I'm going to summarise this comment chain so far:

Article: 93% of freight is moved by road, we should try to diversify

You: All this article does it highlight problems, what's the point in that?

Other commenter: Highlighting problems is a point in and of itself, but they actually suggested many ways to improve the situation

You: Taking some freight on rail is "moronic" when we can build temporary road bridges when they get washed away

Other commenter: Rail is an option to add to the mix, the article is suggesting we do a mix of options

You: There's no point in putting any freight on rail, since there are some places rail doesn't go to

Other commenter: Just because rail doesn't go everywhere doesn't mean we can't diversify some freight onto rail

You: The railway lines don't exist so we can't put freight on them

You are using strawman arguments and seem to be deliberately ignoring or misinterpreting the responses you get. This is a place for good faith discussion, if you're not going to actually read the responses you're replying to it would be better if you didn't reply at all.