Don't believe what big industry pays Faux News to tell you. Neither "side" of the media thinks twice about getting you worked up with click bait to drive ad revenue.
The actual data tells a different, more nuanced story. For accidents:
There was a time in the early 90's when pipelines were marginally "better" than rail on a spillage-quantity-comparison basis, but rail made more improvements over time than pipelines did. Rail cars are much easier to maintain than pipelines because you don't need to shut a whole pipeline down to do it, and you can do that maintenance in rail-yards with fixed, heavy equipment. Also, rail provides a lot more flexibility - pipelines ultimately handle only a portion of the distance oil needs to travel, and the "last mile" is often still delivered by rail or truck. (The chart doesn't continue into the 2010's but from what I've read, the trend basically continues - downward for all methods except trucking, downward the most for ocean and rail.)
One of the biggest challenges with pipelines is that when there IS a leak, you aren't talking about a few rail cars of crude dumped into the track ballast. They can be hundreds of thousands of gallons. And because they're often under-reported in the news, it can make you think they're safer than they are. A different section of Keystone ALREADY dumped 383,000 gallons of crude in ND, and the same month (Oct 2019) in Texas there was a 500,000-gallon diesel spill from a different rupture. In 2020, Colonial leaked 492,000 gallons of gasoline in NC. That's a lot of gas! These are just some of the notable ones - somewhere in the US, a pipeline leak is reported at least 2-3x a month. Most are "only" a few thousand gallons.
By the way, this is part of the reason if you dig deeply enough into the numbers, say if you happen to have a buddy who's a Futures trader, you find that the final amortized cost for pipeline delivery sometimes works out to be a wash against rail - by the time you factor in the lost product and downtime from spills, plus the lawsuits and cleanup costs, you're almost rolling the dice on pipeline being better anyway.
That doesn't mean all pipelines are bad - rail could never replace the majority of the smaller ones - but they certainly shouldn't be put on a pedestal. They have real problems and I personally sympathize with folks that wouldn't want one in their backyard. I sure as hell wouldn't allow one across my land without a fight. Personally I don't consider even 1200 gallons of gas dumped into a place I might want to hunt or fish "small", and I don't want to leave my kids a poisoned planet "because jobs." Trust me, the oil industry is one of the single most lucrative industries in all of history. They WILL get that oil to market, and there will be jobs to help do it, regardless of the method used.
As for the jobs, TC Energy says 11,000 but never backs it up. The actual documents put together when the pipeline was originally proposed say 3900 construction (temporary), then only 35 permanent and 15 temporary workers "to run it." But the real lie in the whole pitch is that they don't count how many jobs are created by the OTHER methods. Delivering by rail isn't free - there's only a certain amount of capacity in the system, just like pipeline capacity works. If you want to deliver more, you need workers making new cars, engineers operating the trains, maintenance workers doing their bit, track workers doing their bit, etc. There are tons of jobs in every delivery option. Put it another way, can anyone here name an out-of-work welder (who actually is good at what they do?)
Drill, baby, drill.