A series of hearings on Pennsylvania’s transportation future revealed more desire for broader reforms, but also tensions from local and state officials over how PennDOT functions.

The House Transportation Committee met Wednesday in Wilkes-Barre, its fourth of five meetings to figure out how the state will pay for its roads, bridges and public transit systems as population — and tax revenue — shrinks.

“In short, 2013 marked the last time the Legislature addressed transportation funding. We are long overdue for a new transportation funding policy in Harrisburg,” Rep. Ed Neilson, R-Philadelphia, said. “As costs continue to increase, every transportation project today is more expensive than it was 10 years ago.”

The committee’s first meeting, at the end of August, highlighted how few are rushing to volunteer to pay for road and bridge maintenance as the gas tax, the traditional source of the majority of repair funds, dwindles.

“We’re here because we have a gigantic transportation funding problem before us,” PennDOT Secretary Michael Carroll said.

Gov. Josh Shapiro proposed a $280 million funding increase for public transportation statewide, but the final budget approved $80 million, which has officials concerned for the future.

“There is transit in every county in the state, from the largest to the smallest. The need is great,” Carroll said. “We haven’t had transit funding enhanced in our commonwealth in over 10 years.”

Carroll lobbied the Legislature to take action before the Nov. 30 end of session rather than delay.

“I know that the window is short … but it’s important that we address this,” he said. “In so many ways, we were giving a homework assignment — summer reading, so to speak. It’s time to unzip the packet that the teacher gave us and look at what the assignment is: the transportation challenge before us.”

The challenge also includes aligning the wants of locals with state plans. Rep. Tarah Probst, D-Stroudsburg, criticized a process that just checks boxes instead of giving locals a voice.

“We need better bridges, we need wider shoulders, and I’m happy about that,” she said. “But some of these projects are overscaled and they don’t fit the area. PennDOT needs to reevaluate when they go and decide to make designs by sitting at a computer — and not actually going to an area and seeing how it fits, how it should work, seeing how it affects communities, lives, and businesses.”

Probst has publicly criticized PennDOT before, introducing a bill last year that would require the agency to track local complaints and hold leaders more accountable.

Rather than filling potholes or making state roads that run through small towns safer, she’s argued that PennDOT is more focused on keeping truckers and industry satisfied.

“I just don’t think that, when we have the public forums and everyone gets to speak, I don’t truly believe — I think PennDOT does it because they have to,” Probst said. “They don’t listen, though.”

She floated the idea of scaling down projects and using the savings to improve public transportation systems or projects in other areas. That was quickly shot down.

“There’s a constitutional prohibition from using highway funds for transit, so that cannot happen,” Carroll said. “We have to fund transit out of the general fund … generally, PennDOT’s desire is to deliver the project in the most economical fashion possible so we can deliver other projects as well.”

Instead, he argued that PennDOT strives to “deliver a safe transportation network in the most frugal way possible.”