor are expected
to accommodate additional residents, jobs,
and commercial activity in transit-accessible
locations. As growth continues, El Camino
Real is expected to function not only as a
transportation corridor, but also as an urban
boulevard and public space that supports
placemaking and safe and convenient
travel for people using all modes. This aligns
with Caltrans’ own policy direction, which
now requires that transportation projects
on the state highway system deliver safe,
comfortable, and connected facilities for people
walking, biking, and riding transit, as part of
a broader commitment to eliminating traffic
fatalities and serious injuries and fostering
thriving, socially vibrant communities.7,8,9
0 5 10
San Mateo 7.9

7.8 7.5

6.5 Belmont
San Carlos
Redwood City
Median Trip Length (Miles)
Figure 2.2. Average Trip Length
in the Central Cities
Trip lengths in the Central Cities ranges from six to eight miles. Source: Replica, Spring 2024.

6. Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), 2025: https://leginfo.legislature. ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79

7. Caltrans Director’s Policy (DP-36), 2022: https://dot. ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/
documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf

8. Caltrans Director’s Policy (DP-37), 2021: https://dot. ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/esta/documents/
complete-streets/dp-37-complete-streets-a11y.pdf

9. Caltrans Director’s Policy (DP-40), 2026: https://dot. ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/
dib-94-010224-a11y.pdf
The vehicle-heavy mode share
is influenced by design that
prioritizes cars over other
modes of travel.

El Camino Real and SR 92 (San Mateo)
While the role of El Camino Real has
evolved significantly over time, much of the
corridor’s physical design still reflects an
auto-oriented highway intended primarily
to move vehicles efficiently through the
Peninsula. This mismatch between the
corridor’s current function and its historic
design creates many of the transportation
and public realm challenges that exist today.
15 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 16 Planning Context
Safety
In Central County alone, more than five
people are killed or suffer life-altering
injuries on El Camino Real each year.

Pedestrian Experience
Sidewalks along El Camino Real are
typically less than six feet wide and
utility poles, signal infrastructure,
and other obstructions further limit
accessible pedestrian space, particularly
for people using mobility devices.

Transit Reliability
Route ECR currently experiences slow
operating speeds and unreliable service
throughout much of the study area,
with evening peak-period travel speeds
often falling below 15 miles per hour.

Bicycle Accessibility
There are no existing bicycle
facilities along El Camino Real in
Central County, except a one block
stretch near Belmont Station.

Future Growth
The corridor’s current auto-oriented
layout is not compatible with plans for
higher density development in the area.

Understanding
the Challenges
El Camino Real as it exists
today is falling short of meeting
the needs of the Region.

The existing design of El Camino Real
reflects transportation priorities of the
mid-20th century, when the corridor
primarily functioned as a regional
highway focused on automobile
movement. Today, however, the corridor
serves a fundamentally different role: a
multimodal urban corridor that must
safely accommodate transit riders,
pedestrians, bicyclists, local businesses,
and growing residential communities.

As travel patterns, land uses, and
transportation priorities continue
to evolve, the corridor increasingly
falls short of local and regional
goals related to safety, accessibility,
sustainability, transit performance,
and placemaking. Understanding the
existing challenges along El Camino
Real is critical to identifying corridor
improvements that better align the
roadway with its current and future role.

CHALLENGES ALONG EL CAMINO REAL Even where off-street bicycle paths exist, bicyclists still must cross
uncomfortable intersections along El
Camino Real.

El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue (Belmont)
17 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 18 Planning Context
El Camino Real has one of the highest
concentrations of serious injury and fatal
collisions in San Mateo County. Despite
accounting for only a small percentage of
the county’s roadway network, the corridor
experiences a disproportionately high number
of fatal and severe injury collisions, mapped
in Figure 2.4. In Central County alone, more
than five people are killed or suffer lifealtering injuries on El Camino Real each year.

Collision data from 2019 to 2023 in Figure

2.5 shows that people walking and biking
are disproportionately involved in injury
collisions along El Camino Real compared
to people traveling in vehicles. Severe injury
and fatal crashes, shown in Figure 2.6, are
also more likely to occur at intersections
where long crossing distances, high turning
volumes, and complex vehicle movements
create challenging conditions for all modes.

Unsafe speeds and failure to obey traffic
signals are among the most common factors
contributing to injury collisions along the
corridor. Rear-end, broadside, and vehiclepedestrian collisions are the most common crash types. Redesigning the street with
improvements that reduce vehicle speeds,
reduce conflict points, and separate modes with
comfortable facilities are critical to improving
safety outcomes along El Camino Real.

In San Mateo, 144 collisions resulted in
injury between 2019 and 2023, including 11
fatal or severe injury collisions. The highest
concentration of collisions occurred in
downtown San Mateo and near the State
Route 92 interchange. Belmont experienced
36 injury collisions, including two severe injury
collisions, while San Carlos and Redwood City
experienced 94 injury collisions, including
13 fatal or severe injury crashes. Collision
concentrations in these communities are
particularly high south of Arroyo Avenue.

Figure 2.4. Collisions Along El Camino Real
42nd
Peninsula Ave.

Hillsdale Blvd.
5th Ave.

Ralston
F St.

Edgewood
28th
Brewster Ave.

Monte Diablo Ave.
36th Ave.

Ave.

Rd.

Crystal Springs Rd.

Brittan Ave.
84 84
92 92
92 280
280
101
101
101
All Collisions (2019 - 2023)
Killed/Serious Injury (KSI) Collisions
Non-KSI Collisions

SAN MATEO

BELMONT

SAN CARLOS

REDWOOD CITY
0 0.5 1 Miles
Collisions were concentrated in downtown San Mateo,
near the State Route 92 interchange, and in San Carlos
and Redwood City south of Arroyo Avenue. Source: TIMS,
2023.

Concentration of Severe Collisions
77%
4%
17%
2%
Bicycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Auto KSI Non-KSI
8%
92% 77%
4%
17%
2%
Bicycle Pedestrian Motorcycle Auto KSI Non-KSI
8%
92%
Figure 2.5. Injury Collisions by Mode Figure 2.6. Killed/Serious Injury (KSI) Crashes On January 26, 2026, a vehicle and
pedestrian collision resulted in a
pedestrian fatality at the intersection of
El Camino Real and 17th Avenue in San
Mateo, underscoring the ongoing safety
challenges present along the corridor.

El Camino Real and 17th Avenue (San Mateo)
Bicycles and pedestrians account for 19% of injury
collisions despite comprising 2% of all trips on El Camino.

Source: TIMS, 2019-2023.

More than 80% of KSI collisions occurred at
intersections.

Source: TIMS, 2019-2023.
19 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 20 Planning Context
Uncomfortable Pedestrian
Environment
Many segments of El Camino Real provide an
uncomfortable, inaccessible, and uninviting
environment for people walking. Sidewalks
are typically less than six feet wide and
utility poles, signal infrastructure, curb
cuts, and other obstructions further limit
accessible pedestrian space, particularly
for people using mobility devices. Large
portions of the corridor lack street trees,
landscaping, or shade infrastructure,
creating uncomfortable walking conditions
during warm weather and reinforcing the
corridor’s highway-oriented character.

Many side-street intersections are stopcontrolled and do not have pedestrian crossings, making it harder for people to
access businesses, housing, transit stops, and
Caltrain stations. At signalized intersections,
long crossing distances, auto-oriented signal
timing, and reduced visibility for pedestrians
create additional barriers to walking.

Although El Camino Real serves many
commercial districts, transit stops, and
downtown destinations, the poor quality
Long crossing distances increase
exposure for people walking.

El Camino Real and Chestnut Street
(Redwood City)
of the pedestrian environment often
discourages walking and limits the corridor’s
potential to function as an active and
vibrant public space. This characteristic
separates communities, making it harder
to access one side from the other.

Outreach to community members gathered
input on concerns and opportunities for El
Camino Real.

Many community
members had the
same key concern
for the corridor:

Others also
commented on
the need to
shorten crossing
distances and
improve visibility
for people walking.
“Sidewalks are too
narrow... and this is a
scary crosswalk!”
“Cars need to be able
to see pedestrians,
and pedestrians need
to have adequate
time to cross.”
Streetlights, telephone poles, and
other utility conflicts block pedestrian
through zones.

El Camino Real and 4th Avenue (San Mateo)
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 1 and 2 online surveys. 21 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 22 Planning Context
Lack of Bicycle Facilities
and Connections
There are no existing bicycle facilities along El
Camino Real in Central County, except a one
block stretch adjacent to the Belmont Caltrain
Station. Bicycles are required to ride in mixed
traffic flow with vehicles lanes, but with four
to six vehicle lanes and posted speed limit of
35 miles per hour, bicycles cannot safely or
comfortably share the street. Bicyclists have
been observed using the sidewalks along
El Camino Real, which are narrow and have
frequent utility poles that reduce the usable
space and create conflicts with people walking.

The bicycle network on parallel city streets
is fragmented or often nonexistent, leaving
people who want to access the businesses,
housing, and transit connection on El Camino
Real via bike limited in their options.

Crossing El Camino Real on a bike can be
equally challenging. The existing crossings
are long with a high volume of conflicting
vehicle movements and lack features that
separate bicycles in time in space such as
protected intersections and bicycle signals.

El Camino Real is a barrier for bicyclists both
on the corridor itself and for east/west travel.

People biking along El Camino Real
must ride next to high volume, high
speed vehicle traffic.

El Camino Real and State Route 92 (San
Mateo)
23 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 24 Planning Context
Deteriorating Bus Speed
and Reliability
El Camino Real is one of the most important
transit corridors in San Mateo County and
serves as the backbone of the SamTrans
network through Route ECR. Despite strong
ridership and frequent service, transit
operations along the corridor face ongoing
challenges related to speed, reliability, and
rider experience. The average weekday
bus speed is shown in Figure 2.7.

Transit performance is constrained by
roadway congestion, near-side stops,
limited transit priority measures, and
signal timing that prioritizes vehicle
throughput over bus operations. Existing
curbside bus stop configurations often
require buses to merge back into traffic
after stopping, further contributing to
delay and unreliable travel times.

As a result, Route ECR currently experiences
slow operating speeds throughout much of
the study area, with evening peak-period travel
speeds often falling below 15 miles per hour.

The El Camino Real Bus Speed and Reliability
Study (2022) estimated that transit lanes would
improve peak hour travel times by 10 minutes
northbound and 12 minutes southbound along
Route ECR. 10 If vehicle congestion worsens with
increased demand, bus speed and reliability
would continue to deteriorate. Improving
transit speed and reliability will be essential to
accommodating future growth while reducing
dependence on private vehicle travel.

10. Samtrans, El Camino Real Bus Speed and Reliability
Study, 2022: https://www.samtrans.com/media/25336/
download?inlinepdf
84 84
92 92
92 280
280
101
101
101
Weekday Average Speed (mph)
≤10
>10 to 15
>15 to 20
>20 to 25

SAN MATEO

BELMONT

SAN CARLOS

REDWOOD CITY
0 0.5 1 Miles
42nd
Peninsula Ave.

Hillsdale Blvd.
5th Ave.

Brittan Ave.

Ralston
F St.

Crystal Springs
Edgewood
28th
Brewster Ave.

Monte Diablo Ave.
36th Ave.

Ave.

Rd.

Figure 2.7. Bus Speeds on El Camino Real
(6AM to 7PM)
Average weekday bus speeds are largely lower than 15
miles per hour in the Central Cities. Source: El Camino Real Bus Speed and Reliability Study (2022).

Route ECR provides bus service along
El Camino Real.

El Camino Real and 5th Avenue (San Mateo)
25 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 26 Planning Context
A Street That Can’t Absorb
Expected Growth
El Camino Real is expected to accommodate
substantial housing and mixed-use growth
over the coming decades as shown in
Figures 2.8 and 2.9. Throughout the study
area, many parcels along the corridor are
designated as Priority Development Areas
intended to support transit-oriented housing,
employment, and commercial activity.

As more people live, work, shop, and travel
along the corridor, the current roadway
configuration becomes increasingly
incompatible with the surrounding land use
context. A corridor designed primarily to
maximize vehicle throughput at the expense
of other modes is not an efficient, safe, or
effective way to move large numbers of people
within a dense, mixed-use urban environment.

Accommodating future growth will require
a corridor that safely and efficiently moves
significantly more people, not simply more
vehicles. Achieving this shift will require greater
emphasis on walkability, safer crossings, highquality transit service, bicycle connectivity, and a more comfortable public realm that
supports short local trips and multimodal
travel throughout Central County.

Auto-oriented design presents
a challenge for future job and
housing growth.

El Camino Real and Hillsdale Boulevard
(San Mateo)
Current Jobs
Job Growth
Current Population
Population Growth
0 10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
San
Mateo
Belmont
San
Carlos
Redwood
City
+10%
+10%
+64%
+22%
+5%
+9%
+107%
+15%
84 92
92 92
280
280
101
101
101

SAN MATEO

BELMONT

SAN CARLOS

REDWOOD CITY
0 0.5 1 Miles
50 10,000
1,000
200
Housing Units
Jobs
Job growth assumes 1 employee per 250 sq ft planned commercial 42nd
Peninsula Ave.

Hillsdale Blvd.
5th Ave.

Brittan Ave.

Ralston
F St.

Crystal Springs
Edgewood
28th
Brewster Ave.

Monte Diablo Ave.
36th Ave.

Ave.

Rd.

Figure 2.8. Anticipated Housing Units
and Jobs along El Camino Real
Figure 2.9. Anticipated Job and Population
Growth within a Half Mile of El Camino Real
The Central Cities are expected to accommodate
substantial housing and mixed-use growth along El
Camino Real in the coming decades. Source: Fehr & Peers, based on a review of individual city Housing Elements and development pipelines in Fall 2024.

To calculate job growth, Fehr & Peers estimated a new
job for every 250 SF of commerical/office development. To calculate population growth, Fehr & Peers estimated two new residents for every projected housing unit. Source:

Fehr & Peers, based on a review of individual city Housing Elements and development pipelines in Fall 2024.
27 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 28 Planning Context
Policies and Previous Planning Efforts
Influencing El Camino Real’s Future
Recent statewide policies have
reshaped how Caltrans approaches
projects on El Camino Real
and other state highways.

Through DP-36, DP-37, and DP-40, Caltrans
has committed to reducing fatal and serious
injury crashes, creating Complete Streets
that serve people of all ages and abilities, and
improving transit travel times and reliability.

These policies recognize that state highways
in urban areas often function as community
streets and should support walking, biking,
and transit in addition to driving. The Central El
Camino Plan reflects this direction by exploring
ways to improve safety, to provide comfortable
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and to support
faster and more reliable transit service.

Regional and corridor-wide plans reinforce
the need for a multimodal El Camino Real.

Caltrans District 4’s Bike Plan, Pedestrian Plan,
and Bay Area Transit Plan all identify El Camino
Real as an important connection between
homes, jobs, schools, community centers, and
regional transit. The SamTrans Bus Speed
and Reliability Study identifies Route ECR as
a priority corridor for transit improvements
and recommends strategies to reduce delay
and improve reliability. These efforts shape
the Plan’s focus on creating safer and more
connected travel options while improving
transit performance along the study area.

Separated bicycle facilities connect El Camino
Real to the Caltrain station in Belmont, making
it easier for people to access the businesses
without a car.

El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue (Belmont)
The Central Cities share a common vision for El
Camino Real. Key priorities include improving
safety through safer crossings and lower
vehicle speeds, creating a more comfortable
walking environment with wider sidewalks
and additional street trees, expanding bicycle
connectivity through continuous low-stress
facilities, and improving transit speed and
reliability along the Route ECR corridor. These
shared priorities reflect a coordinated effort to
make El Camino Real a multimodal corridor
that better serves existing and future needs.

Local planning efforts in Belmont, San Carlos,
Redwood City, and San Mateo informed
the vision for El Camino Real. The Belmont
Village Specific Plan, San Carlos Downtown
Specific Plan and Streetscape Master Plan,
and Redwood City’s El Camino Real Corridor
Plan call for cross-section changes to
integrate street trees and a more welcoming
public realm. The City of San Mateo’s Transit
Oriented Development Pedestrian Access
Plan, Local Road Safety Plan, and Bicycle
Master Plan identify spot improvements for
El Camino Real. Community feedback from
these efforts emphasized making El Camino
Real easier and more comfortable to walk,
bike, and access by transit. The Central El
Camino Plan builds on these local priorities
while creating a coordinated vision across
city boundaries, supporting the broader
goals of the Grand Boulevard Initiative.
“All transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit.” - Caltrans Director’s Policy 37, Complete Streets
29 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 30 Community Engagement
Community
Engagement
3 The Central El Camino Plan conducted two phases
of community engagement between 2025 and 2026.

Engagement activities gathered input from corridor
users, residents, businesses, advocacy organizations,
and historically underrepresented communities to help
shape the Plan’s understanding of existing conditions and needs and shape the future corridor. Refer to Appendix
A for detailed summaries of engagement activities.
4 languages used in outreach material
1,500+ project feedback comments
1,500+ community member touchpoints
22 engagement activities
Hello
Hola привет
你好
31 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 32 Community Engagement
Phase 1: Listening to Understand the Corridor
Phase 1 engagement was performed
to understand existing corridor
conditions, identify transportation
and safety concerns, and build
awareness of the planning process.

Activities occurred between May and August
2025 and the engagement process sought to
confirm issues previously identified in local
planning efforts while collecting new input
from corridor users and communities not
previously engaged. Key questions focused
on how people travel along El Camino Real,
where safety concerns exist, and what types
of improvements community members
would like to see along the corridor.

Outreach materials and surveys were provided
in multiple languages, including English,
Spanish, simplified Chinese, and Russian, to
improve accessibility and broaden participation.

The Phase 1 engagement program
included a wide range of outreach:
↘ 12 engagement events (3 pop-up
events, 3 virtual listening sessions,
3 walk audits, 3 meetings with
community-based organizations)
↘ An online map-based survey
↘ 5 presentations to community
groups and advisory bodies
↘ More than 500 interactions
with community members
↘ Over 800 location-specific comments
related to walking, biking, transit,
driving, and safety conditions
Phase 1 Engagement Fourth of
July Pop-up Event at Central Park
(San Mateo)
Phase 1 Engagement Walk Audit
(San Carlos)
Phase 1 Engagement Pop-up
Event at Caltrain Station
(San Carlos)
“Sidewalks [are] too narrow in
front of businesses.”
(San Mateo)
“A bus only lane would
benefit all who rely on
SamTrans to get to work or
appointments on time.”
(Redwood City)
“It’s essential to have
protected bike lanes and
dedicated bus lanes.”
(Belmont)
“Stretches of El Camino Real
going north from San Carlos
Station...need additional
crosswalks.”
(San Carlos)
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 1 online survey.
33 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 34 Community Engagement
Phase 2: Discussing
Alternatives with
the Community
The Plan conducted Phase 2
engagement to gather feedback
on draft corridor alternatives
and improvement concepts
developed through the technical
analysis and Phase 1 input.

In Phase 2, which occurred between January
and March 2026, community members
chose their preferred street design for El
Camino Real in each city and shared what
improvements they most want to see.

Engagement materials were again
provided in English, Spanish, and simplified
Chinese to support broad participation.

Phase 2 engagement included the
following outreach activities:
↘ 8 engagement events (3 pop-up
events, 3 virtual listening sessions,
an in-person Spanish-language
community-based organization
meeting, and a virtual workshop)
↘ An online survey
↘ Business outreach efforts
↘ 9 presentations to community
groups and advisory bodies
↘ More than 1,000 interactions
with community members
↘ Over 700 survey responses related
to safety improvements on El Camino
Real and transportation preferences
Phase 2 Engagement CommunityBased Organization Meeting with Peninsula Family Service
(San Mateo)
“Dedicated bus lanes
would improve transit
reliability.”
(San Mateo)
“I chose [the bicycle alternative]
because bicycles are already
on El Camino and they’re not
going away so we need to
accommodate them.”
(Belmont)
“We need both protected cycle
lanes and dedicated bus lanes
on both sides of [El Camino
Real] throughout the county.”
(Redwood City)
Phase 2 Engagement Belmont Popup Event at Twin Pines Senior and Community Center
(Belmont)
“I would
support
widening the
sidewalk in
the transit
option.”
(San Carlos)
Phase 2 engagement at the
San Carlos Library
(San Carlos)
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 2 online survey.
35 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 36 Community Engagement
Phase 3:

Communicating
the Path Forward
The Plan conducted Phase 3
engagement in Summer 2026 to
share back what was heard through
Phases 1 and 2 and demonstrate how
community input has informed the
refinement of corridor alternatives
and recommended improvements.

Building on feedback gathered from residents,
businesses, community-based organizations,
and historically underrepresented communities,
Phase 3 focused on communicating the key
themes and priorities identified throughout
the engagement process and explaining how
they are reflected in the final alternatives
advancing into the Caltrans review process.

Engagement activities provided community
members and decision-makers, including City
Councils, with an opportunity to understand
the recommended path forward and how
public input helped shape the Plan’s outcomes.

Phase 1 Pop-up event in Belmont
(Belmont)
37 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 38 Vision for Central El Camino Real
4 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Access points should be designed for
easy transitions between modes.
(Belmont)
How the Vision Developed
The El Camino Real alternatives were developed
through a year-long process which included
evaluating existing conditions, consulting with
City Staff from each of the four cities, reaching
out to the community, and engaging with city
leadership including city managers and councils.

The initial development of alternatives created three
cross sections for each segment, organized around modal priority: transit priority, pedestrian priority, and bicycle priority. These alternatives originated from the universe of cross section options developed by the GBI Action
Plan. The project team then adapted them to city-specific contexts, making sure they reflect previous planning
efforts from Caltrans, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos,
Redwood City, SamTrans, and other agencies. They also
seek to address critical existing challenges along the
corridor, as informed by the existing conditions analysis, feedback from agency stakeholders, and community
input on needs and priorities. The designs also strive
to align with Caltrans standards and guidance.

The project team evaluated the initial cross
sections based on several key metrics. The full
evaluation matrix is included in Appendix C:
↘ Alignment with Caltrans Policy
↘ Alignment with Local Policy
↘ Effect on People Walking
↘ Effect on People Biking
↘ Effect on People Riding Transit
↘ Effect on People Driving and Parking
↘ Effect of the Environment
↘ Addressing Community Input
The second phase of community engagement sought
feedback on each cross section. Both the evaluation
and community feedback informed the refinement
of alternatives into current recommendations.
39 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 40 Vision for Central El Camino Real
What We Heard From
Community Members
Across the Central Cities, Phase 2 feedback
reflected a strong desire for a safer, more
comfortable, and more connected El Camino
Real that better serves people walking, biking,
and riding transit. Community members
consistently expressed support for pedestrian
safety improvements, protected bicycle
facilities, and transit-priority treatments.

Respondents also emphasized the importance
of creating a corridor that is easier to
navigate, more welcoming for users of all
ages and abilities, and better connected to
surrounding neighborhoods, destinations,
and regional transit services. While opinions
varied regarding the extent to which vehicle
travel lanes should be reallocated, a common
theme across all cities was the desire to
balance different travel needs while creating
a safer and more multimodal corridor.

San Mateo
Phase 2 feedback in San Mateo highlighted a
similar level of support across all alternatives.

Many respondents supported continuous
wider sidewalks, protected bicycle lanes, and
dedicated bus facilities that would encourage
more people to travel without driving and
improve connections to local destinations.

Participants highlighted safety concerns
in the downtown area, particularly at busy
intersections. Respondents also identified
the Hillsdale area as an important location for
improving transit operations and connectivity.

Some respondents expressed concern about
reducing vehicle capacity and the potential for
increased congestion, reflecting the desire for
a corridor that better balances all modes while
providing safe and continuous connections
for people walking, biking, and riding transit.

Additional outreach was funded by the City
of San Mateo. The results are in Appendix E.
“Wider sidewalk for sure because
the shops are really struggling
when the outside is so unpleasant
when cars are zooming by.”
“I would love to have
continuous separated bike
lanes -- currently the speed
[on El Camino Real] makes it
dangerous without separation.”
“Traffic is at capacity now,
cannot remove any lanes...”
“Speed bus service with
dedicated lane. Also increase
distance between stops by
50% to reduce stops and
increase bus speed; faster
busses are more usable.”
Phase 1 Engagement Pop-up at the
San Carlos Caltrain Station
(San Carlos)
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 2 online survey.
41 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 42 Vision for Central E
l Camino Real
Belmont
In Belmont, Phase 2 feedback indicated strong
support for improving bicycle conditions
along El Camino Real. Respondents frequently
identified protected bicycle lanes as a priority,
often citing concerns about safety and comfort
when riding alongside vehicle traffic. Many
participants expressed interest in using bicycles
more often for local trips if safer facilities were
provided, viewing bicycle improvements as
an important step toward reducing reliance
on driving. Feedback also reflected support
for improved transit service and a more
comfortable pedestrian environment. “Pedestrian and bicycle safety is paramount as road speeds
increase. Let’s make [El Camino
Real] a safe and welcoming space
for foot and bike travel that is well
connected, [especially] to our mass
transit options (i.e., Caltrain).
”
“…I would like to ride a bike more
and use more buses. I want to
drive less as I get older. But I am
afraid to ride on El Camino.”
“I’d prefer bikes and busses and
wider sidewalks. Happy to give up
car lanes and parking for that.
”
Despite recent improvements,
there are still many changes that
would make El Camino Real feel
safer for people outside of cars.

El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue
(Belmont)
San Carlos
Phase 2 feedback in San Carlos reflected
a desire for a well-balanced corridor that
improves multimodal travel while maintaining
functionality for all users. Respondents
frequently supported both bicycle and
transit improvements, often viewing them
as complementary investments that would
strengthen connections to Caltrain and other
regional destinations. Safety and comfort for
bicyclists were recurring themes, alongside
support for faster and more reliable bus service.

Opinions regarding pedestrian enhancements
were more mixed, with some respondents
prioritizing bicycle and transit improvements. “The only way to use El Camino on the bike is via a separated bike
lane.”
“Bikes and buses both - all up
and down the peninsula would
be great. Combined with Caltrain
you can get almost anywhere.”
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 2 online survey.
“I think the single best thing
that could happen to [El Camino
Real] for San Mateo County is a
dedicated bus lane.
”
43 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 44 Vision for Central E
l Camino Real
Redwood City
Phase 2 feedback in Redwood City emphasized
creating a safer and more attractive multimodal
corridor through improvements for walking,
biking, and transit. Respondents frequently
supported protected bicycle lanes, dedicated
bus lanes, and wider or more comfortable
pedestrian spaces, often linking these
improvements to increased safety and quality
of life. Many participants expressed interest
in reducing reliance on driving by providing
more viable transportation alternatives, while
others noted concerns about maintaining
vehicle mobility and parking access. “I would like wider sidewalks to encourage walking in the
community.”
“Having dedicated transit only
lanes will greatly improve the
speed and reliability of bus service
along [El Camino Real] - I am a
frequent rider of the ECR bus and
it frequently gets delayed by nonbus traffic.” “Protected bike lanes and dedicated bus lanes would be
great.”
Quotes reflect responses to the Phase 2 online survey.

The location of bus stops affects rider
experience and can slow buses along
with surrounding traffic.

El Camino Real and Pine Street (Redwood CIty)
Design Considerations
The designs were developed based on Caltrans standards
in Design Information Bulletin 94 Complete Streets:

Contextual Design Guidance (DIB 94) and Design
Information Bulletin 89-02: Class IV Bikeway Design
Guidance (DIB 89-02). DIB 94 provides guidance for
the width of different Complete Streets elements
based upon the context of the street. DIB 94 is the
primary resource for determining the preferred widths
of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle facilities along El Camino Real and supersedes the design standards in
the Highway Design Manual (HDM). DIB 89-02 provides
guidance for the design of Class IV Separate Bikeways,
both for the basic cross sections and for conflict
locations at intersections, driveways, and loading areas.

Additional design standards align with standards from
the California HDMand California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The full design
considerations document can be found in Appendix C.

Reference to Previous
Planning Efforts
The following design alternatives and targeted
spot improvements also pull from previous
countywide and local planning efforts. The
following plans were referenced: ↘ SamTrans: SamTrans Bus Speed and Reliability Study (2022);
↘ San Mateo: Complete Streets Master Plan
(ongoing, draft), Local Roadway Safety Plan
(2024), Transit Oriented Development Pedestrian
Access Plan (2022), Bicycle Master Plan (2020);
↘ Belmont: Belmont Village Specific Plan (2017),
Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2016);
↘ San Carlos: Downtown Streetscape Master Plan
(2025), Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan;
↘ Redwood City: El Camino Real Corridor Plan (2017),
RWC Walk Bike Thrive (2022), RWC Moves (2018).
45 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 46 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Alternatives
Three design alternatives for El Camino
Real will advance into the Caltrans
project development process.

El Camino is currently four to six vehicle lanes,
with parking along most of the corridor.

There are no existing bicycle facilities along
the corridor, and sidewalk space is typically
narrow, without street trees or other shade.

Through the alternatives development process,
the project team used community feedback
and evaluation results to narrow the range
of cross section options and combine similar
cross sections into three design alternatives.

These three design alternatives for El Camino
will advance into the Caltrans project
development process. The following cut
sheets describe the proposed alternatives,
shown through representative cross sections
for each of the eight distinct segments along
the corridor. The cross sections within each
alternative work together as a complete
corridor-wide concept and are not intended
to be mixed-and-matched with cross
sections from other alternatives. The exact
widths of the design elements and detailed
considerations will be determined during
further study in future phases of the process.

These alternatives will be carried forward
into the Caltrans review process at which
point we will evaluate critical feasibility
consideration including, but not limited to,
traffic operations, safety outcomes, rightof-way constraints, and parking impacts.

Alternative 1 prioritizes transit speed with
dedicated bus lanes and includes dedicated
bicycle facilities in Belmont, San Carlos, and
Redwood City. Sidewalk improvements and
street trees are proposed where widths allow.

Alternative 2 prioritizes pedestrian and
bicycle comfort, including wider sidewalks,
street trees, and dedicated bicycle facilities
in Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City.

Alternative 3 only shows a variation for
the San Mateo segments, which includes
maintaining travel lanes and separated
bicycle facilities. Belmont, San Carlos, and
Redwood City may advance either Alternative
1 or 2 along with San Mateo’s alternative 3.
*For segments within the City of San Mateo,
there is one additional alternative which is
the existing cross section plus only the spot
improvements. This alternative is referred to
as Alternative 4 for Segments 1 through 5 on
the following pages. See spot improvements
starting on page 73.
$23.5M
per mile
20%
of GBI cost
$22.1M
per mile
19%
of GBI cost
$23.4M
per mile
20%
of GBI cost

BIKE CONNECTIVITY SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Corridor Overview
Click on the segment number you want to navigate to.

CA 92
Hillsdale Blvd
Ralston Ave
Brittan Ave
SAN MATEO* BELMONT SAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITY
El Camino Real
Segment Existing
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Alt 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Parking Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Peninsula Ave
Monte Diablo Ave
Crystal Springs Rd
5th Ave
28th Ave
36th Ave
42nd Ave
Edgewood Rd
Brewster Ave
F St
Alt 3El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied Click to view corridor-wide improvements:
47 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 48 Vision for Central El Camino Real CITY OF SAN MATEO
SEGMENT 1
Peninsula Ave to Monte Diablo Ave
Segment 1 of El Camino has 74 feet of right-of-way with two vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates sidewalks and landscaping with trees on both sides, but does not include left turn pockets or on-street parking. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet minimum widths provided in Caltrans design standards. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are medium-density residential areas. 5’
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk
5’

5’

12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle
15’
Vehicle & Transit
15’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk
11’
Turn Lane
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’

5’

Existing Face of Curb
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Bike
2’

2’

5’
Bike

2.5’

Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 3 Cross Section
Alternative 1 & 2 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section & Alternative 4 (Looking North) 74’ Sidewalk widths for these alternatives do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking a design exception from Caltrans and leveraging setback requirements for future developments for expanded sidewalk space.

Alt 1 & 2 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternatives 1 and 2 prioritize transit reliability by adding left turn pockets which improves circulation, improves safety, and reduces delay. Alternative 3 prioritizes safety and comfort for people walking and biking by adding separated bicycle facilities and widening sidewalks on both sides; left turns would be prohibited to improve safety at intersections.

Left turn
pocket
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
bus stop
Prohibited
left turn
Wide
sidewalks
Corner
bulb-out
Separated
bicycle
facilities Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Alt 3 Typical Intersection
El Camino Real
Existing & Alt 4
El Camino Real
Alt 1 & 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Alt 3El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied SEGMENT 1 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
49 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 50 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 2
Monte Diablo Ave to Crystal Springs Rd
Segment 2 of El Camino has 74 feet of right-of-way with two vehicle lanes in each direction.

This segment accommodates on-street parking on the west side and sidewalks and landscaping with trees on both sides, but does not include left turn pockets. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet minimum widths in Caltrans design standards. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are medium-density residential areas. 5’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
5’

5’

11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk
11’
Turn Lane
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’

5’

Existing Face of Curb
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Bike
2’

2’

5’
Bike

2.5’

Proposed Key Changes
All alternatives proposed for this segment are the same as those for Segment 1. The only difference in key changes for all alternatives is removing the on-street parking on the west side. El Camino Real Existing & Alt 4
El Camino Real
Alt 1 & 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Alt 3El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied Alt 1 & 2 Typical Intersection
Left turn
pocket
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
bus stop
Alt 3 Typical Intersection
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Prohibited
left turn
Wide
sidewalks
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
Separated
bicycle
facilities
SEGMENT 2 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
51 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 52

CITY OF SAN MATEO
El Camino Real
Existing & Alt 4
El Camino Real
Alt 1 & 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Alt 3El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 3
Crystal Springs Rd to 5th Ave / 28th Ave to 36th Ave
Segment 3 of El Camino has 102 feet of right-of-way with three vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates a raised concrete median with left-turn pockets at intersections, sidewalks on both sides, and landscaping with trees on the east side, but no on-street parking. Sidewalks do not meet minimum Caltrans width standards. The main adjacent land uses are the downtown core and Hillsdale commercial areas.
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
5’

11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
18’
Median
6’
Sidewalk
5’
Sidewalk
5’

5’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Bus Only Lane
11’
Bus Only Lane
17’
Median
Existing Face of Curb
5’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
6’
Sidewalk
5’

5’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
17’
Median
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 2 Cross Section
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section & Alternative 4 (Looking North) 102’ 5’
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible on one side if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed).

At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed). Or, separated bikeways feasible if sidewalks and median narrowed (trees removed).

Alt 1 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 1 prioritizes transit reliability by converting one vehicle lane to a transit-only lane in each direction. Alternative 2 widens sidewalks, enhancing comfort for people walking. Both alternatives provide a pedestrian refuge, narrow lanes and left turn pockets, provide landscaping with trees on the west side, relocate bus stops to the far side, and improve safety for all modes. Parking is feasible if sidewalks or the median is narrowed, requiring tree removal. Future design phases may consider reducing the median width to allocate space to other priorities, such as wider sidewalks.

Left turn
pocket
Transitonly laneCorner
bulb-out
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
Left turn
pocket
Corner
bulb-out
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
Alt 2 Typical Intersection
El Camino Real
Existing & Alt 4
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Alt 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

SEGMENT 3 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian
refuge
Pedestrian
refuge
53 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 54

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 3
Crystal Springs Rd to 5th Ave / 28th Ave to 36th Ave
Segment 3 of El Camino has 102 feet of right-of-way with three vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates a raised concrete median with left-turn pockets at intersections, sidewalks on both sides, and landscaping with trees on the east side, but no on-street parking. Sidewalks do not meet minimum Caltrans width standards. The main adjacent land uses are the downtown core and Hillsdale commercial areas.

At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets.

Sidewalk widths for Alternative 3 do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking a design exception from Caltrans and leveraging setback requirements for future developments for expanded sidewalk space.
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
5’

11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
18’
Median
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Median
6’
Sidewalk

5.5’
Bike

5.5’
Bike
2’

2’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
Existing Face of Curb

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
Alternative 3 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section & Alternative 4 (Looking North) 102’ Alt 3 Typical Intersection Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 3 adds separated bicycle facilities which improves safety for all road users and enhances comfort for people biking. It also narrows left turn pockets, widens sidewalks on both sides, and relocates bus stops to the far side.

Separated
bicycle
facilities
Far side
bus stop
El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied El Camino Real
Existing & Alt 4 Alt 3
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Corner
bulb-out
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

SEGMENT 3 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian
refuge
55 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 56

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 4
5th Ave to 28th Ave
Segment 4 of El Camino has 100 feet of right-of-way with three vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates left turn pockets and on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides, but does not include any landscaping. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet minimum widths in Caltrans design standards. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas. 6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’ 4’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
12’
Median

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Bus Only Lane
6’

6’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Bus Only Lane
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section & Alternative 4 (Looking North) 100’ 6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
12’
Median

10.5’
Vehicle
6’

6’

11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 2 Cross Section
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible on one side if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed).

Alt 1 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 1 prioritizes transit reliability by converting one vehicle lane to a transit-only lane in each direction. This configuration improves safety for all road users. Alternative 2 narrows travel lanes. Both alternatives allow for alternating street trees and parking depending on demand, provide a planted median, and relocate bus stops to the far side. Parking is feasible if sidewalks or the median is narrowed, requiring tree removal. Future detailed design may consider reducing the width of the median to allocate to other right-of-way priorities, such as wider sidewalks.

Corner
bulb-out
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
El Camino Real
Existing & Alt 4
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Alt 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Transitonly lane
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Wide
sidewalks
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
bus stop
Alt 2 Typical Intersection
Separated
bicycle
facilities
Landscaping
with trees
Left turn
pocket
Left turn
pocket
SEGMENT 4 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
57 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 58

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 4
5th Ave to 28th Ave
Segment 4 of El Camino has 100 feet of right-of-way with three vehicle lanes in each direction.

This segment accommodates left turn pockets and on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides, but does not include any landscaping. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet desired widths. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas. 6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’ 4’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Median
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit

5.5’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
5’
Bike
5’
Bike
2’

2’

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 3 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section & Alternative 4 (Looking North) 100’ At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets.

Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 3 adds separated bicycle facilities which improves safety for all road users and enhances comfort for people biking. It also narrows left turn pockets, widens sidewalks on both sides, and relocates bus stops to the far side.

SEGMENT 4 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Separated
bicycle
facilities
Far side
bus stop
Corner
bulb-out
Pedestrian
refuge
Alt 3 Typical Intersection
59 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 60

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Vision for Central El Camino Real
8’
Sidewalk
8’
Sidewalk
5’

10.5’
Vehicle

16.5’
Median
5’

10.5’
Vehicle
Existing Face of Curb
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
SEGMENT 5
36th Ave to 42nd Ave
Segment 5 of El Camino has 96 feet of right-of-way with three southbound vehicle lanes and two northbound vehicle lanes. This segment accommodates a center left turn lane and onstreet parking on both sides, but does not include any landscaping. This segment has only sidewalks on the west side that do not meet desired widths. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas, with greater land use intensity on the west side. 6’
Sidewalk
15’
Turn Lane
2’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
8’
Sidewalk
5’

8’
Sidewalk

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Bus Only Lane
Existing Face of Curb
5’

16.5’
Median
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section & Alternative 4 (Looking North) 96’ Alternative 2 Cross Section
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Parking feasible on one side if sidewalks/median narrowed (trees removed).

Alt 1 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 1 converts one southbound vehicle lane to a transit-only lane. The conversion only applies to the southbound direction to maintain two vehicle lanes in each direction.

It also widens sidewalks on the east side. Alternative 2 widens sidewalks on both sides.

Both alternatives remove on-street parking on both sides, provide a planted median, pedestrian refuge, and landscaping with trees, and relocate bus stops to the far side. Both alternatives improve safety for all modes and enhances comfort for people walking. El Camino Real Existing & Alt 4
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Alt 2
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
Transitonly lane
Corner
bulb-out
Wide
sidewalks
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Alt 2 Typical Intersection
Landscaping
with trees
Far side
bus stop
Median
Corner
bulb-out
Wide
sidewalks
Left turn
pocket
Left turn
pocket
SEGMENT 5 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian
refuge
61 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 62

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 5
36th Ave to 42nd Ave
Segment 5 of El Camino has 96 feet of right-of-way with three southbound vehicle lanes and two northbound vehicle lanes. This segment accommodates a center left turn lane and onstreet parking on both sides, but does not include any landscaping. This segment has only sidewalks on the west side that do not meet desired widths. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas, with greater land use intensity on the west side. 6’
Sidewalk
15’
Turn Lane
2’
Sidewalk
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Cross Section & Alternative 4 (Looking North) 96’ 6’
Bike
6’
Bike
2’
2’

10.5’
Median

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
8’
Sidewalk
8’
Sidewalk
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 3 Cross Section
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets.

Proposed Key Changes
Alternative 3 removes on-street parking on both sides and provides separated bicycle facilities on both sides. It also widens sidewalks, provides a planted median, and provides landscaping on both sides. Bus stops are also relocated to the far side of the intersection. These changes improve safety for all modes and enhances comfort for people walking and biking.

El Camino Real Either Alt 1 or Alt 2 option can be applied El Camino Real
Existing & Alt 4 Alt 3
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment. Alt 3 Typical Intersection Separated
bicycle
facilities
Far side
bus stop
Median
Corner
bulb-out
SEGMENT 5 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
63 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 64

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 6
42nd Ave to F St
Segment 6 of El Camino has 90 feet of right-of-way with two vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment accommodates a wide planted median with left turn pockets and on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides. Sidewalks on this segment do not meet desired widths. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density mixed-use and commercial areas, with higher land use intensity on the west side. 6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
16’
Median
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
5’
Sidewalk

8.5’
Sidewalk

10.5’
Median

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
3’ 11’ 2’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Face of Curb
5’
Bike
8’
Parking
5’
Bike
Alternative 1, 2, & 3 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 90’
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets.

Sidewalk widths for these alternatives do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking an exception through Caltrans process.

Alt 1, 2, & 3 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
All alternatives prioritize safety and comfort for people biking by adding separated bicycle facilities on both sides. They also remove on-street parking on the east side, narrow the planted median, and relocate bus stops to the far side. All alteratives are the same as the bikeway aligns with all of the planning and policies in Belmont.

Separated
bicycle
facilities
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Median
El Camino Real
Alt 1, 2, & 3
El Camino Real
Existing
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Left turn
pocket
SEGMENT 6 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
65 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 66

CITY OF BELMONT
Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 7
F St to Edgewood Rd
Segment 7 of El Camino has 95 feet of right-of-way with three southbound vehicle lanes and two northbound vehicle lanes. This segment has a planted median with left turn pockets. On the west side, it has on-street parking and sidewalks. On the east-side, these are intermittent. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are currently low-to-medium density commercial and mixed-use areas. However, much of San Carlos’ future housing will take place along the corridor. 6’
Sidewalk
6’
Sidewalk
15’
Median
8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle & Transit
12’
Vehicle & Transit
6’ - 10.5’
Sidewalk
6’
Bike
6’
Bike

3.5’
Median

10.5’

3.5’ 6’ - 10.5’
Sidewalk

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Bus Only Lane
Existing Face of Curb
6’ - 9’
Sidewalk
6’ - 9’
Sidewalk
3’ 5’ 3’
Bike
8’
Parking

10.5’
Vehicle
10’
Median
3’
5’
Bike

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit
11’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Face of Curb
3’

Alternative 2 Cross Section
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 95’
At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Sidewalk widths for Alternative 1 do not consistently meet the minimum standards per Caltrans DIB 94 (8 feet) and would therefore require seeking a design exception from Caltrans and leveraging setback requirements for future developments for expanded sidewalk space.

Alt 1 Typical Intersection
Proposed Key Changes
Alternatives 1 and 2 prioritize safety and comfort for people biking by providing separated bicycle facilities on both sides. Alternative 1 also prioritizes transit reliability by converting one southbound vehicle lane to a transit-only lane and removing on-street parking on the west side. The conversion only applies to the southbound direction to maintain two vehicle lanes in each direction. Alternative 2 removes one vehicle lane in the southbound direction.

Both alternatives narrow the planted median and relocate bus stops to the far side.

Transitonly lane
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Alt 2 Typical Intersection
El Camino Real
Alt 2
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Existing
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Median
Separated
bicycle
facilities
Median
Corner
bulb-out
Separated
bicycle
facilities
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Left turn
pocket
Left turn
pocket
SEGMENT 7 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

CITY OF SAN CARLOS AND REDWOOD CITY
67 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 68 Vision for Central El Camino Real
SEGMENT 8
Edgewood Rd to Brewster Ave
Segment 8 of El Camino has 100 feet of right-of-way with two vehicle lanes in each direction. This segment has a planted median with left turn pockets, on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides, and landscaping with trees on the east side. Per Redwood City zoning code, a 12-foot sidewalk is required and will be incorporated through developer setback requirements as adjacent properties are developed. The main land uses adjacent to this segment are low-density commercial areas.

At intersections, the median would be used for left-turn pockets. Exact widths will be refined in future phases of design and will consider accommodating design vehicles.
7’
Sidewalk
7’
Sidewalk
15’
Median
5’

8’
Parking
12’
Vehicle
12’
Vehicle
8’
Parking
13’
Vehicle & Transit
13’
Vehicle & Transit
7’
Sidewalk
6’
Bike

10.5’
Median
7’
Sidewalk

10.5’
Vehicle

10.5’
Vehicle
5’

5’

6’
Bike
11’
Bus Only Lane
11’
Vehicle & Transit
Existing Face of Curb

9.5’
Sidewalk

9.5’
Sidewalk
6’
Bike
6’
Bike
5’

11’
Median
5’

5’

11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle
11’
Vehicle & Transit

10.5’
Vehicle
Existing Face of Curb
Alternative 2 Cross Section
Alternative 1 Cross Section
Existing Cross Section (Looking North) 100’ Alt 1 Typical Intersection Proposed Key Changes
Alternatives 1 and 2 prioritize safety and comfort for people biking by removing on-street parking and providing separated bicycle facilities on both sides. Alternative 1 also prioritizes transit reliability by converting one southbound vehicle lane to a transit-only lane. The conversion only applies to the southbound direction to maintain two vehicle lanes in each direction. Alternative 2 widens sidewalks on both sides. Both alternatives narrow the planted median and relocate bus stops to the far side.

Alt 2 Typical Intersection
El Camino Real
Alt 2
El Camino Real
Alt 1
El Camino Real
Existing
3 3
5 6
7 8
4 2
1 Travel Lane
Separated Bicycle Lane
Transit-Only Lane
Parking Lane
Transitonly lane
Corner
bulb-out
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Separated Median
bicycle
facilities
Far side
shared
bus stop/
bikeway
bus stop
Separated Median
bicycle
facilities
Wide
sidewalks
Corner
bulb-out
Corridor Map
Click on the map to jump to each segment.

Left turn
pocket
Left turn
pocket

REDWOOD CITY
SEGMENT 8 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
69 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 70 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were developed with a
focus on improving bicycle connectivity while
balancing existing right-of-way constraints
and multimodal needs. The alternatives
are informed by the Caltrans District 4 Bike
Plan, which identifies El Camino Real as a
crucial corridor for prioritizing gap closure
in the local and regional bicycle network,
and recommends Class IV separated
bikeways on segments of El Camino Real
within the limits of the Central Cities.

All alternatives provide low-stress connections
to existing and proposed bicycle facilities
parallel to and crossing El Camino Real, creating
a complete network that provides a safe and
comfortable experience for people of varying
ages and abilities biking along the corridor.

The potential parallel low-stress bicycle routes
are located within a half mile of El Camino
Real. These routes will be further developed
and refined in coordination with each City
and Caltrans as part of the subsequent
Caltrans project development process.
42nd Ave
F St
Brittan Ave
Edgewood Rd
Ralston Ave
28th Ave
CA 92
5th Ave
Crystal Springs
Rd
Monte Diablo
Ave
Hillsdale Blvd

SAN MATEO BELMONT SAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITY
Pacific Blvd Delaware St

0.5 Miles
Existing Bicycle Facility
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Network Gap
Old County Rd Stafford St
El Camino Real
Bike Connectivity Existing and Alternative 4
42nd Ave
F St
Brittan Ave
Edgewood Rd
Ralston Ave
28th Ave
CA 92
5th Ave
Crystal Springs
Rd
Monte Diablo
Ave
Hillsdale Blvd

SAN MATEO BELMONT SAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITY
El Camino Real

0.5 Miles
Pacific Blvd Delaware St
Existing Bicycle Facility
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Network Gap
42nd Ave
F St
Brittan Ave
Edgewood Rd
Ralston Ave
28th Ave
CA 92
5th Ave
Crystal Springs
Rd
Monte Diablo
Ave
Hillsdale Blvd

SAN MATEO BELMONT SAN CARLOS REDWOOD CITY
El Camino Real
Existing Bicycle Facility
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Network Gap

0.5 Miles
Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternative 3

BIKE CONNECTIVITY
71 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 72 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Spot Improvements + Placemaking Opportunities
The Central El Camino Plan identifies
targeted spot improvements at critical
intersections and complementary
placemaking opportunities to enhance
safety, accessibility, and the overall public
realm experience for all corridor users.

Across all alternatives, these spot improvements
target intersections where safety, operational,
and multimodal deficiencies are most
pronounced. The Plan developed these
improvements from previous planning efforts
and an engineering-based assessment of
existing conditions. Treatments vary based
on site constraints, safety considerations, and
traffic operations, but the Plan may apply
several universal treatments at all identified
intersections, along with additional treatments
tailored to signalized intersections.

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
The Plan also considers ideas for future
discussion to enhance the public realm and
create a more welcoming, accessible corridor.

Placemaking priorities and strategies guide these
improvements to facilitate safety and comfort for
people walking, biking, and taking transit today
while catalyzing future investment—encouraging
denser development, making multimodal travel
more attractive, and improving quality of life
along the corridor. The Plan identifies several
opportunity sites within the right-of-way for pilot
activation projects. Site selection considered:
↘ City documents, including specific plans for
downtown, streetscape plans, mobility plans
↘ Project team-identified transportation
improvements and placemaking opportunities
↘ SamTrans equity priority studies
↘ Feedback from City staff
Mark all crosswalks with highvisibility crosswalks.

Shorten crossing distances with
median refuge islands or bulbouts,
where feasible on El Camino and side
streets. This may include narrowing
travel lanes on side streets.

Implement intersection
treatments for existing bicycle
facilities on cross streets.

Incorporate in-lane bus stops
(e.g., via bus boarding islands), and
follow SamTrans bus stop design
guidelines for bus stop design.

Restrict left turns in/out of driveways
and side streets from El Camino
unless signalized or otherwise noted.

Lighting improvements
corridor-wide.

Universal Treatments
Universal Treatments for Signalized Intersections
This icon indicates where the following universal signalized intersection treatments may be considered.
↘ Add directional curb ramps and advance stop bars.
↘ Modify signals to include protected lefts on El Camino, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian countdown and accessible pedestrian signals, ITS improvements, and signal equipment and visibility improvements. ↘ Consider protected lefts or split phase for side streets. Where side streets have permissive lefts, consider a left-turn yield-to-pedestrian sign or a flashing yellow arrow. ↘ Consider shorter cycle lengths. Lower walk speed to 2.8 feet per second near schools and senior centers. Alternatives with bicycle facilities on El Camino to include bike-related signal infrastructure. ↘ Assess lane configurations to look for opportunities to reduce lanes and turn pockets and tighten intersections. Mark crosswalks on all legs. ↘ Where parking exists on El Camino Real or intersecting streets, apply red curb on approach to the intersection in compliance with California Assembly Bill 413.

Placemaking Priorities

RECENTER PEDESTRIAN COMFORT
Fundamental streetscape
improvements that bring
back a sense of human scale
to this busy thoroughfare.

REINFORCE CENTERS OF GRAVITY
Improving wayfinding experiences
between El Camino Real and nearby
destinations by building upon existing
places where people want to be.

STRENGTHEN CONNECTIVITY
Highlight the distinct identities
of the four cities while increasing
the legibility of El Camino Real
as a cohesive corridor.

SHAPE WHAT GROWS HERE
Public realm improvements can help
set the stage for future partnership
opportunities, land use decisions,
and transit-oriented development.

Placemaking Strategies
MOVE + CONNECT
↘ Increase presence of benches,
lighting, and wayfinding signage near
bus stops and Caltrain platforms.
↘ Demonstrate first-class connections
to existing and new bike networks.

STORYTELLING CANVAS
↘ Implement distinctive
crosswalks and gateway signage
at major intersections.
↘ Add decorative lighting near
existing activity nodes.

LET’S GREEN
↘ Provide consistent tree canopy and
understory planting along sidewalks.
↘ Provide understory planting
alongside bike lanes and medians to
provide buffers and traffic calming.

ACTIVATE!
↘ Partner with local organizations
to promote temporary events/
programs that support
active programming.
73 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 74 Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 1: Peninsula Ave to Monte Diablo Ave CITY OF
SAN MATEO Segment 2: Monte Diablo Ave to Crystal Springs Rd CITY OFSAN MATEO Add left-turn
pocket
Tighten
intersection

BARROILHET AVE
Add left-turn
pocket

HILLTOP RD
Tighten
intersection

WARREN RD
Relocate bus stops
to Santa Inez Ave

POPLAR AVE
Consider closing
access or convert
to right-in/
right-out only

CHESTERTON PL
Join both legs to
be one street that
“T” into El Camino

CLARK DR
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
Realign Park Ave to
a “T” intersection
into Peninsula Ave

PENINSULA AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Add crosswalk
across El Camino

STATE ST
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Add crosswalk
on all legs

E SANTA INEZ AVE,

MONTE DIABLO AVE

E BELLEVUE AVE /

GRAND BLVD
Close Grand Blvd
right turn slip
lane and provide
continuous east
side sidewalk
500 ft N
Existing Bicycle Facility
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
Add crosswalk
on all legs

MONTE DIABLO AVE
Coordinate signal
with De Sabla Rd
/ Baldwin Ave /
Baywood Ave

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD
Restrict left turns
from El Camino
Install protected
left-turn signal on
Baldwin Ave and
Baywood Ave
Reconfigure
intersection
to eliminate
five-legged
configuration

DE SABLA RD / BALDWIN

AVE / BAYWOOD AVE
Restrict left turns
from El Camino
Relocate
northbound
bus stop closer
to intersection
and relocate
southbound bus
stop to far side

TILTON AVE /

EL CERRITO AVE
200 ft N
75 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 76 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 3: Crystal Springs Rd to 5th Ave CITY OF

SAN MATEO
El Camino Real and Baldwin Ave (San Mateo)
Segment 3 North Section
Multifaceted San Mateo
El Camino Real / Baldwin-5th Ave
‘Multifaceted San Mateo’ provides downtown gateways
that increase vibrancy and access along El Camino Real
to San Mateo’s destinations: Central Park (including
Japanese Garden, recreational areas, and playground),
Public Library, and the historic downtown walk.

At the key intersections of Baldwin, 2nd, 3rd, 4th,
and 5th Avenues, proposed interventions include
various streetscape improvements such as increased
crossing safety, intuitive wayfinding and signage,
enhanced lighting, and public art opportunities—
elements that work together to elevate the
pedestrian and bike experience into the heart of
downtown. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

Integrating opportunities of storytelling
through art, San José, CA
Credit: Baunfire
Elevated streetscape design to signify
entry points to downtown, San José, CA

STORYTELLING CANVAS
ACTIVATE!
LET’S GREEN
Interpretive art
showcasing the creek
Crosswalks, curb
extensions, and signage
to Downtown
Consistent tree canopy
along sidewalk and
understory planting
in the median

KEY STRATEGIES
El Camino Real / 2nd Ave
El Camino Real / 3rd Ave
El Camino Real / 5th Ave

PRECEDENTS
1 2
3 4

1. Wayfinding signage
to Caltrain station;
Boro tree lighting

2. Interpretive art featuring
Creek and ecology

3. Downtown wayfinding
signage

4. Gateway sculpture/art,
lighting, and seating
Legend
Wayfinding signage highlighting
downtown destinations, Adelaide, AUS
Coordinate signal
with De Sabla Rd
/ Baldwin Ave /
Baywood Ave

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD
Relocate
northbound
bus stop closer
to intersection
and relocate
southbound bus
stop to far side
2ND AVE
Existing Bicycle Facility
300 ft N
3RD AVE, 4TH AVE, 5TH AVE
77 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 78 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 4: 5th Ave to 28th Ave CITY OF
SAN MATEO San Mateo Spurs
El Camino Real / 25th, 28th, and 31st Ave
‘San Mateo Spurs’ increase visibility and access along El Camino Real to some of San Mateo’s most active places:

Hillsdale Caltrain Station, 25th Avenue retail, Hillsdale Mall, and Bay Meadows transit-oriented development.

At three key intersections, proposed interventions include a corner pocket plaza, lush sidewalk tree canopy along the sidewalk and understory planting in curb extensions, and decorative crossings—elements that work together with transportation improvements to elevate the public realm experience to these important destinations. Refer to Appendix B for more details. El Camino Real / 31st Ave El Camino Real / 28th Ave
El Camino Real / 25th Ave
ACTIVATE! LET’S GREEN STORYTELLING CANVAS
Corner pocket plaza
with landscape and
seating with room for
pop-up programs
Tree canopy with
understory planting
Decorative crossing
for an enhanced
pedestrian experience
Key Strategies
Corner plaza
reclaims wide
paved space to
slow down vehicle
turning and direct
attention to 25th
Avenue retail
1 Tree canopy
and wayfinding
signage support
the journey to/
from Caltrain
2 Active corners
and pedestrian
crossings leading
into current and
future developments
3 Coordinated
streetscape and
corner plaza design,
San Jose, CA
Decorative sidewalk
treatment to signify
intersections at
key corridors, San
Francisco, CA
Unless otherwise mentioned, image credit: SITELAB Urban Studio El Camino Real
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
25th Ave
28th Ave
31st Ave
Continuous tree
canopy and
understory, Long
Island, NY

PRECEDENTS
Proposed Hillsdale Mall Development
5TH AVE, 9TH AVE
BOREL AVE, 17TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
Add crosswalk
on all legs

MISSION DR
SEVILLE WAY / 10TH AVE
Add left-turn
pocket

BARNESON AVE
Move northbound
bus stop closer
to intersection
20TH AVE
Move northbound
bus stop closer
to intersection
25TH AVE
Convert to
tight diamond
interchange
SR 92
Convert to sidestreet stop control
LODATO AVE, 24TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Tighten intersection
(11th Ave only)
11TH AVE, 13TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Add crosswalk
on all legs
16TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
22ND AVE, 23RD AVE
See Segment 3 (next page)
28TH AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Add crosswalk
on all legs
Tighten intersection
Consider closing
school driveway
to the north

ARAGON BLVD /

HAYWARD AVE
HOBART AVE / 12TH

AVE, MADISON AVE,
14TH AVE, 15TH AVE
900 ft N
Existing Bicycle Facility
79 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 80 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 5: 36th Ave to 42nd Ave CITY OF Segment 3: 28th Ave to 36th Ave SAN MATEO

CITY OF

SAN MATEO
Segment 3 South Section
Existing Bicycle Facility
650 ft N
Install protected
intersection (if
bike facilities on
El Camino)
Provide wayfinding
to Caltrain station
28TH AVE
Close east
intersection
slip lanes
Provide wayfinding
to Caltrain station

HILLSDALE BLVD
Reduce number of
lanes on El Camino
at intersection
by pushing
transition to/from
undercrossing
further south
31ST AVE
Merge southbound
lanes upstream
of intersection
36TH AVE
El Camino and Hillsdale Blvd (San Mateo)
See the previous page for the placemaking opportunity.

Merge southbound
lanes upstream
of intersection
36TH AVE
37TH AVE
38TH AVE
41ST AVE
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
39TH AVE
Evaluate reducing
cross street turn
lanes through
operations analysis
42ND AVE
350 ft N
81 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 82 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 6: 42nd Ave to F St CITY OF
BELMONT Belmont Switch
El Camino Real / Ralston Ave
‘Belmont Switch’ optimizes multimodal
connectivity at the crossroads of El Camino Real
and Ralston Avenue, linking the city’s primary
activity hubs: the Caltrain station, SamTrans ECR
route, and the Belmont Village retail district.

Focused on transforming this transit node, proposed
strategies introduce quick wins (continuous street
tree canopy) and long-term ambitions (dedicated
mobility hub and other amenities to support periodic
programming on Caltrain parking lot). These design
shifts work in tandem to soften the heavy infrastructure, creating a more human-scaled, inviting environment for
commuters switching between trains, buses, bikes, cars, and foot travel. Refer to Appendix B for more details.

MOVE AND CONNECT
ACTIVATE!
LET’S GREEN
Seamless multimodal
Caltrain, dedicated bike,
and SamTrans ECR route
Support activation of
Caltrain parking lot
(e.g. year-round weekly
farmer’s market)
Understory planting
along El Camino Real and
Ralston Ave underpass
El Camino Real / Ralston Avenue

PRECEDENTS
1 1
3 2

1. *Mobility hub/Kiosk

2. Underpass lighting and art

3. *Amenities in Caltrain parking lot (e.g.
year-round weekly farmer’s market)
Legend
El Camino Real
Old County Rd
Ralston Ave
Bay Trail
Welcome kiosk and movable furnishing
to support temporary programming
and activation, San Francisco, CA
Integrating art, lighting, landscaping
at underpass, San José, CA

KEY STRATEGIES
*Long-term ambition
Mobility hub integrated at key transit
node to support mode shifts
850 ft N
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)

RUTH AVE

DRIVEWAYS
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP

HILL ST

WALTERMIRE ST

HARBOR BLVD

ONEILL AVE, HARBOR BLVD

RALSTON AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP
Facilitate bike
connection to
underpass on F
St (if bike facilities
on El Camino)
5TH AVE

NORTH RD, ANITA AVE,

BELMONT AVE
Allow U-Turn

DAVEY GLEN RD,

MIDDLE RD
Existing Bicycle Facility
Evaluate reducing
cross street turn
lanes through
operations analysis
42ND AVE
83 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 84 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 7: F St to Edgewood Rd CITIES OF

SAN CARLOS AND REDWOOD CITY

PRECEDENTS
1 2 3

1. Multimodal facilities and
protected bike lanes

2. Scramble decorative crossing

3. Gateway lighting
Legend El Camino Real
San Carlos Ave
Decorative crossing connecting
key destinations, San José, CA
Lighting art upon entry into
downtown, Santa Monica, CA
Unless otherwise mentioned, image credit: SITELAB Urban Studio Streetscape design
supportive of safe transition
between modes, Seattle, WA
credit: Green Lane Project
San Carlos Front Porch
El Camino Real / San Carlos Ave
‘San Carlos Front Porch’ creates a welcoming
connection across El Camino Real to the San
Carlos Caltrain Station through a highly visible,
decorative crosswalk, gateway lighting that
frames this critical intersection, and understory
planting that enlivens the median and provides
a buffer alongside separated bike lanes.

Collectively, these elements support pedestrian and
cyclist connections between nearby bus stops and the
Caltrain Station. Refer to Appendix B for more details. El Camino Real / San Carlos Ave Key Strategies
STORYTELLING CANVAS MOVE + CONNECT LET’S GREEN
Decorative crossing
and gateway lighting
Diagonal crossing and
bike infrastructure for
Caltrain connection
Understory planting in
median and bike buffer
Consider traffic
signal and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)
OAK ST
Coordinate signal
with Old County Rd

HOWARD AVE
Install protected
intersection (if
bike facilities on
El Camino)

SAN CARLOS AVE

OLIVE ST, MORSE BLVD

WHITE OAK WAY, CENTRAL

AVE, AVONDALE AVE
Consider traffic
signal and
perform ISOAP

BELMONT AVE
Install crossing
with Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon

MIDBLOCK

SPRING ST

ARROYO AVE

BRITTAN AVE

HOLLY ST
900 ft N
Remove
southbound left
turn pocket

SPRING ST
City Boundary
Existing Bicycle Facility
Consider HighIntensity Activated
Crosswalk signal
or full traffic signal
and perform ISOAP

FINGER AVE, EDGEWOOD RD
85 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 86 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
Vision for Central El Camino Real
Segment 8: Edgewood Rd to Brewster Ave REDWOOD CITY

PRECEDENTS
1 1
2 3

1. Active ground floors with gateway signage

2. Healthy tree canopy for shade and comfort

3. Multimodal facilities and protected bike lanes
Legend
Brewster Ave
El Camino Real
Perry St Active ground floor and vibrant
streetscape furnishings with
tree canopy, San Francisco, CA
Decorative art to enhance
multimodal experiences,
San Francisco, CA
credit: SFMTA
Unless otherwise mentioned, image credit: SITELAB Urban Studio Active retail along street
corners, Austin, TX
ACTIVATE!
Active ground floor retail
and gateway signage to
the new Caltrain Station
Redwood City Portal
El Camino Real / Brewster Ave
‘Redwood City Portal,’ located at El Camino Real and
Brewster Avenue, amplifies the sense of arrival to the
city’s new Transit District and elevated Caltrain station.

Given the potential for new development with active
ground floors on all corners of this intersection, proposed interventions focus on enhancing the sidewalk through
generous, continuous tree canopy. Gateway signage
and pedestrian lighting further highlight this important transit transfer point between SamTrans ECR and
Caltrain. Refer to Appendix B for more details. El Camino Real / Brewster Ave Key Strategies
MOVE + CONNECT LET’S GREEN
Seamless multimodal
Caltrain, dedicated
bike, and SamTrans
ECR route
Three rows of trees
and bike buffers for
shade and comfort
Consider HighIntensity Activated
Crosswalk signal
or full traffic signal
and perform
Intersection Safety
and Operational
Assessment
Process (ISOAP)

EDGEWOOD RD
Remove
parking bay

CLAREMONT AVE
300 ft N

WHIPPLE AVE

HOPKINS AVE

BREWSTER AVE
Existing Bicycle Facility
87 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 88 SPOT IMPROVEMENTS + PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITIES
Next Steps
5 Next Steps
Caltrans Project
Development Process
All of the design concepts listed
in this Plan will be advanced into
the Caltrans project development
process. This process begins with
the Project Initiation Document,
which kicked off in 2026.

The vision for El Camino Real established
by the Central El Camino Real Plan will
serve as the foundation for designs that
will continue to be refined through the
Caltrans project development process. The
Grand Boulevard Initiative team will use the
outcomes of the Central El Camino Real Plan
to develop county-wide corridor alternatives.

All the design concepts listed in this Plan
will be advanced into the Caltrans project
development process, illustrated in Figure

5.1. This process begins with the Project
Initiation Document, which kicked off in 2026.

Following this study, SamTrans will continue to
lead GBI, coordinating across the fifteen local
jurisdictions along El Camino Real in San Mateo
County. SamTrans and SMCTA will coordinate
the countywide Caltrans project development
process, including creating a comprehensive
strategy for implementation, phasing, and
funding. Jointly, SamTrans and SMCTA will
consider sponsoring the future phases of work,
shown in Figure 5.2, to maintain momentum
and reduce the burden for local jurisdictions
in funding and implementing the project.

Throughout these future phases, GBI will
remain a forum to facilitate collaboration
between Caltrans, SamTrans, SMCTA, city
staff, and other stakeholders. This ongoing
collaboration will help resolve key questions
such as roles and responsibilities during
design and construction, development of
low-stress parallel facilities for bicyclists
where bike facilities are not provided on
El Camino Real to ensure a countywide
backbone network, approaches to optimizing
traffic operations, and developing standard
maintenance agreements that agencies
can use to advance transportation projects
more easily in partnership with Caltrans.

Extensive community engagement
will occur during Project Approval and
Environmental Document (PA&ED), which
is slated to occur in 2027-2028, as the
preferred alternative for each jurisdiction
will be determined during this phase.

City councils and other key stakeholders will
stay engaged through regular updates and will
weigh in at major decision points to make sure
the project balances local and regional goals.

Project Initiation
Document (PID)
Define scope, cost,
schedule, and analysis
approach
Project Approval
& Environmental
Document (PA&ED)
Preferred alternative,
environmental analysis,
and public engagement
Plans,
Specifications, &
Estimates (PS&E)
Design project
Construction
2026 2027-28 2030+
GBI Action Plan
& Local Corridor Studies
2028-29
Funding &
Phasing Strategy
Figure 5.1. Caltrans Project Development Process Timeline

CALTR ANS PROJEC T

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
El Camino Real and Ralston Ave (Belmont)
Build project
89 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 90 Next Steps
Figure 5.2. Caltrans Process Approach
Project Initiation Document (PID)
2026–2027, CURRENT PHASE
The PID is the first formal phase of the Caltrans project development process.

It defines the scope of potential changes to be studied in later phases but does not settle on a final design. The main goals of this phase are to:
↘ Define the project’s purpose and need: identify the transportation problem to be solved (the need) and the goals for addressing it (the purpose). ↘ Define the study area, project scope, cost
estimate, schedule, and known risks.
↘ Identify the project alternatives to be carried forward for detailed study.

Project Approval & Environmental
Document (PA&ED)
2027–2028
Once the PID is approved, the alternatives move into detailed analysis and environmental review to select a preferred design alternative for each jurisdiction. Extensive community engagement will occur during Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED), which is slated to occur in 2027-2028, as the preferred alternative for each jurisdiction will be determined during this phase. This phase includes:
↘ Detailed analysis of how each alternative would affect traffic operations for all road users, and safety at intersections and along the corridor. ↘ Community and city council engagement to gather
feedback on the alternatives and analysis results, and
to gauge support for a preferred option.
↘ Environmental studies to assess potential impacts.
↘ Selection of a preferred design by Caltrans based
on the analysis and community input.

Plans, Specifications, & Estimate (PS&E)
2028–2029
The preferred design then moves into detailed engineering.

This phase is more technical, and includes developing:
↘ Preliminary layouts and roadway cross-sections, estimating quantities of materials needed, and coordinating with the teams responsible for structures, utilities, and property (right-of-way) needs. ↘ Detailed plans and construction specifications are combined into a complete set of construction documents.

Construction will follow this phase and is estimated to begin in 2030 or later.

Funding Sources
Beginning in late 2026, the SMCTA
will partner with SamTrans and the
broader GBI Task Force to develop
an implementation, phasing and
funding strategy that further analyzes
opportunities to fund countywide
El Camino Real improvements. As
documented in the GBI Action Plan,
funding from San Mateo County’s
Measure A and Measure W, which is
distributed by SMCTA, is anticipated
to be the main funding source for
improvements to El Camino Real. As
a project of countywide significance,
SMCTA may fund up to half of project
costs. SMCTA’s Highway Call for Projects
is expected to be the primary funding
source, however the agency’s Pedestrian
and Bicycle Program, Transportation
Demand Management Program, and
Regional Transit Connections Program
are possible funding sources for smallerscale, more focused projects. Other funding sources could include:
↘ Federal opportunities: 5307 Formula
funds, Capital Infrastructure Grants
(CIG) Small Starts Program, earmarks
↘ State opportunities: Local Partnership,
Solutions for Congested Corridors,
Active Transportation Programs (ATP)
↘ Regional opportunities: Regional
Measure 3, ATP Regional Share,
Bus Accelerated Infrastructure
Delivery (BusAID)
For more information on these funding
sources and applicability to the project,
please see the GBI Action Plan.

El Camino Real and Holly St (San Carlos)
91 CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN CENTRAL EL CAMINO REAL MULTIMODAL PLAN 92

San Mateo City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

San Mateo City Council
September 22, 2026