I think the main point was that the Chinese investment seems to at times fly in the face of where trade really is / is going.

The us interstate system was where there was trade already and not many alternate routes / better systems.

China's strategic concers are obvious and make sense...and yet if push came to shove and they were cut off from the sea, are they really trading via rail with Europe or others in that scenario anyway? / is incurring the costs of whole backup systems making sense?

Personally I don't have a clue how any of this plays out, just speaking to what the article is indicating.