BloombergA mock oil pipeline is carried during a Keystone XL pipeline demonstration near the White House in November 2011.Don’t like the thought of oil traveling by railway car? Build the Keystone XL pipeline. That was one of the points made Wednesday morning by Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., Gary Doer, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Doer appeared a day after the Senate failed, by one vote, to pass a bill that would have approved the controversial project. “Every month that it’s not built, more is coming down on rail” from western Canada’s oil sands, Doer said. Doer argued that the pipeline would be safer than transporting oil by rail — something backed up by a January 2014 study on the Keystone XL project carried out by the State Department. “There is also a greater potential for injuries and fatalities associated with rail transport relative to pipelines,” the study said. Transporting oil by rail was the subject of a rule proposal by the Obama administration last summer. The proposal would require phasing out within two years thousands of tank cars unless they are retrofitted to meet new safety standards. “We need a new world order on how this stuff moves,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx at the time. Plenty of Keystone supporters are making the argument that the pipeline would be safer than shipping oil by rail. But safety isn’t the only issue when it comes to the pipeline. Critics point to the 50 permanent jobs expected to be created by the pipeline following the two-year construction phase, as well as the dirtier-than-conventional oil that it would carry to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. Keystone is expected to have a better shot at congressional approval in the next Congress, when Republicans will be in charge of both the House and Senate. But President Barack Obama could still choose to veto any bill that reaches his desk. Robert Schroeder