Surface Transportation Argument

If you have not read the article on the new multi-billion dollar train route from China to Tibet, you should. Tibet has no oil. Tibetans are poor. Many Tibetans have opposed the railway. They think the Han Chinese are going to flood the Chinese controlled region. This has largely happened with Alaska, but only with natural resources has the State/Federal governments had the motive. There are not many natural resources left in Alaska that the state or federal governments wishes to exploit by building roads/highways to them. Had explorers not found oil up in the north slope, would there be a highway leading there? NO. Chinese are doing much exploiting of their own lands, but this railway? They say it's going to lift the 2.8 million people out of isolation. TRUE. They say that no culture can develop and thrive in a closed environment. TRUE. One thing they are missing is a similar program as Alaska has, ANCSA for Tibetan Buddhists, whom the Chinese government tolerates and exempts from their system of religion/culture-control. Many Tibetans are poor, like Alaskan Natives. Like many Alaskan Native communities, they have been isolated from the outside world (prohibitive transportation costs: $600 airfare vs. $59 train ticket). Is this sounding like a familiar argument? It should. The state should start thinking like the Chinese communists in providing "access" for their people's lands. Not to say that Alaska should become communist or socialist, but in this, I say the Chinese are wise. The Tibetans may not prosper and thrive as they wish, but they will certainly not be left out and in the cold (they are in the mountains where it gets cold, just like Alaska!). I am certainly having a laugh at the moment.
Last week it cost $180 to fly from my hometown to Fairbanks. It's much farther to Seattle but the cost is the same! Sure, there are bigger planes, more passengers, and a much bigger economy. So why build cheap roads, that can support personal vehicles at the least. If found economical, commercial operations can operate, but on a limited level (small buses, small cargo trucks, snowmachine caravans for tourism, etc.). The argument is for rural residents to utilize a cheap road to travel as they wish, not for commercial prospects, yet support tourism without inviting business and corporations to further colonize the land. The idea is to build sustainable communities, support local hiring preferences, and bring the cost of living down considerably. If this proposal/idea/party ever gets hijacked to win votes or further colonize a disadvantaged people, it would be the greatest mistake I have ever made in proposing such a grand project. Yes, even greater than the personal choices of mine. To ensure opportunity for every resident and community by building roads will do much to tear down the urban/rural divide. Sure, drugs and alcohol may become more readily available, but this can be regulated and the consequences of not building are economically far greater.