It is a bit like world peace - a very good idea that everyone can understand, just a little hard to implement.

Trucks and buses could use overhead catenaries, but private cars couldn't reach.
Cars could reach down to the road, or across to some side mounted rail, but both would be very expensive to fit and maintain.
On the other hand, if you have fast charging and a battery (which you will have), you do not need continuous charging connections.

One possible idea would be to have a truck height catenary with frequent charging zones every 5Km or so for cars; like mini service stations with a cafe and a bunch of charge points. Thus, you could charge every 1.5 or 2 hours of travel without having to make a big deal of it, or calculate of you could go the next 25Km to the next main charger station.

Put this on a track, instead of existing highway and along with self or semi-self driving cars, you have a dual mode PRT system. It would be cheaper and faster than building new highways, allocate space above current right of way, provide high density non-stop travel and last mile driver controlled capability. Ford was looking at a similar concept a few years back. I don't know what every happened to that concept.

A driverless ride hailing service like the Tesla Network is what we need to solve the remaining price, range and charge time issue with BEVs.

Self-driving cars car go anywhere and charge themselves using high power (like 120,000 watt chargers) high efficiency power and low cost power cables. The Tesla Network will open pretty soon (end of 2018) for the rest of the auto industry to see how they should do it. They will follow by 2021.

I estimate one supercharger station with 6 superchargers at 120k watt cost at most 250,000 USD. So for 100 million USD you can make 400 supercharger stations with 2400 superchargers that could fully charge about 100.000 Tesla BEVs per 24 hour for 200 miles drive. Tesla will have to expand their supercharger network a lot to power the driverless cars on the Tesla Network. They will not be charge much at home when they are driverless and need to clock as many miles per year for the owners that buy them solely to make mony on them on the Tesla Network.

The copper required to build these will cost too much in carbon footprint to realize any benefit.
Fuel cells will be far more efficient and renewable fuel , wether hydrogen , ammonia or biofuels , 500 mile ranges will be normal , see the solid state hydrogen storage system being tested. Solar cells in windows and roofs will also add dynamic charging will driving or parked . By using small fuel cells with with ltracaps instead of batteries there will be high power acceleration without the weight of battery pack . Of course adding the wireless charger in road to the ultra cap circuit will enable much longer ranges.

A small two cycle supercharged diesel engine in a series/parallel hybrid configuration running High Performance Diesel (HPR) made from plant oils would do it until they reform HPR for PEM FCs.

When the average American drives less than 50 miles per day, the emphasis on range is a total waste of scarce resources. Instead, since the average American can afford to pay only $8000 for a car. the emphasis should be on building an affordable EV. Thus such a target BEV should be a small 4-5 person 2-door like a Ford Ka or a Fiat 500e or a two-door Fit, that weighs under 1000 kg and sell for no more than an ICE Chevy Spark. Remember, we are posting these comments on GreenCarCongress whose objective is to clean the air. Building EVs that only a fraction of the car buyers can afford does very little for that objective. Be aware also that if clean air and more range are the objective, any fuel injected ICE car can be driven on hydrogen using fuel injection that works similar to that used in propane conversions.