Expecting East Prospect Road to re-open? Think again.

PennDOT had expected the construction on Route 124 — also known as East Prospect Road — to be completed, or at least far enough along that the road could be re-opened, by July 26.

Which would have been good news to those affected by the closure, at the S-curve between Mount Zion Road and Locust Grove Road in Windsor Township. The closure has caused a degree of difficulty for those who had traveled the road frequently. And now that East Market Street between Mount Zion and Locust Grove roads is under construction, it has caused even more issues for motorists. And it has caused issues for at least one small business, which reportedly has seen a significant drop in business.

So now comes word that the project will be continuing.

PennDOT spokesman Greg Penny said the contractor has been hit by delays caused by utility issues. He said the contractor doing the roadwork has to wait for York Water Co. to complete running a new main and other lines before finishing the project.

And the contractor has requested an extension, asking PennDOT for permission to keep the road closed until mid-September.

PennDOT hasn’t ruled on the request yet. Penny said it is possible that the contractor could get the road to a point where it could be re-opened before finishing the project, completing it, as they say, under traffic with flagmen.

Stay tuned.

About Mike Argento

Reach Mike Argento at mike@ydr.com or call 717-771-2046.
This entry was posted in Pet peeves, Roads and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Expecting East Prospect Road to re-open? Think again.

  1. JT says:

    Thanks for naming names and identifying the York Water Company as the plodding utility.

    Let’s hope Windsor Township, PennDOT, and the PUC remembers this the next time that the York Water Company needs a right of way, a highway occupancy permit, or a rate increase.

  2. Zack says:

    This is hardly the news I wanted to hear. I am unsure what sort of planning took place for the various projects in the eastern portion of the county. Combine the SNAFU on East Prospect Road with the ongoing construction on Cape Horn Road (the detour due to the closure), and you get a construction nightmare commonly seen on the Baltimore Beltway. Way to go!! Hard hats off to you on this one!!

  3. Nate says:

    And add to that the upcoming closure on Cool Creek Rd, and the folks in and around East Prospect are getting close to being cut off from the world. OK, a bit of an exaggeration, but the two main routes from East Prospect to the city will soon be closed at the same time. Great planning.

  4. Jeff Hines says:

    The York Water Company takes exception to the characterization that we are the cause of the delays associated with the current PennDOT project along East Prospect Road. Beginning in 2009, York Water worked very closely with PennDOT and their consultants. We made it very clear that this would be a significant project requiring substantial work on our part –disconnecting a large water main in East Prospect Road, constructing a bypass to supply the portions of our service area east of the project site (all the way to Yorkana and East Prospect Boroughs), connecting our customers in the project area to a temporary water main, and then installing a new water main along the religned road. All of this while maintaining continuous service to our customers.

    Within days after being notified that we could start, our contractors were onsite and working. Once this initial work was complete, York Water could do nothing further while PennDOT’s contractor progressed on the project. At the start of construction, PennDOT’s contractor informed us that we would be able to begin installing our new main and reconnecting our customers in early June. However, the contractor did not actually authorize us to start this work until mid-July. Once again, we began work within days after we received this notification. None of our work has taken any longer than we said it would before the project started. We also note that PennDOT’s contractor was actively working on the project at all times while our contractor was working on the main and services. As such, we fail to see how our work could have impacted PennDOT’s schedule in any significant way.

    As has been the case for the past 196 years: Our offices and employees are right here in York and we have always been available to meet with all of the various stakeholders in this project to address the timeline and our role in it.

  5. JT says:


    If all that you present is true then we should both agree–and persuade PennDOT–that J.D. Eckman should no longer be considered a “responsible” bidder in this Commonwealth.

    They might be lower but they seem d@mn irresponsible to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *