That assumes that the lack of appeal of buses has anything to do with money. Until buses can:

* Deliver me from point A to point G without stopping at B, C, D, E, and F along the way

* Provide room for more than a handful of cargo/luggage and park / wait around while I load/unload it

* Actually stick to a goddamn timetable (looking at you, Muni)

Then no amount of money will make buses more appealing to me than a car.

Trains have these same problems, minus the inconsistent timetables, and have the added benefit of typically going at least a little bit faster.

Except the government does even need to do that. The government could actually make money by leasing spaces/taking a cut of revenue to put chargers and letting private industry install them and manage them.

The reality of many governments however is that they are handing out money to the few people who frequently buy new cars for making those cars fractionally less unsustainable, while those who don't drive get pushed aside by even heavier and wider cars (using current "3" by BMW and Tesla as a comparison sample)

There are problems there though, because adding parking spaces makes driving more desirable for both EVs and non-EVs, and parking spaces tend to compete with bike lines in US cities. And as long as US cities remain car centric, having parking be expensive enough to be a deterrent to driving (or a major revenue source) is going to be a 3rd rail for local politicians.

>Except the government does even need to do that.

And perhaps it won't, if enough of the people that make it up read articles like this to ignore the very powerful automotive lobby