Control Cities

[I-55]

IMO the only in state control cities in WV should be Charleston, Wheeling, Martinsburg, Huntington, Morganstown, Berkeley, and maybe White Sulfur Springs. Pittsburgh on I-79, Cleveland and Charlotte on I-77, Richmond on I-64.

What about I-68 East:  Baltimore/Washington, DC or just Hagerstown?

Cumberland, with Baltimore or DC at the I-79 interchange.

I have posted in another thread that WVDOT should put up a supplemental sign on I-79 North for I-68 East.  It should read "Baltimore (Line 1), Washington, DC (Line 2), EXIT 148 (Line 3).  The current I-68 control cities are fine.

I have posted about many thoughts I have had about control cities in this and other threads.  Sticking with this interchange, the control cities for I-79 there in Morgantown should be Charleston and Pittsburgh--not Fairmont and Washington, PA.  And staying in WV, it would be nice to see a 3-panel sign put up in Charleston for the I-64/I-77 split similar to what is near Beckley for the I-64/I-77 split there, having motorists use I-64 for Richmond and I-77 for Charlotte.  It could have (left panel-2 lines) Louisville USE I-64 WEST, (center panel- 2 lines) Cleveland USE I-77 NORTH, (right panel-2 lines) Pittsburgh USE I-79 NORTH.  I realize most motorists wanting to go to Pittsburgh from the south will use US 19 out of Beckley, however, the sign in Charleston would be for motorists that are originating from the Chelyan area to the eastern downtown Charleston area.  I also believe there should be an auxiliary sign on the WV Tpk just south of US 19 reading Pittsburgh EXIT 48.

As far as what KCRoadFan has posted, Lexington, VA is listed on almost every, if not every, mileage sign on I-64 East from the I-64/I-77 split in Beckley all the way to the post interchange mileage sign east of EXIT 50 outside of Lexington, VA.  Lewisburg is on the BGS there in Beckley; Lexington, VA is listed from EXIT 169 (US 219) on east at the interchanges.

I agree with what I-55 posted about Lexington, KY.  If I am not mistaken, when I-64 was completed in Kentucky, Huntington was the EB control city, then Ashland replaced it years later.  Did the same happen in the Huntington area where Ashland may have replaced Lexington as a control city?  There are two or three mileage signs along I-64 West listing the distance to Lexington as far back as within the EXIT 18 interchange. 

At the Exit for WV-10

On I-64 itself at US-52

It appears to still be Ashland and it was when I last visited 3 years ago (or something like that long ago).

[amroad17]

^ I have seen Ashland, KY posted ever since I moved to Northern Kentucky in 1994 (saw it at the Kenova interchange when I stopped for gas on my move).  I was wondering if Lexington was ever posted when I-64 was first completed in the early to mid-1960's through Huntington.

[The Nature Boy]

I am looking at this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6290769,-72.2090271,3a,75y,341.81h,74.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq-tOH-MWHVkNzLTrJ1cTIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

If you were dedicated to eliminating state name control cities, what would you replace this with? "White River Junction VT" is what is used further south so it might work here. From this point though, it's literally the best way to any point in Vermont so I might hesitate to sign something like "Montpelier." You could just as easily take this route to get to Brattleboro or Newport. WRJ is obvious because it's the junction for I-89/91 and I'd probably go with that.

[Scott5114]

Montpelier would probably work best. Any road is the best way to many dozens of points. The purpose of a control city is to note the next single point along the road that the most people would be interested in visiting, or at least using as a waypoint to their ultimate destination.

[dkblake]

Montpelier would probably work best. Any road is the best way to many dozens of points. The purpose of a control city is to note the next single point along the road that the most people would be interested in visiting, or at least using as a waypoint to their ultimate destination.

I don't think NH uses any VT cities as control cities along I-89, which I've always thought as sort of silly since it's not as if the Concord-Lebanon corridor merits an Interstate highway on its own. (I also think it's silly that Burlington isn't used as a control city until past Barre.) And within the first mile or so entering VT, you can take 91 to WRJ and points along the Connecticut River, 4 west to Rutland, or 89 north. I agree that Montpelier makes the most sense, but I can see why they just went with blanket "Vermont."

[The Nature Boy]

Montpelier would probably work best. Any road is the best way to many dozens of points. The purpose of a control city is to note the next single point along the road that the most people would be interested in visiting, or at least using as a waypoint to their ultimate destination.

I don't think NH uses any VT cities as control cities along I-89, which I've always thought as sort of silly since it's not as if the Concord-Lebanon corridor merits an Interstate highway on its own. (I also think it's silly that Burlington isn't used as a control city until past Barre.) And within the first mile or so entering VT, you can take 91 to WRJ and points along the Connecticut River, 4 west to Rutland, or 89 north. I agree that Montpelier makes the most sense, but I can see why they just went with blanket "Vermont."

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1651012,-71.5223912,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSynnGPk1bzu_LHSoIZaUGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

WRJ is signed at the interchange with I-93. I can't remember if it's signed again in NH.

Signing WRJ at that pull through would at least be consistent with what is signed further south. However, you could make the argument that Montpelier should be signed at the I-89/93 interchange and again at that pull through. Anyone who is going to Lebanon would know where WRJ is and the signing of WRJ in either instance (at the 89 interchange and the pull through IN Lebanon) doesn't actually help motorists.

[dkblake]

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1651012,-71.5223912,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSynnGPk1bzu_LHSoIZaUGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

WRJ is signed at the interchange with I-93. I can't remember if it's signed again in NH.

Signing WRJ at that pull through would at least be consistent with what is signed further south. However, you could make the argument that Montpelier should be signed at the I-89/93 interchange and again at that pull through. Anyone who is going to Lebanon would know where WRJ is and the signing of WRJ in either instance (at the 89 interchange and the pull through IN Lebanon) doesn't actually help motorists.

That's on I-93 NB; I'm pretty sure WRJ isn't referenced once you get on I-89. I agree, though, that Lebanon/WRJ is redundant on that sign. I think it should use Lebanon/Montpelier as control cities, with a separate sign saying Burlington/Montreal or Keene/Burlington (since NH directs Keene traffic to I-89 -> NH 9) a la the NY City sign on the Mass Pike at I-84. 

[jp the roadgeek]

Couple of items about these VT control cities:

1. Why is St. Johnsbury a control for I-91 North at the end of I-93 when A. You've already passed an exit with St. Johnsbury as a control and B. You're already in St. Johnsbury?  I would use Lyndonville or Lyndonville/Sherbrooke

2. Burlington should be added as a secondary control for the 89 North exit off of I-91 North. 

[The Nature Boy]

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1651012,-71.5223912,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSynnGPk1bzu_LHSoIZaUGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

WRJ is signed at the interchange with I-93. I can't remember if it's signed again in NH.

Signing WRJ at that pull through would at least be consistent with what is signed further south. However, you could make the argument that Montpelier should be signed at the I-89/93 interchange and again at that pull through. Anyone who is going to Lebanon would know where WRJ is and the signing of WRJ in either instance (at the 89 interchange and the pull through IN Lebanon) doesn't actually help motorists.

That's on I-93 NB; I'm pretty sure WRJ isn't referenced once you get on I-89. I agree, though, that Lebanon/WRJ is redundant on that sign. I think it should use Lebanon/Montpelier as control cities, with a separate sign saying Burlington/Montreal or Keene/Burlington (since NH directs Keene traffic to I-89 -> NH 9) a la the NY City sign on the Mass Pike at I-84.

I actually think that a second sign on I-93 NB that has Montreal as a control city wouldn't be a bad idea, especially since most Bostonians heading to Montreal would take that route. You could continue on I-93 to get to Montreal but it is slightly longer.

Thinking about it - I would probably sign Montpelier and Burlington at the pull through in Lebanon. Burlington is the largest city in Vermont and probably the most important point along that route before you get to Montreal so it should be signed farther out than Montpelier. I haven't driven I-89 in Vermont in about a decade but I don't remember seeing any signage for Burlington south of Montpelier.

Regarding the I-91 N control city at the I-93 junction - I think you run into the issue of the Northeast Kingdom not having a lot of notable destinations of north of St. Johnsbury. Lyndon and Newport are the only real points of interest north of that point and both are towns with populations smaller than 6,000. You're still ~140 miles from Montreal at that point so I'd maybe sign it as a secondary control city with Lyndon or Newport (flip a coin) as the primary.

[jp the roadgeek]

My only thing about using Montreal as a control for 91 North is that it really (as A-55) doesn't lead directly to Montreal (it would involve a 65 mile jaunt west on A-10); and although you have the gap between I-89 and A-35, most traffic from the south would have used that way to get there (I often associate I-91/A-55 as the way to Quebec City).  Sherbrooke, though smaller, is a more direct control on A-55, but VTrans does use Lyndonville north of St. Johnsbury.  Maybe a supplemental sign saying "Montreal/Follow I-91 North to A-55 North to A-10 West" would be useful. 

[dkblake]

Couple of items about these VT control cities:

1. Why is St. Johnsbury a control for I-91 North at the end of I-93 when A. You've already passed an exit with St. Johnsbury as a control and B. You're already in St. Johnsbury?  I would use Lyndonville or Lyndonville/Sherbrooke

Because of the whole New England town thing- the control city, when it is a town, really refers to the town center. I always thought the signage on MA 3 NB just over the Sagamore Bridge to Plymouth was a little silly since you were in the town of Plymouth, but Plymouth center was still 10 or so miles away. The Mid-Cape does this frequently as well.

If I remember, that one exit on I-93 in VT is more to get to US 2 EB, and there's not really a sense of where I-93 drops you onto I-91 vis-a-vis the town center (it's not like there's a skyline over the maples), so it's helpful to know which way to go. I don't think there's a good alternative; Newport isn't exactly huge, Quebec City is too far, Sherbrooke not enough of a travel destination to warrant being an international control city.

Thinking about it - I would probably sign Montpelier and Burlington at the pull through in Lebanon. Burlington is the largest city in Vermont and probably the most important point along that route before you get to Montreal so it should be signed farther out than Montpelier. I haven't driven I-89 in Vermont in about a decade but I don't remember seeing any signage for Burlington south of Montpelier.

I'm pretty sure the first mention of Burlington is right after the Barre exit, which is like two miles south of the Montpelier exit. They sign both Barre and Montpelier on the Lebanon/Montpelier section, which is arguably even less useful than signing Lebanon and WRJ.

[SkyPesos]

Beltway control cities are the most notable and interesting to me, so only going to mention those in this post.

There's a couple control cities on the St. Louis beltway that annoy me. I-255 still has "Interstate 270" as a control when IL 255 has been completed around Alton. I-270 in Missouri should really be using Indianapolis instead of Chicago EB from the I-70 interchange. Memphis is fine as a control city on both 270 and 255, think Tulsa has been signed on I-270 in the past as well, or at least I remember seeing Tulsa on the 364 E to 270 S ramp.

I-275 in Cincinnati mostly uses control routes, with the route shield. For example, on the northern I-71 interchange, there is TO I-75 for I-275 W, and TO OH-32 for I-275 E. "Indianapolis" and "Columbus" are used for I-275 control cities on the northern I-75 interchange, along with the TO [route number]. "Kentucky" is used as a control for OH 32 to I-275 S. "Airport" is used as a control in parts of I-275 in KY.

I-270 in Columbus got rid of control cities on the new BGS installs, but in the past, they were Dayton, Cincinnati, Wheeling and Cleveland.

In a larger city, I would like to see notable suburbs be used as beltway controls. For example on I-495 in MD, Alexandria, Tysons and Bethesda can be used as control cities on the independent section.

[ilpt4u]

Beltway control cities are the most notable and interesting to me, so only going to mention those in this post.

There's a couple control cities on the St. Louis beltway that annoy me. I-255 still has "Interstate 270" as a control when IL 255 has been completed around Alton. I-270 in Missouri should really be using Indianapolis instead of Chicago EB from the I-70 interchange. Memphis is fine as a control city on both 270 and 255, think Tulsa has been signed on I-270 in the past as well, or at least I remember seeing Tulsa on the 364 E to 270 S ramp.

Tulsa makes an appearance on I-255 South in IL at the I-64 interchange, also

There was a discussion a while back on the Illustrations board under the "Redesign This!"  thread where we discussed whether I-270 North or I-270 South should be signed with a Control of "Chicago"  at I-44 - especially since it is a shorter (and usually) less congested trip to use I-270 South/I-255 East-North/I-55 North to get back to the I-55/70/270 junction at Troy, IL vs using I-270 North-East, and then if a "Chicago"  or "Illinois"  Control was set for I-270 South, then what should the I-270 North Control be from I-44? Lambert/STL Airport was the consensus favorite

In a larger city, I would like to see notable suburbs be used as beltway controls. For example on I-495 in MD, Alexandria, Tysons and Bethesda can be used as control cities on the independent section.

You can always pull an I-355 in Suburban Chicago - and sign your Controls as "Southwest Suburbs"  "West Suburbs"  "Northwest Suburbs"

The really generic I-355 exit sign from I-55 in Bolingbrook that listed I-355's Control as "Suburbs"  was greened-out not too long after it was posted - after the Chicago Tribune Roadways writer basically roasted IDOT and ISTHA for such a meaningless Control

[The Nature Boy]

Couple of items about these VT control cities:

1. Why is St. Johnsbury a control for I-91 North at the end of I-93 when A. You've already passed an exit with St. Johnsbury as a control and B. You're already in St. Johnsbury?  I would use Lyndonville or Lyndonville/Sherbrooke

Because of the whole New England town thing- the control city, when it is a town, really refers to the town center. I always thought the signage on MA 3 NB just over the Sagamore Bridge to Plymouth was a little silly since you were in the town of Plymouth, but Plymouth center was still 10 or so miles away. The Mid-Cape does this frequently as well.

If I remember, that one exit on I-93 in VT is more to get to US 2 EB, and there's not really a sense of where I-93 drops you onto I-91 vis-a-vis the town center (it's not like there's a skyline over the maples), so it's helpful to know which way to go. I don't think there's a good alternative; Newport isn't exactly huge, Quebec City is too far, Sherbrooke not enough of a travel destination to warrant being an international control city.

Thinking about it - I would probably sign Montpelier and Burlington at the pull through in Lebanon. Burlington is the largest city in Vermont and probably the most important point along that route before you get to Montreal so it should be signed farther out than Montpelier. I haven't driven I-89 in Vermont in about a decade but I don't remember seeing any signage for Burlington south of Montpelier.

I'm pretty sure the first mention of Burlington is right after the Barre exit, which is like two miles south of the Montpelier exit. They sign both Barre and Montpelier on the Lebanon/Montpelier section, which is arguably even less useful than signing Lebanon and WRJ.

At least Vermont changed the control city for I-89 S at the I-91 interchange from "Airport" and "New Hampshire" to "Concord NH," which is a bit more helpful. I wouldn't sign Barre at all if I were Vermont, I would go with Burlington and Montpelier.

In a larger city, I would like to see notable suburbs be used as beltway controls. For example on I-495 in MD, Alexandria, Tysons and Bethesda can be used as control cities on the independent section.

For some reason, Maryland is fond of using "Northern Virginia" heading towards the American Legion Bridge. VDOT signs Richmond and Alexandria as soon as you cross the American Legion.

[SkyPesos]

There was a discussion a while back on the Illustrations board under the "Redesign This!"  thread where we discussed whether I-270 North or I-270 South should be signed with a Control of "Chicago"  at I-44 - especially since it is a shorter (and usually) less congested trip to use I-270 South/I-255 East-North/I-55 North to get back to the I-55/70/270 junction at Troy, IL vs using I-270 North-East, and then if a "Chicago"  or "Illinois"  Control was set for I-270 South, then what should the I-270 North Control be from I-44? Lambert/STL Airport was the consensus favorite

Considering all of this, STL airport is the best option, especially since I-170 doesn't go that far south. Otherwise, the next best options is no control city. I had thought of something on US 61 north of St. Louis, since that's the only other expressway going north of St. Louis (US 67 turns into a 2 lane road shortly after IL 255's northern termius), but when you're coming from I-44 E, using anything on US 61 is a backtrack.

Speaking of US 61 in St. Louis, Hannibal is a good control city, but parts of me wants to use Cedar Rapids for long distance travelers and to signify the existance of the AotS. Not sure if 280 miles is too much between control cities on a US route. On the contray, this sign should have St. Louis as the bottom control city after Mt Plesant instead of Keokuk.

[ilpt4u]

There was a discussion a while back on the Illustrations board under the "Redesign This!"  thread where we discussed whether I-270 North or I-270 South should be signed with a Control of "Chicago"  at I-44 - especially since it is a shorter (and usually) less congested trip to use I-270 South/I-255 East-North/I-55 North to get back to the I-55/70/270 junction at Troy, IL vs using I-270 North-East, and then if a "Chicago"  or "Illinois"  Control was set for I-270 South, then what should the I-270 North Control be from I-44? Lambert/STL Airport was the consensus favorite

Considering all of this, STL airport is the best option, especially since I-170 doesn't go that far south. Otherwise, the next best options is no control city. I had thought of something on US 61 north of St. Louis, since that's the only other expressway going north of St. Louis (US 67 turns into a 2 lane road shortly after IL 255's northern termius), but when you're coming from I-44 E, using anything on US 61 is a backtrack.

Speaking of US 61 in St. Louis, Hannibal is a good control city, but parts of me wants to use Cedar Rapids for long distance travelers and to signify the existance of the AotS. Not sure if 280 miles is too much between control cities on a US route. On the contray, this sign should have St. Louis as the bottom control city after Mt Plesant instead of Keokuk.

We discussed that a little bit in the thread on the Illustrations board: If MoDOT around St Louis would actually recognize the Avenue of the Saints as a thing, maybe I-270 North at I-44 could have Minneapolis as its Control!

I think, at a minimum, the AotS Banner should be on the BGS at the I-64/I-70/US 40/US 61 interchange in Wentzville. I think it would be cool to give US 61 North the Minneapolis Control there, but it probably is pushing it to actually sign it, at this point anyway

Also not sure if MoDOT gives the entire AotS corridor in MO the MO 27 designation. I know Iowa gives the entire corridor the IA 27 designation, there

[Roadgeekteen]

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

[jp the roadgeek]

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

Winooski is even more useless.  VTrans uses Winooski/St. Albans for I-89 North at the east end of I-189.  Should really be St. Albans/Montreal

[SkyPesos]

There was a discussion a while back on the Illustrations board under the “Redesign This!” thread where we discussed whether I-270 North or I-270 South should be signed with a Control of “Chicago” at I-44 - especially since it is a shorter (and usually) less congested trip to use I-270 South/I-255 East-North/I-55 North to get back to the I-55/70/270 junction at Troy, IL vs using I-270 North-East, and then if a “Chicago” or “Illinois” Control was set for I-270 South, then what should the I-270 North Control be from I-44? Lambert/STL Airport was the consensus favorite

Considering all of this, STL airport is the best option, especially since I-170 doesn't go that far south. Otherwise, the next best options is no control city. I had thought of something on US 61 north of St. Louis, since that's the only other expressway going north of St. Louis (US 67 turns into a 2 lane road shortly after IL 255's northern termius), but when you're coming from I-44 E, using anything on US 61 is a backtrack.

Speaking of US 61 in St. Louis, Hannibal is a good control city, but parts of me wants to use Cedar Rapids for long distance travelers and to signify the existance of the AotS. Not sure if 280 miles is too much between control cities on a US route. On the contray, this sign should have St. Louis as the bottom control city after Mt Plesant instead of Keokuk.

Also not sure if MoDOT gives the entire AotS corridor in MO the MO 27 designation. I know Iowa gives the entire corridor the IA 27 designation, there

From what it looks like, MO 27 like doesn't exist at all until US 61 splits off. MO 27 signage on US 136 interchange. Like seeing the "Iowa City" control on the NB sign.

In my semi-realistic fictional world, I had all of the AotS under US 61, and rerouted it via Rochester, MN, as part of an idea to decommission US 52 northwest of Illinois. The exit numbers on the AotS in Iowa are a mess as well from looking at the wikipedia exits list (new thread topic?). It starts off normally, then resets to 0 after I-80 (why?), jumps to the 230s in Waterloo (When did US 20 get involved here?, thought the AotS goes straight through Waterloo on US 218), then goes back to its own mileposts again, starts a gradual decrease from exit 220 when US 18 concurrency starts to exit 178, then increases again on I-35.

[The Nature Boy]

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

Winooski is even more useless.  VTrans uses Winooski/St. Albans for I-89 North at the east end of I-189.  Should really be St. Albans/Montreal

Does VTrans sign Montreal anywhere at all along I-89?

I feel like a good portion of I-89 traffic in Vermont is Montreal bound so it might be relevant.

[Flint1979]

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

Canada is used most of the time near the borders.

[jp the roadgeek]

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

Winooski is even more useless.  VTrans uses Winooski/St. Albans for I-89 North at the east end of I-189.  Should really be St. Albans/Montreal

Does VTrans sign Montreal anywhere at all along I-89?

I feel like a good portion of I-89 traffic in Vermont is Montreal bound so it might be relevant.

There is a BGS in GSV on US 2 in Colchester for I-89 North listing Georgia, St. Albans, and Montreal (from Wikipedia)

[The Nature Boy]

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

Winooski is even more useless.  VTrans uses Winooski/St. Albans for I-89 North at the east end of I-189.  Should really be St. Albans/Montreal

Does VTrans sign Montreal anywhere at all along I-89?

I feel like a good portion of I-89 traffic in Vermont is Montreal bound so it might be relevant.

There is a BGS in GSV on US 2 in Colchester for I-89 North listing Georgia, St. Albans, and Montreal (from Wikipedia)

This is a good one. I did some GSV and found Montreal on mileage signs but nothing more than that. This is a good find.

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

Canada is used most of the time near the borders.

Yeah, the only reason I thought of Montreal being signed is because I know it's signed at the I-87/90 interchange in Albany, NY. (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6911835,-73.8205223,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTLV76NS1CT3Le8lC1vOtig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Honestly NY could get away with posting Plattsburgh there but Montreal is more helpful to long distance travelers.

It does look like VTrans signs "Canada" at the US 5/I-91 junction in the Newport, VT: https://www.google.com/maps/@44.8064833,-72.2075685,3a,75y,13.91h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7sKyU43LTUpyPPfvTJynqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

Winooski is even more useless.  VTrans uses Winooski/St. Albans for I-89 North at the east end of I-189.  Should really be St. Albans/Montreal

Does VTrans sign Montreal anywhere at all along I-89?

I feel like a good portion of I-89 traffic in Vermont is Montreal bound so it might be relevant.

There is a BGS in GSV on US 2 in Colchester for I-89 North listing Georgia, St. Albans, and Montreal (from Wikipedia)

This is a good find. I tried to GSV this and find one, I didn't have any luck. I did find Montreal on mileage signage though.

[dkblake]

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

Winooski is even more useless.  VTrans uses Winooski/St. Albans for I-89 North at the east end of I-189.  Should really be St. Albans/Montreal

I think two things can be true: that (in normal times) a significant enough percentage of I-89 NB VT traffic originating from I-93 is Montreal-bound to make Montreal a logical control city at the beginning (and at major points, like after I-91 and the Montpelier and Burlington exits); and a much larger percentage of traffic between St. Albans and Montpelier is based in and around the Burlington metro area rather than Canada-bound. So St. Albans (the northernmost city in the Burlington metro area) makes sense as the next main VT control city north of Burlington.

Also, I-189 is more of a local connector between US 7 and the Burlington metro area than a long-haul connector. I'm thinking that any, say, Rutland-MTL traffic would cut over to I-87 rather than take 7 --> I-189 --> I-89 and then cut back. So Winooski is a much more useful 89 NB control city there than Montreal.

[The Nature Boy]

St. Albans on I-89 is useless, just use Montreal.

Winooski is even more useless.  VTrans uses Winooski/St. Albans for I-89 North at the east end of I-189.  Should really be St. Albans/Montreal

I think two things can be true: that (in normal times) a significant enough percentage of I-89 NB VT traffic originating from I-93 is Montreal-bound to make Montreal a logical control city at the beginning (and at major points, like after I-91 and the Montpelier and Burlington exits); and a much larger percentage of traffic between St. Albans and Montpelier is based in and around the Burlington metro area rather than Canada-bound. So St. Albans (the northernmost city in the Burlington metro area) makes sense as the next main VT control city north of Burlington.

Also, I-189 is more of a local connector between US 7 and the Burlington metro area than a long-haul connector. I'm thinking that any, say, Rutland-MTL traffic would cut over to I-87 rather than take 7 --> I-189 --> I-89 and then cut back. So Winooski is a much more useful 89 NB control city there than Montreal.

Google Maps prescribes the following route for Rutland to Montreal....

US 7 --> VT 116 --> I-89

Going to I-87 is maybe 10 minutes slower so it's really down to personal preference.