So after many trips to Texas and other states, I've never really understood why Texas among states such as Illinois and Florida use tolls to get roads built. The only things that are tolled here in Michigan are the Mackinac Bridge, Grosse Ile Toll Bridge, Sault Sainte Marie International Bridge, Blue Water Bridge, Ambassador Bridge, and the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, but other than that, there are no toll roads elsewhere in Michigan. Can anyone clarify why Texas and other states such as Illinois and Florida are content on using tolls instead of rises in state taxes such as sales, vendor, or gas taxes to pay for a road?
Adding a little detail to others' answers:
* Texas has, if memory serves, a constitutionally mandated funding split for revenue from motor fuel taxes: 25% to education and 75% to highways. Texas is also among the seven states with no income tax (as is Florida). Fuel tax raises are therefore not tied solely to the needs of the highway system and have the potential to unbalance the tax structure. Moreover, states that have no income tax are typically very reluctant to transition to income taxes for fear of becoming less attractive for inward investment and other forms of economic development. (Nebraska, which introduced an income tax in the 1960's after not having one for decades, is an exception that proves the rule. Norbert Tiemann lost re-election as governor as a direct result.)
* Texas is also fairly unusual in having a high percentage of rural voters, while the vast bulk of the inward migration and the resulting highway needs are in the cities. Forcing the cities to resort to toll roads, managed lanes, etc. thus protects rural voters from costs over which they have little control. (This is not to say that rural roads in Texas are adequately funded. Compared to peer agencies like Kansas DOT, TxDOT relies more heavily on pavement preservation work such as chipsealing, which in turn translates to a lesser degree of control over motorist costs such as suspension wear and tear and paint damage due to flying chips.)
Tolling has its own pros and cons. When Route 130 was built, the company that tolls it went belly up within a few years because I-35 ran right alongside it to the west. I-35 was siphoning traffic from 130. It’s a common thing when tolls are used: free roads nearby siphon some traffic from toll roads.
While the siphoning effect does exist, I wouldn't necessarily use SH 130 to prove "tolls don't work" because it is a bit of a special case. It was originally built under a comprehensive development agreement that was structured in a way that gave funders a perverse incentive to jack up tolls (thus reducing wear and tear, making it easier to meet contractually mandated standards for good repair, but also making it hard to meet interest charges). This forced the concession operator to declare bankruptcy and allow the investors to walk away with a profit. Macquarie Infrastructure Group (now Atlas Arteria) has become especially notorious for this.
Generally speaking, a toll road that is not encumbered by "I win, you lose" funding arrangements will be seen by motorists as more of a value proposition and will attract more usage (especially when the free alternative is congested), though not necessarily to the degree that it is able to operate at a profit.
How many new freeways are being built in Michigan, and how many in the last 30 years? I'm thinking none. That should answer your question.
It's certainly true that Michigan, unlike Texas, has experienced little population growth since 1990 (just 8% versus 71%) and generally doesn't struggle to meet urban mobility needs. However, there has been some new-location freeway development over the past thirty years, notably M-6 near Lansing (finished in the mid-noughties) and ongoing construction of the US 31/I-94 missing link just to the east of Benton Harbor.