I suspect that some means of transporting stored energy in a vehicle (and it may very well not be Li-Ion) will improve in capacity/density and reduce in cost. It's not really all that long ago that a mobile phone ran off a huge NiCd (or even NiMH) battery pack. Things have moved on, and I believe they will do so again. And when they do, that will serve to make EVs cheaper to buy and, probably, easier to use.
It would take a big INcrease in the costs of motoring, however applied, to change behaviour - probably with a parallel shift the other way in the costs of alternatives. Even if you take costs into account at the point of use (which is something we don't do, when driving) and even if you drive an average polluting ICE, typically it costs a similar amount for one person by car vs. by train. Half as much when there are two of you, and so on. Bearing in mind - we cannot and should not compare the total inflexibility of a "cheap" advance fare with the total flexibility, and guaranteed (often more comfortable) seat and luggage space that a car offers.
Particulate comparisons are often made and are invariably made badly. Tyres - yes - no material difference. But comparison of brake particles needs to be qualified: EVs don't use friction brakes to anything like the same extent as ICEs. I believe 10% is typical. Hence - 10% of the brake particle residue. And of course, there is zero fuel particulate residue at the point of use.
Successive governments have done, and do, little to genuinely encourage modal shift. Each and every road widening/bypass/etc scheme has the same result: if you build it they will come. And they will create a new problem somewhere else, that will need a new scheme to fix. Road tunnel under the Peak District anyone?