Are you sure? I'm not. Especially not when we're talking the sort of electrical infrastructure that can support charging multiple electric cars and trucks (although there's no point in having an electric car if there aren't any roads).
Obviously electricity is the right long term answer and where we should be going, but I doubt it is the cheapest immediate solution in many parts of the world.
Wires never blow a tire, head gasket, or transmission - and in fact they cannot even crash into and kill people on the highway. They're just long pieces of copper or steel tied to a tower. How convenient!
If you instead compare the fixed costs, as you seem wont to do, you'll find that HV (500 kV) transmission lines and towers capable of carrying several gigawatts [1] continuously have substantially lower initial and lifetime costs per Joule-kilometre than oil pipelines, rail, trucks, tankers, or anything else that has to move oil. [2]
[1] https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your...
Of course non-existent wire vs existing road is not competitive.
If both exist, electricity wins. If neither exists, electricity wins. And electricity has that added advantage that you can buy an equipment that will produce it in place without consuming additional resources.
The only case where fuel is competitive is when roads exist, electricity distribution doesn't, and diesel generators are installed.