State Route 49 Realignment Study


The El Dorado County Transportation Commission (EDCTC) was awarded a $250,000 Partnership Planning grant by Caltrans to study the realignment of State Route (SR) 49 between the towns of Coloma and El Dorado. The purpose of the study was to explore alternative alignments of SR 49 between Coloma and El Dorado that will improve interregional and regional conditions on the state and regional transportation system by improving traffic operations. The SR 49 Realignment Study began in February 2009 and was concluded in May 2010.  The present alignment of SR 49 routes local, regional, and interregional commercial traffic through densely populated residential areas and the business districts of the City of Placerville and the towns of Coloma, Diamond Springs, and El Dorado. The facility in its present state has numerous short radius curves, switchbacks, and a considerable number of steep grades. In addition to the alignment being very poor and not adequate for modern transportation demands, the basic width of the traveled way is only 18 feet and there are almost no usable shoulders.

The study examined alternatives that eliminated the existing alignment of SR 49 through Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park and the at-grade intersection of SR 49 and US 50 in Placerville in order to reduce travel times and congestion in the corridor. The study also explored alternatives that relieve SR 49 traffic impacts to densely populated residential areas and business districts of the City of Placerville and the towns of Diamond Springs and El Dorado. The SR 49 Realignment Study considered how potential new alignments may affect jobs, corridor demographics, population growth, as well as current and future traffic demand and transportation needs. Proposed new alignments of SR 49 evaluated the utilization of existing local roads, which may reduce the amount of resources required to achieve improved conditions in the corridor. The SR 49 Realignment Study also considered alternatives that maximize bicycle, pedestrian, and transit opportunities and contribute to the remedy for current and future deficiencies in transportation safety in the SR 49 corridor.

Public involvement and outreach were major components of the State Route 49 Realignment Study. In an effort to involve a broad range of potentially affected interests, the project included two public open houses and the involvement of a Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) made up of representatives from groups and organizations within the project area.

State Route 49 Realignment Study Documents

Main Document 2010 (9.3 mb)

A-Project Information - Area Map (2 mb)
B-Proposed Typical Cross Section

Level One Screening
C-1-Map of Alternatives (2.5 mb)
C-3-Scoring Assumptions

Intermediate Level 1 Screening
D-1- Map of Alternatives (2.4 mb)
D-2 Results
D-3 Scoring Assumptions

Level 2 Screening
E-1 Map of Alternatives (2.5 mb)
E-2 Results
E-3 Scoring Assumptions

Preliminary Construction Costs
F-1-Alternative 3E
F-2-Alternative 5G
F-3-Alternative 5H
Design Criteria Memorandum
H_ Environmental Constraints and Opportunities Analysis (5.6 mb)
I-Traffic Analysis Memorandum (2.3 mb)

Public Outreach
J-1-Public Comments Matrix
J-2-State Parks Letter to the EDCTC
J-3-Media Articles
J-4-Concerns Regarding Cold Springs Road (1.3 mb)
J-5-Public Meeting #1 Summary 04-30-09
J-6 Public Meeting #2 Summary 10/14/09
J-7-Additional Public Comments
J-8-SAC meeting minutes
K-PDT Members
L-1964 SR49 Route Adoption Documents(3.7 mb) MAPS:
Project Area Map(2 mb)
Final Alternatives Map (2 mb)

1971-2002 SR49 General (2.4 mb)
1973 SR49 Public Hearing (19 mb)
1975-1990 SR49 TAMS Report (3.4 mb)
1978 Marshall Gold Discovery GP (12 mb)
1986 SR 49 Concept-Development Report (812 kb)
1988 SR49 Realignment/Placerville (4.3 mb)
1990 SR49 Long-Range Corridor Study (5.3 mb)
1991 SR49 Long-Range Corridor Study (4.6 mb)
2000 SR 49 Transportation Concept Report (3.7 mb)

  • January 2009: Project Notice to Proceed
  • April 2009: Public Open House #1
  • October 2009: Public Open House #2
  • November 2009: Presented Draft Study to EDCTC Board
  • February 2010: Presented Draft Study to EDCTC Board
  • May 6, 2010: Presented Final Study to EDCTC Board