Pedersen highlighted the state's experience with use of expert panels in four corridor studies. Maryland has learned that traditional land use models cannot always incorporate important factors needed for decision-making - such as concurrency requirements - into their assumptions. Models also have been designed to focus on factors less central to land use impacts, such as accessibility and travel time. Most important, in certain cases land use models have produced results that didn't seem plausible to the key decision makers and this lack of credibility in the results would halt the approval process after much time and effort had been spent on the modeling process.
One project along the U.S. 301 corridor was aimed at helping the state to manage suburban sprawl. An expert panel was convened to forecast household and employment changes that would result from multiple proposed highway and transit project scenarios. The panel was comprised predominantly of local and regional real estate professionals, but also included a demographer and a nationally recognized transportation planning professional. The panel met in private to review, discuss and revise analyses developed independently by individual members. The panel achieved consensus on its forecasts and the committee that sponsored the panel's work endorsed its results.
Another corridor project, along Maryland 43 in Baltimore County, examined options for constructing a stretch of highway through a gravel mining area. Because the affected area included wetlands, the panel included and worked closely with local environmental interests. The panel was, Pedersen maintained, uniquely effective in incorporating environmental considerations into its forecasts. The panel produced forecasts of development for various highway alternatives in ways that models could not have done.
The third corridor project reviewed by Pedersen was Maryland SR 32, a eight mile section between MD 108 and I-70 near Columbia. The corridor had a very high fatal accident rate and significant congestion at peak travel hours. Two counties, Howard and Carroll, were affected. The counties are quite different politically and, hence, in their orientation toward land use. Pedersen observed that formal models cannot effectively account for such variations, whereas expert panels can. The proposed highway widening alternatives met with fierce resistance from nearby residents. A nine-member expert panel was convened to forecast housing and employment changes that would follow from several alternative highway build scenarios. The panel held a series of five meetings, each with extensive interaction. Due in part to the intensity of public interest, the panel met as a group in public. In the end, the panel was unable to reach consensus on its objectives. Pedersen noted that the panel's effectiveness was undermined by the presence of members who had advocacy positions or otherwise arrived to the panel with preconceived notions about desired outcomes. He noted the importance of objectivity in selecting panel members.
The final project was Maryland's I-270/U.S. 15 multi-modal corridor, a 30-mile stretch running through Montgomery and Frederick County. The area has a variety of land use issues and is experiencing tremendous growth pressures. A ten-member expert panel was convened to assess the impacts of various combinations of highway and transit alternatives. In addition, the panel was charged with estimating changes for input into secondary and cumulative effect environmental analyses to meet NEPA requirements. This study presented a very complex challenge for the expert panel, which eventually divided the task into two phases. In the first phase, the panel prepared a qualitative assessment of strategies for three generic alternatives (no-build, highway, and transit). In the second phase, the panel prepared numeric forecasts of population and employment distributions for three transportation alternatives: no-build, combined light-rail and highway, and combined HOV/bus and highway.
The panel, facilitated by a consultant, had difficulty managing the tasks, but did manage to achieve credibility and consensus on its forecasts, in both phases.
Still summarized lessons learned from five case studies about the benefits of expert panels and the 'steps for success' in their effective use. Two of the case studies were in Maryland (SR 32 and I-270/U.S. 15) and were previously reviewed by Pederson. Highlights of the other case studies are as follows:
Two panels, each with 14 participants, assess impacts on two small cities of multiple highway alignment options. Members of each of the panels did not meet, but completed mail-back surveys to provide their analyses.
A six-member panel forecast the impact on three small communities of various interchange and highway improvements. An expert panel was used because the project did not have the resources needed for a formal land use model and the DOT felt the process would be well-received by the project's stakeholders. In this case, the panel produced two rounds of written answers to open-ended questions which, Still noted, presented a substantial logistics challenge. Synthesizing and identifying common themes in their analyses proved time-consuming. The panel's findings were presented in a final, public meeting.
A 14-member panel was convened. As in the Maryland I-270/U.S. 15 case, multiple highway and transit scenarios were considered, and secondary land use environmental impacts were estimated.
Still highlighted several of the leading benefits of expert panels. She noted that panels can provide rigorous analysis, without the technical and financial challenges of formal land use models. Panels are also more comprehensive than relying on a single expert, a series of interviews, or case studies. Expert panels have the advantage of providing a flexible and adaptable process for generating the forecasts necessary for local and regional planning. Finally, Still observed that expert panels can incorporate the 'messy' realities of urban development because they combine an understanding of theory, empirical knowledge, and a detailed understanding of local conditions.
Still identified six 'steps for success,' and included detailed recommendations for four of them.
Still concluded by emphasizing three key points about the use of expert panels. First, and overall, stay in control of details. Second, the client agency must avoid the perception that it has steered the panel outcome. Finally, while consensus is desirable, even in the absence of consensus an expert panel's products nonetheless typically provide a great deal of useful information.
Longview, Texas has a population of approximately 75,000. The MPO covers an area of approximately 60 square miles. Owen presented lessons learned from the use of expert panels in two cases. The Growth Allocation Committee of 1998 was tasked with developing the twenty-five year socio-economic forecast for the Longview travel demand model. In 2002, a Citizens Advisory Committee was charged with developing future land use maps in eleven planning areas. The land use maps are conceptual in nature, project up to a 20-year horizon and are intended to express the growth goals of the community.
The Longview expert panels drew widely from the community and included groups not typical of these panels, such as the clergy. Members were all volunteers. The panels numbered more than 40, though the effective size for any one meeting was typically closer to 20. Each panel held a total of seven one-hour meetings, scheduled bi-weekly. All work of the panels was done at the meetings, which were open to the public. MPO staff facilitated the panels. Each panel successfully achieved consensus on all objectives.
Owen emphasized the importance of managing information for the expert panels. Because the Longview panels were especially diverse, the ability of individual members to process and analyze information varied widely. Thus it was incumbent upon staff to structure information so that it would be as accessible as possible. Maps, charts and graphs were used whenever possible. Graphic representations of data, for example, were generally preferable to text. Owen also emphasized the importance of conducting meetings in a neutral setting, i.e. not city hall, so that members would feel comfortable speaking candidly, if necessary, about the local government. Despite the fact that members were not compensated for participating, Owen reported that participation levels were high. She did note the importance of encouraging engaged, articulate citizens to participate. Their enthusiasm sometimes spreads throughout the panel. Also, despite the especially wide diversity of membership, the panels had little difficulty reaching consensus on their decisions. Owen also observed that, despite the intensive staff support required, expert panels are a cost-effective alternative to formal land use modeling.
