Agree that it is never one-size fits all. I just wish the alphabet groups in charge would more often take that approach.Sorry, didn't feel like diving headlong into this rabbit hole. Simply put, the access outcome of newly designated wilderness areas has to be assessed on a one-by-one basis. In many cases the new destinations don't alter access at all. In a few cases, it can even improve some facets of access, albeit not for wheels, obviously.
I think it's when everyone works in generalities this topic goes wonky. Just because the application of wilderness protections is detrimental in one area, that doesn't mean it's been a negative elsewhere and visa-versa. I've seen a few roads which really were best closed off, but others I was sad to see go. I'm part of a growing number of people that don't have a general pro/con view of designated wilderness or monuments, but rather want to see better individual management of those areas based on what best serves - the land first, the public second. That will invariably be different from one parcel to the next.
I just hate hearing about 'new wilderness' because, in my mind that means for a weekend warrior with a handful of long weekends a year it probably makes getting out there and seeing a lot more variety of terrain more difficult. As we just lots some access roads.