Your average SUV or pickup truck is deadly enough. Also the so-called self-driving vehicles that aren't really autonomous are deathtraps and lethal to third parties, like children that one can't see while sitting in a 2024 Ford F-150.
...and even though it's next to industrial zone, this is what downtown Houston actually looks like on a map. Numerous square miles of space just for "letting traffic through". The bill on the upkeep of this kind of wasteful infrastructure must be much more than what it costs to provide housing for all the homeless people in the county!
This is not really outside the city though
You can charge electric buses at termini though. Albeit this doesn't change the challenges much. The electric buses are best suited for lines where the higher capacity isn't needed and where the line is not likely to be longer than a little over 15 km.
This is a common misbelief. Trams and light rail usually have points where the units can go around if one unit has derailed, unless the unit has tipped over, which in itself is very very rare. Good planning is crucial. "A better solution uses corridors dedicated to buses that are electric powered." Nope, nope, nope. You have to present arguments to this claim, maybe then I can be bothered to counterargument such nonsense.
Have you actually ever seen the tram network in North Rhine and Westphalia, Germany? Also in many places in the world the replacement of trams by buses has been since seen as a mistake and there are plenty of examples of extensive new trams networks introduced and in planning in cities where they got rid of them in 1960s.
Most tram systems aim for 5 - 7.5 minute frequency on trunk lines during peak hours. Usually induced demand works here if it's more convenient than sitting in a car. Busses quite often are a little unreliable when it comes to any kind of attempts to schedule even with dedicated lanes, since they spend more time at the stops loading and unloading passengers and you need more of them compared to trams. Then there's an argument to be made about public mass transportation: It should provide a service that is good for the city and the people and in a well designed system subsidies aren't going to waste even if you're unable to measure any profit. Ridership and travel patterns matter the most. Not all rail is equal either. The available options are from cheap (which is not same as bad) to expensive: from tram systems on street level to "heavy" rail in tunnels. The tram is very versatile and often the most affordable way of providing reliable service when combined with busses on lines where the demand is really low. If you need a bus more often than once every ten minutes and/or they're packed to the brim during rush hours you probably should think about ditching the fears of "overbuilding" and start planning for more capacity and frequency with a tram line. In your country this might be different but in most developed countries the drivers are not unsignificant expense and trams reduce the amount of drivers needed, they have lower power consumption compared to buses and are mostly more reliable than buses. Also the ridership usually prefer a tram if the option is provided and it's not super slow (which is rare). Then again, if it's built in the right place -> induced demand.
We've even got them in Finland and we only have two cities with a tram network. Otherwise I've seen them a lot in Germany and newer systems tend to have them more often than older ones.
It's also beneficial for users of the systems, most of which are non-investors, that the lines do not change ever so often and the stops don't vanish or move several hundred meters.
That's what "being political" means. Otherwise you'd be apathetic, cynical and not concerned about anything.
To be honest you could be tracked by your WiFi usage too.