Not loosing Fossil, just reminding me of past arguments and excuses, Thanks.

Front end costs of rail are harder to take than later maintenance costs for road?.

So they are ok to pay for road maintenance and local pollution over decades. I think they are just sore loosers with KWG's rail way and using contrary excuses. Of course they care little for the environment and relations with the natives along transportation route.
E/W route to them is understandably prohibitive due to distance of transportation so also more expensive (fuel+) in the long run.

I do not give much heed to any company executive's opinion because they all speak with self interest.

I look at what I think is most logical, practical and Yes even politically correct, imho.

To repeat ad naseum:

Rail is most cost effective over total life time for large and heavy loads whose delivery time is not critical ( would anyone dispute that? Cliffs does not count).

Roads mean convenience due to local service and most universal but practical for light to medium service (Think of an ambulance delivering a patient or delivery truck with quickly needed supplies).

That is based not on my know how, of which I have almost none, but a summation of so called experts to whose opinions I default.