Dallas IH 345 study RFQ

[bugo]

You don't want the highway because it is near YOU. That is NIMBYism at its worst. You're saying fuck the commuters in Plano because I don't want to look at that freeway. Why are your aesthetic preference more important than the needs of motorists from Plano (or anywhere for that matter) who need to drive through the city without having to detour 35 miles out of the way onto a freeway that is already a parking lot? Why are you more important than them? You're usually very rational but you've gone off the deep end on this issue.

[sparker]

Because development responds to incentives, including transportation capabilities. If we had subsidized public transportation instead of urban interstates in the '50s, American cities would look much, much different.

The suburbs have dictated development policy for the past 70 years. Is it such a terrible thing that people are resisting this in numbers these days, particularly when they are the most locally affected?

For better or worse, the policy streams in this country have vested authority and responsibility with the individual rather than the collective; this was a deliberate choice back when the Constitution was being assembled.  The singular democratic methodology that might have yielded a pathway for collective rights -- a default parliamentary form of government rather than a distribution of powers among various entities -- was summarily dismissed by Madison, Jefferson, Franklin et. al. as a flawed format that would inject partisanship into even the minutiae of governance.  The "founding fathers" eschewed ideology in favor of a system that would promote effectual governance.  Obviously, the system has its issues in that it doesn't respond to populism or reactionism exceptionally well -- although we might elect folks with those tendencies, their power remains checked. 

What all that means in terms of policy is that the default regarding rights and prerogatives remains geared to the individual rather than the collective.  A policy favoring the funding of a collective form of transportation rather than enhancing the ability of citizens to select their own efficiencies would have never seen the light of day prior to the fuel crisis of 1979-80.  Public transit was seen as something that was grudgingly necessary in denser areas; a less desirable and less flexible means of getting around -- which would be promptly discarded, one person at a time, when the means to acquire and operate a private vehicle were available.  Car ownership increased commerce possibilities, postwar upward mobility dictated that more flexible and spacious living arrangements be ready and available -- and the cycle continued from there.  It was never that the suburbs "dictated policy"; the default policy, as always, was to maximize the potential for individual choice -- and the choice to acquire the maximally accommodating suburban dwelling was the more popular option.  The growth and dominance of the suburbs was not a collective choice but rather an aggregate one; despite some populist notions to the contrary, there was never a sinister "master plan" to expand metro areas outward, but simply the sum total of individual instinct as well as economic reality:  until fuel prices skyrocketed in the late '70's, it was considerably cheaper to live in a relatively spacious suburban dwelling than in a comparatively small city apartment (or, later, condo).  But even after commute costs rose throughout the rest of the 20th century, other economic factors (constantly rising urban housing costs prominent among those) intervened to maintain the status of the suburb as comparatively affordable.  There was never any chance that measures to curtail the trend toward suburban preferences would ever be instituted; that trend was viewed as a logical economic progression.  The concept of "urbanism" didn't emerge until much later, largely as an outgrowth of collective trends within academia.  Public transportation was -- and to a certain degree still is -- seen as necessary but partial compensation for the vagaries of capitalism -- but never as an elective choice. 

Nonetheless, it is an unfortunate -- not "terrible" but merely misguided -- thing that in some quarters a knee-jerk blanket position condemning all things automotive has been adopted -- as if depriving the driving public of the means to efficiently function will result in a mass epidemic of self-loathing among that group resulting in a large-scale abandonment of that transportation mode.  ]i]Ain't gonna happen, people![/i]  One may adopt any position one wants -- but nothing will rewrite history.           

[Plutonic Panda]

150,000 people a day disagree it isn't useful. I'm sure you're response will be they can find another freeway with another 100,000 plus people that find that freeway useful. Fortunately, I am confident TxDOT will do the right thing and keep this freeway in place but rebuild it to better suite the community.

[Plutonic Panda]

You don't want the highway because it is near YOU. That is NIMBYism at its worst. You're saying fuck the commuters in Plano because I don't want to look at that freeway. Why are your aesthetic preference more important than the needs of motorists from Plano (or anywhere for that matter) who need to drive through the city without having to detour 35 miles out of the way onto a freeway that is already a parking lot? Why are you more important than them? You're usually very rational but you've gone off the deep end on this issue.

This is what I wanted to say but couldn't put it in words minus my knowledge of this poster as I am fairly new to this site.

[Plutonic Panda]

90% of who hate it? I don't. Anecdotally, I can't think of one person I know that lives in Dallas who hates it. Whether the use it for through traffic or not is besides the point, it's used by over 150,000 people. That's a lot of people who like this highway and use it for one reason or another.

[Plutonic Panda]

Okay, that was some poll by a news agency. I'm not familiar with their targeted readers, but I'm betting they're more liberal and geared towards inner city living. It'd just be a shocker if LA Times came out with a poll that showed a lot of its readers opposed the 710 freeway expansion. I just couldn't believe it.

[TXtoNJ]

You know, if a roadfan who lives there is saying that tearing it down might have some benefits, perhaps taking the "pave absolutely everything, everywhere, and never give an inch" approach isn't the wisest one.

If the issue is getting I-45 to Tulsa (as it seems to be for a few of y'all), just route it on LBJ East. Bonus - it will make sense to renumber and extend 75 through South Dallas, reconnecting it to 175 once again.

[kphoger]

The vast majority of traffic on I-345 would likely originate within a 20-30 mile radius of Downtown Dallas, even though it may not necessarily have a destination in Downtown (at I-35E, 80% of traffic just passes through). There's no need to caricaturize it as a freeway solely for people from Houston to Oklahoma, that would be only a tiny fraction of those 177,000 vehicles per day.

While the cost of putting it below grade would likely be high, the cost of upgrading tens of miles of existing freeways and reconstructing many interchanges would be much greater.

This is a situation where local, on-the-ground information contradicts what might be logical from how the system is laid out. From personal experience and that of others I know, everything austrini is saying is completely correct - you're simply not getting onto I-45 from North Dallas and Collin County  unless you're headed to Ennis or south. There is no significant local traffic in that corridor, and this is part of why it was so late to be built.

The cost of upgrading the existing freeways and interchanges may be greater, but they would also have much stronger network effects than sinking billions into 345.

Are you intending to say that most of the 177,000 vehicles travelling through there every day are long-distance traffic and have no actual business in Dallas?  Call me a skeptic, but I'm skeptical.

[Bobby5280]

You do know that they built a Metro line out to Tysons because it wasn't surviving as a car-only suburb, right? Furthermore, Crystal City is a second-tier office market compared to areas in the city and even Rosslyn. You don't seem to know much about the modern DC , and your information seems based on outdated experiences.

I've been in the DC area on a number of occasions over the years; some friends from high school still live in the area.

The Metro line to Tyson's corner was there back in the 1980's. Since then some massive expansion to highways has taken place. It hasn't all been about commuter rail. I-95 in Springfield approaching the beltway is gigantic compared to how it was 30 years ago. The HOV lanes for I-395 ended there. Now the HOV lanes goes down past the Marine Corps base in Quantico. The old Woodrow Wilson bridge/traffic jam creator was replaced with new twin bridges more than double in size & traffic capacity. I don't see freeways getting ripped out and replaced with bike paths in the DC area.

As to the rest of your manifesto, all I can say is that I'm glad that I live on the coast and not the heartland, if that's a typical view on things.

I don't know what you're reffering to as a "manifesto." If it has to do with my comments about low and middle income workers being financially squeezed by rising living costs in New Urbanist-theme city centers that's not a manifesto at all. It's dollars and cents simple math. Starve or leave town. Or maybe pile into a cramped apartment with 2 or more roomates or couch surf at various places. That might be tolerable as a temporary arrangement. The situation isn't practical for getting married and starting a family -an activity that drives much of our nation's economy.

And in the case of D.C., through-put freeways wouldn't be much help in getting around the city; that point is correct -- in that particular instance!]  The traffic patterns that exist with the truncated network that there is in D.C. are long settled; the fact that while agencies and institutions are spread around the city; it's compact enough (by design!) so that transit and walking are a viable option; the distance between any two points is only a few miles.  And D.C., for the most part, emanates radially from a series of hubs at or flanking the mall area.

DC began de-centralizing many years ago. It's no longer necessary to build a highway through DC to the other side of the beltway because even more people in the DC area work outside of the DC city limits.

The suburbs have dictated development policy for the past 70 years. Is it such a terrible thing that people are resisting this in numbers these days, particularly when they are the most locally affected?

That's politics for you. Government policy goes where the white folks live. Many of them retreated to the suburbs decades ago. The New Urbanist movement campaigns for everyone to move back to the city center and fight sprawl, traffic, pollution, etc. They preach sustainability, but the problem is there's no reality check going on with the economics of their ideal. If it costs too much to move to the urban center then suburbanites are going to stay put in the suburbs and keep using personal vehicles for most of their transportation needs.

[TXtoNJ]

The vast majority of traffic on I-345 would likely originate within a 20-30 mile radius of Downtown Dallas, even though it may not necessarily have a destination in Downtown (at I-35E, 80% of traffic just passes through). There's no need to caricaturize it as a freeway solely for people from Houston to Oklahoma, that would be only a tiny fraction of those 177,000 vehicles per day.

While the cost of putting it below grade would likely be high, the cost of upgrading tens of miles of existing freeways and reconstructing many interchanges would be much greater.

This is a situation where local, on-the-ground information contradicts what might be logical from how the system is laid out. From personal experience and that of others I know, everything austrini is saying is completely correct - you're simply not getting onto I-45 from North Dallas and Collin County  unless you're headed to Ennis or south. There is no significant local traffic in that corridor, and this is part of why it was so late to be built.

The cost of upgrading the existing freeways and interchanges may be greater, but they would also have much stronger network effects than sinking billions into 345.

Are you intending to say that most of the 177,000 vehicles travelling through there every day are long-distance traffic and have no actual business in Dallas?  Call me a skeptic, but I'm skeptical.

No. Most are headed downtown or in the immediate area, as indicated by the data that austrini has cited several times. This traffic can be handled either by surface streets, or a combination of Thornton, Stemmons and Rodgers. That's in contrast to the movement best served by 345 - Central to I-45, which is a small fraction of the traffic using the route.

That's politics for you. Government policy goes where the white folks live. Many of them retreated to the suburbs decades ago. The New Urbanist movement campaigns for everyone to move back to the city center and fight sprawl, traffic, pollution, etc. They preach sustainability, but the problem is there's no reality check going on with the economics of their ideal. If it costs too much to move to the urban center then suburbanites are going to stay put in the suburbs and keep using personal vehicles for most of their transportation needs.

There's no economics here beyond political will. If the suburbanites want to stay in their cars, they can stay in the suburbs. It's not as if they've spent the last 40 years building up Dallas, even as transportation policy served their needs - instead, we got the Metroplex sprawl.

[Bobby5280]

There's no economics here beyond political will. If the suburbanites want to stay in their cars, they can stay in the suburbs. It's not as if they've spent the last 40 years building up Dallas, even as transportation policy served their needs - instead, we got the Metroplex sprawl.

Affordability is the critical thing, not want or politics. You'll get a hell of a lot more living space for your money in the suburbs. Get a good sized house in the suburbs for the price of a closet sized apartment downtown. Maybe be able to have that house all to yourself versus having to share the downtown apartment with other roommates. The New Urbanists act as if this giant cost difference doesn't exist -that suburban residents (even those living in apartment developments) are being dicks for not moving downtown.

Developments lately have been increasing that cost difference by a wide margin. Various speculators (including foreign investors and hedge funds) have been buying up all kinds of urban center properties and running up the housing prices like mad. The problem is at its worst in places like New York City.

Yes, sprawl has affected many big American cities for the past 40 years. During the past 25 years employers have been leaving behind downtown skyscrapers for suburban office parks to be closer to their employees. The massive growth North of Dallas is undeniable evidence of that.

[TXtoNJ]

There's no economics here beyond political will. If the suburbanites want to stay in their cars, they can stay in the suburbs. It's not as if they've spent the last 40 years building up Dallas, even as transportation policy served their needs - instead, we got the Metroplex sprawl.

Affordability is the critical thing, not want or politics. You'll get a hell of a lot more living space for your money in the suburbs. Get a good sized house in the suburbs for the price of a closet sized apartment downtown. Maybe be able to have that house all to yourself versus having to share the downtown apartment with other roommates. The New Urbanists act as if this giant cost difference doesn't exist -that suburban residents (even those living in apartment developments) are being dicks for not moving downtown.

Developments lately have been increasing that cost difference by a wide margin. Various speculators (including foreign investors and hedge funds) have been buying up all kinds of urban center properties and running up the housing prices like mad. The problem is at its worst in places like New York City.

Yes, sprawl has affected many big American cities for the past 40 years. During the past 25 years employers have been leaving behind downtown skyscrapers for suburban office parks to be closer to their employees. The massive growth North of Dallas is undeniable evidence of that.

Great. Live in the suburbs. Just don't expect the center cities to reconfigure themselves for your benefit just as they've done in the past - especially since doing so didn't bring the economic benefits promised.

[sparker]

Look -- this discussion has either deteriorated (or polarized, depending upon your standpoint) into an urbanist/all other POV impasse, with posters staking out their territory.  The urban position seems to be largely one of reparation, with their position being that only complete removal of the offending facilities and effective banishment of through traffic to the perimeter will satisfy their requirements.  Funny thing -- since most posters in that grouping weren't even born when the I-345 structure was built, their reaction is plainly sociopolitical in nature rather than experiential; they've been inculcated into their belief pattern -- which seems to have eliminated any empathy for the residents of the metro area as a whole.  Instead, it's become a quasi-religious crusade -- a merry (although many attitudes belie this characterization!) band of urban communitarians versus the cruel world typified by things existing outside the city core; a classic "us vs. them" scenario.  These often end with one side being severely disappointed if not disillusioned -- and, although this may not come as a surprise to anyone who has toiled in the policy field -- that often is the side with more in the way of ideals than economic clout.  The "teardown" folks often tend to offer a single "all or nothing" solution without a series of fallback options -- when they fail, they tend to fail big! 

I certainly can't fault them for wanting a decidedly "fugly" facility to be gone (and I-345 definitely fits into that category!) -- but eliminating the function of that route and expecting through traffic to use a perimeter facility (and I-635 operates at or near its capacity much of the time) would, in terms of regional politics, be the proverbial "bridge too far" (no pun intended!).  Replacement of the I-345 structure with something that doesn't pose the same visual or cross-connectivity issues (such as a trenched & capped freeway) actually solves the practical problems if not the ideological ones -- it's a "limited" victory for urban dwellers/activists; not necessarily a pyrrhic one!  And in the policy arena of the 21st century, a limited victory is better than none at all!

I've got to interject something else here -- if I-45/US 75 traffic were to be shunted over to I-635 -- in addition to the extant volumes -- the capacity of that facility would need to be increase at least proportionally -- likely a couple of GP through lanes; that would impinge upon residents of Mesquite, Garland, and Richardson, as the entire facility including frontage roads would have to expand into the adjoining areas.  And the folks affected by such activity are citizens with equal standing to those in central Dallas.  Empathy is a two-way street; electing to "stick it" to suburban residents simply because one feels that history has dealt the urban dweller a series of bad hands indicates a lack of it -- or tacit approval of a "two-tiered" system that values some people more than others just for geographical reasons -- garden-variety prejudice. 

To paraphrase the late, great Firesign Theater:  We're not only proud of our city core, we're downright smug about it!.         

[texaskdog]

There's no economics here beyond political will. If the suburbanites want to stay in their cars, they can stay in the suburbs. It's not as if they've spent the last 40 years building up Dallas, even as transportation policy served their needs - instead, we got the Metroplex sprawl.

Affordability is the critical thing, not want or politics. You'll get a hell of a lot more living space for your money in the suburbs. Get a good sized house in the suburbs for the price of a closet sized apartment downtown. Maybe be able to have that house all to yourself versus having to share the downtown apartment with other roommates. The New Urbanists act as if this giant cost difference doesn't exist -that suburban residents (even those living in apartment developments) are being dicks for not moving downtown.

Developments lately have been increasing that cost difference by a wide margin. Various speculators (including foreign investors and hedge funds) have been buying up all kinds of urban center properties and running up the housing prices like mad. The problem is at its worst in places like New York City.

Yes, sprawl has affected many big American cities for the past 40 years. During the past 25 years employers have been leaving behind downtown skyscrapers for suburban office parks to be closer to their employees. The massive growth North of Dallas is undeniable evidence of that.

You say sprawl like it is a bad thing.  It makes sense to spread traffic around and not have everyone go downtown.

[Bobby5280]

I'm not really saying sprawl is a bad thing. For decades it has long been the response to city cores raising living costs too damned high. People move farther away from downtown to find housing they can afford. Employers have been following suit in recent decades, leaving behind sky high lease prices in downtown offices towers for suburban campus sites. I still remember when JCPenney left behind its HQ in Manhattan for a new HQ on Legacy Drive well North of Dallas.

In some cases, like Detroit, much of the city was abandoned via "white flight." Detroit is now coming back, but housing speculators are coming along to ruin the resurgence.

New Urbanists can preach all they want about sustainability and how everyone needs to move back to the city core and leave behind suburbia. Unfortunately the New Urbanists are either unaware or deliberately ignorant of the rampant housing speculation and price war that has been taking place. They look down their noses at people living out in the suburbs as if they're committing some kind of crime, not realizing the fact it's just too damned expensive to get a living space in these downtown areas. If you're a single person you might be able to swing it if you're willing to share the space with roommates. If you're someone with a wife and kids and require at least 2 or 3 bedrooms in your living space you pretty much need to be in the top 10% (or even top 1%) income group to afford a family sized space. There's zero acknowledgement of this from the New Urbanist crowd. They pretend issues of income inequality and housing affordability do not exist.

[TXtoNJ]

Look -- this discussion has either deteriorated (or polarized, depending upon your standpoint) into an urbanist/all other POV impasse, with posters staking out their territory.  The urban position seems to be largely one of reparation, with their position being that only complete removal of the offending facilities and effective banishment of through traffic to the perimeter will satisfy their requirements.  Funny thing -- since most posters in that grouping weren't even born when the I-345 structure was built, their reaction is plainly sociopolitical in nature rather than experiential; they've been inculcated into their belief pattern -- which seems to have eliminated any empathy for the residents of the metro area as a whole.  Instead, it's become a quasi-religious crusade -- a merry (although many attitudes belie this characterization!) band of urban communitarians versus the cruel world typified by things existing outside the city core; a classic "us vs. them" scenario.  These often end with one side being severely disappointed if not disillusioned -- and, although this may not come as a surprise to anyone who has toiled in the policy field -- that often is the side with more in the way of ideals than economic clout.  The "teardown" folks often tend to offer a single "all or nothing" solution without a series of fallback options -- when they fail, they tend to fail big! 

I certainly can't fault them for wanting a decidedly "fugly" facility to be gone (and I-345 definitely fits into that category!) -- but eliminating the function of that route and expecting through traffic to use a perimeter facility (and I-635 operates at or near its capacity much of the time) would, in terms of regional politics, be the proverbial "bridge too far" (no pun intended!).  Replacement of the I-345 structure with something that doesn't pose the same visual or cross-connectivity issues (such as a trenched & capped freeway) actually solves the practical problems if not the ideological ones -- it's a "limited" victory for urban dwellers/activists; not necessarily a pyrrhic one!  And in the policy arena of the 21st century, a limited victory is better than none at all!

I've got to interject something else here -- if I-45/US 75 traffic were to be shunted over to I-635 -- in addition to the extant volumes -- the capacity of that facility would need to be increase at least proportionally -- likely a couple of GP through lanes; that would impinge upon residents of Mesquite, Garland, and Richardson, as the entire facility including frontage roads would have to expand into the adjoining areas.  And the folks affected by such activity are citizens with equal standing to those in central Dallas.  Empathy is a two-way street; electing to "stick it" to suburban residents simply because one feels that history has dealt the urban dweller a series of bad hands indicates a lack of it -- or tacit approval of a "two-tiered" system that values some people more than others just for geographical reasons -- garden-variety prejudice. 

To paraphrase the late, great Firesign Theater:  We're not only proud of our city core, we're downright smug about it!.         

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

[kphoger]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

[TXtoNJ]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

[kphoger]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

[TXtoNJ]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

[kphoger]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

But that's perhaps a discussion as to whether I-345 should have been designated in the first place or not.  Maybe outsiders have an interest in the functioning of this bit of roadway, maybe they don't.  But that's not just for the local community to decide; outsiders are, after all, not part of that local community.  If Interstates are intended to serve the needs of outsiders, and outsiders are found to need I-345, then the local community shouldn't get to just rip it out anyway.  If, OTOH, it's found that outsiders don't need I-345, then the decision should be considered by all (including outsiders) to remove it.

[NE2]

Fuck suburbia.

[kphoger]

Fuck suburbia.

so....  for or against?

[TXtoNJ]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

But that's perhaps a discussion as to whether I-345 should have been designated in the first place or not.  Maybe outsiders have an interest in the functioning of this bit of roadway, maybe they don't.  But that's not just for the local community to decide; outsiders are, after all, not part of that local community.  If Interstates are intended to serve the needs of outsiders, and outsiders are found to need I-345, then the local community shouldn't get to just rip it out anyway.  If, OTOH, it's found that outsiders don't need I-345, then the decision should be considered by all (including outsiders) to remove it.

That's what the report is about. Read through it - it's fairly compelling information.

[kphoger]

What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity, particularly when there are other options for people who live more distantly?

When it's a city street, great.  But we're talking about a piece of the Interstate highway system here.

Why does that make a difference, in the presence of generally sufficient alternatives? People are acting as if this hasn't been given any thought whatsoever by its proponents.

It should make a difference because Interstates are intended to be a nationwide network of superhighways built to a certain standard.  As such, it should be up to more than just the local community to take a chunk of that network out.  There being a "sufficient alternative" or not should be determined by more than just the local community. 

This is not a mainline Interstate being discussed - it's a spur that serves relatively little purpose not sufficiently served by alternatives, as repeatedly mentioned. Other than a desire for some sort of Platonic network perfection, what interest do outsiders have in the functioning of this bit of roadway?

But that's perhaps a discussion as to whether I-345 should have been designated in the first place or not.  Maybe outsiders have an interest in the functioning of this bit of roadway, maybe they don't.  But that's not just for the local community to decide; outsiders are, after all, not part of that local community.  If Interstates are intended to serve the needs of outsiders, and outsiders are found to need I-345, then the local community shouldn't get to just rip it out anyway.  If, OTOH, it's found that outsiders don't need I-345, then the decision should be considered by all (including outsiders) to remove it.

That's what the report is about. Read through it - it's fairly compelling information.

My statements were in response to your question, "What is wrong with local people having the most say in how the land adjacent to them is used in a public capacity".  I'm fine with decisions being made to eliminate a portion of Interstate highway that is little needed, but not if that decision is being made by an over-representation of the local community.