Vermont

[Pete from Boston]

Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.

[Alps]

Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.

I don't like fruit in my beer. I passed right by without stopping. Now Cold Hollow Cider Mill, if it's cider season (and it just about is)...

[froggie]

Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.

Forget the Alchemist.  The food is where it's at...

[Rainking75]

Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.

Heady Topper!!! That stuff is like unobtainium! If any locals are willing the ship their weekly allocation to NC, I'd make it worth your while...

[froggie]

Hill's better...just sayin'.

[Pete from Boston]

Hill's better...just sayin'.

I'm content to disagree.  More for me.

The only eating I've done in Waterbury was at Prohibition Pig.  Maybe our expectations were too high, but it was, well, not all we were led to expect. 

Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.

I don't like fruit in my beer. I passed right by without stopping. Now Cold Hollow Cider Mill, if it's cider season (and it just about is)...

Despite the nonsensical verbal diarrhea on beeradvocate.com, Heady Topper isn't fruity.  It tastes much more like a neatly balanced yet still very strong IPA.  The extent of the fruitiness (I had never considered that there was any until now) is a citrusiness that is not unlike the same flavor derived from hops. 

I too dislike fruity beers (Magic Hat could close down tomorrow and I wouldn't notice), but this is much more an IPA-lover's beer.  Trust taste, not words.   

In any case, I see you can't visit them since Irene anyway.

Now if I can just close my eyes for three months and forget that some crackpot ruined beer with pumpkins... wouldn't bother me if do many otherwise great rotating taps weren't blocked up with pumpkin everything. 

[shadyjay]

Heady Toppers are good, but super-expensive.  I think I've only had one a handful of times.  You should see the stores around my town when it gets delivered.  It's usually gone that same day.

The Alchemist brewery up in Waterbury center is no longer open to the public since it got out of hand with traffic/parking.  Their original "restaurant" on So Main St (2/100) got destroyed by Irene and is now the Prohibition Pig. 

[Pete from Boston]

Heady Toppers are good, but super-expensive.  I think I've only had one a handful of times.  You should see the stores around my town when it gets delivered.  It's usually gone that same day.

The Alchemist brewery up in Waterbury center is no longer open to the public since it got out of hand with traffic/parking.  Their original "restaurant" on So Main St (2/100) got destroyed by Irene and is now the Prohibition Pig.

$75/case, at my last check.  Not sure about the 4-packs, but the 16-oz cans run about $8 in bars.  I do wonder about how much of what's going on is prestige/scarcity pricing, but it's not much of an issue from where I live. 

This is all making me feel like I need to go visit my Heady Topper, er, family in the area again soon.

[Alps]

Waterbury?  How could you even drive anymore when at the home of Heady Topper?   Some things are worth giving up the road for.

I don't like fruit in my beer. I passed right by without stopping. Now Cold Hollow Cider Mill, if it's cider season (and it just about is)...

Despite the nonsensical verbal diarrhea on beeradvocate.com, Heady Topper isn't fruity.  It tastes much more like a neatly balanced yet still very strong IPA.  The extent of the fruitiness (I had never considered that there was any until now) is a citrusiness that is not unlike the same flavor derived from hops. 

I don't read BA or any other beer reviews. I tasted Heady Topper. My opinion remains as stated, and I disagree with yours. But hey, that's what opinions are for.

[Pete from Boston]

Ok. I took "I don't like fruit in my beer. I passed right by without stopping" to imply "Fruit beer not worth the stop to try."

[Rainking75]

I'm with you Pete. Fruit was the furthest thing from my mind when I sampled a Heady Topper.

However, for something a hops lover will go crazy for, try La Cumbre out of Albuquerque. I love a hoppy IPA as much as the next guy, but this one borders on overwhelming!

And now, back to discussions of Vermont roads... 

[Pete from Boston]

Roads: Is exit 2 or exit 3 the better way to get to the Worthy Burger (which is rumored to have a terrific beer selection)?

Sorry, these days beer exploration (in moderation, of course) is half of what gets me out poking around the roads these days.  Vermont is lush with opportunities in this regard.

[yakra]

*rimshot*

[froggie]

Coming from the south (as I presume you would be), Exit 2 is better to get to Worthy Burger.  A bit of warning, though:  they only accept cash.

[froggie]

This article from a week-and-a-half ago suggests the Morrisville bypass is still on tap to open in 2 weeks (the 3rd being the cited date).  Potential delays due to a traffic signal change (and our wonderful Vermont weather) are possible, though, but VTrans seems confident that it will open in October.

I also found this video which is a flyover of the bypass construction from last November.  It appears to have been filmed from a small drone.

[Duke87]

So why is this "bypass" cutting through the northern part of town as opposed to bypassing it completely? Wetland issues?

[shadyjay]

It's been several years since I've been through Morrisville.  We used to take a route that bypassed the center of town, departing from Rt 100 north of Stowe and rejoining I think where the new rotary is.  It definitely wasn't a truck route, though. 

In other news....

Effective 1-October, it will be illegal to be using a handheld electronic device while driving a vehicle (ie... no cell phones).  It's already illegal to do so in a work zone, but on Oct 1, it'll be illegal everywhere in the state.  Just a heads up for those planning on coming up during the foliage, winter, or "road geeking" seasons. 

[Duke87]

The question that always comes up in my mind in these cases is "does this apply to using a camera?"

According to definitions in VT law, 23 V.S.A. § 4(82):

"Portable electronic device" means a portable electronic or computing device, including a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or laptop computer.

It seems that the answer is (implicitly) yes. So if you got a ticket it would likely hold up in court. The question which is difficult to answer then, is what is the likelihood a cop will give you a ticket if he sees you doing it.

[The Nature Boy]

The question that always comes up in my mind in these cases is "does this apply to using a camera?"

According to definitions in VT law, 23 V.S.A. § 4(82):

"Portable electronic device" means a portable electronic or computing device, including a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or laptop computer.

It seems that the answer is (implicitly) yes. So if you got a ticket it would likely hold up in court. The question which is difficult to answer then, is what is the likelihood a cop will give you a ticket if he sees you doing it.

Couldn't you fight that by arguing legislative intent? There are plenty of legal portable electronic devices in a car. If you stretch it too far, you've just banned GPSes and things as minor as FM transmitters.

[yakra]

Wow. This bypass seemed to go thru pretty quickly. I don't see the alignment on Google or Bing satellite view, or Mapnik. Have links to any maps?

The August 7 2012 VTRANS shapefiles don't show it,  even as under construction or proposed (compare VT289)...
I'll have to download a newer revision and see if it shows up.

Edit: No luck on the newest shapefiles.

[froggie]

So why is this "bypass" cutting through the northern part of town as opposed to bypassing it completely? Wetland issues?

Not really "wetland issues".  It's a combination of topography, the river, Lake Lamoille (which the river expands into just west of downtown), and the closeness of Hyde Park and Cadys Falls northwest of the lake.  The selected route really was the best route to use, nor was there really a need to "bypass it completely".  The main intention is to get trucks out of the multiple turns that 100 takes downtown, and the routing accomplishes that quite adequately.

The bypass will be limited access, with a handful of at-grade intersections, a traffic signal at Bridge St, and a roundabout where it ties into VT 15.  The Lamoille Valley Rail Trail crosses over it just north of Bridge St (should be a pretty good vantage point).  IIRC, the speed limit will be 40.

(EDIT)  Eric:  this document includes a map of most of the bypass on page 10.  It also goes into some of the details behind the need for the bypass.

[Pete from Boston]

The question that always comes up in my mind in these cases is "does this apply to using a camera?"

According to definitions in VT law, 23 V.S.A. § 4(82):

"Portable electronic device" means a portable electronic or computing device, including a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or laptop computer.

It seems that the answer is (implicitly) yes. So if you got a ticket it would likely hold up in court. The question which is difficult to answer then, is what is the likelihood a cop will give you a ticket if he sees you doing it.

Couldn't you fight that by arguing legislative intent? There are plenty of legal portable electronic devices in a car. If you stretch it too far, you've just banned GPSes and things as minor as FM transmitters.

I met someone recently who said he got ticketed under the similar Mass. law for using a tobacco vaporizer pen.

[yakra]

Guess I'll have to switch back to the old analog camera for roadgeeking purposes then.

[Duke87]

The question that always comes up in my mind in these cases is "does this apply to using a camera?"

According to definitions in VT law, 23 V.S.A. § 4(82):

"Portable electronic device" means a portable electronic or computing device, including a cellular telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or laptop computer.

It seems that the answer is (implicitly) yes. So if you got a ticket it would likely hold up in court. The question which is difficult to answer then, is what is the likelihood a cop will give you a ticket if he sees you doing it.

Couldn't you fight that by arguing legislative intent? There are plenty of legal portable electronic devices in a car. If you stretch it too far, you've just banned GPSes and things as minor as FM transmitters.

The car's radio isn't "portable" since it's permanently affixed to the vehicle. And you're not supposed to manually punch any requests into a GPS unless you're stopped. Listening to directions coming from it is hands-free and thus doesn't fall under the statute.

In order to get around the prohibition as written you would have to either have the camera be a permanent part of the vehicle (a la Street view cars) or be able to operate it hands-free.

As for legislative intent, you could just as easily argue that the intent is to stop people from using devices which distract them from driving, which they will say a camera qualifies as. New York and Ontario have similar laws and the courts in both jurisdictions have already ruled that use of a camera while driving is illegal under them. Meanwhile if you do get the courts to throw your ticket out, you can bet the legislature will subsequently amend the law to close the loophole that allowed that.

[froggie]

Effective 1-October, it will be illegal to be using a handheld electronic device while driving a vehicle (ie... no cell phones).  It's already illegal to do so in a work zone, but on Oct 1, it'll be illegal everywhere in the state.

VTrans has already started posting signage noting the new permanent law...I pass one such sign on I-91 near the Wilder exit last night, but it was well after dark so no photo.

Mods:  the discussion on "legislative intent" is interesting enough, but also non-topic enough to where it probably warrants splitting those posts off into a separate thread.