Urban Transportation and Air Pollution

1st Edition Akula Venkatram

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/urban-transportation-and-air-pollution-1st-edition-akul
a-venkatram/
URBAN
TRANSPORTATION AND
AIR POLLUTION
URBAN
TRANSPORTATION AND
AIR POLLUTION

AKULA VENKATRAM
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of California, Riverside, CA, United States

NICO SCHULTE
California Air Resources Board, Research Division,
Sacramento, CA, USA
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright r 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further
information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such
as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our
website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment
may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating
and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including
parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume
any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability,
negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas
contained in the material herein.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-12-811506-0

For Information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Joe Hayton

Acquisition Editor: Brian Romer
Editorial Project Manager: Andrae Akeh
Production Project Manager: Surya Narayanan Jayachandran
Cover Designer: Greg Harris

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

PREFACE

This book resulted out of a conversation I had with Brian Romer, the
senior transportation editor from Elsevier, who contacted me in late 2015
after he had seen a paper I had co-authored. The paper dealt with the
impact of vehicle emissions on near-road air quality. He convinced me
that I could expand the topic to cover the broad field covering the rela-
tionship between vehicle emissions and urban air quality. I agreed with a
little hesitation because several of my students had worked on this topic
in their PhD research. Nico Schulte was finishing up his thesis on the
impact of near-roadway structures, including noise barriers and urban
buildings, on dispersion of vehicle emissions. I thought it was simply a
matter of expanding his thesis with appropriate background. However
including this background turned out to be much more difficult than I
thought it would be. Nico Schulte and I have worked on this book for
the last two years to include material that provides the rudimentary
understanding of micrometeorology and dispersion required to follow the
core of the subject. We felt that this was necessary because our experience
indicates that a large fraction of people involved in air pollution modeling
do not have the background to interpret the micrometeorological inputs
required by currently used short-range dispersion models, such as
AERMOD (Cimorelli et al., 2005). Furthermore, there is enough detail
in the book to allow the reader to understand the formulation of these
models. Thus the book can serve a student interested in the subject, as
well as the practitioner who wants to examine the underlying machinery.
This book deals with one aspect of Urban Transportation and Air
Pollution. Its primary focus is the development and application of disper-
sion models to estimate the impact of vehicle emissions on near-road air
quality in the complex urban environment. It draws heavily on research
that Nico and I have participated in with our collaborators. Thus the
book has a relatively narrow focus on the type of models that we have
developed and applied. The book is relatively brief because it is confined
to models that we can vouch for through evaluation with observations
from field studies and wind tunnel experiments.
We refer to the models described in this book as semi-empirical.
These models combine a relatively simple mechanistic framework with an
empirical approach to account for secondary processes not captured

vii
viii Preface

explicitly; they are not purely statistical relationships between concentra-

tions and the governing variables. Their formulation is based on the
hypothesis that the behavior of complex systems can be described by a
small number of variables embedded in a framework based on conserva-
tion principles. These variables are then combined to yield equations that
contain parameters whose values are obtained by fitting model estimates
with corresponding measurements. An example of this approach is illus-
trated in the model for the impact of buildings on dispersion of vehicle
emissions in urban areas (Schulte et al., 2015). The framework consists of
a mass balance that equates emissions at street level to transport of these
emissions in the vertical direction through turbulent diffusion. The associ-
ated eddy diffusivity is formulated in terms of the standard deviation of
the vertical velocity fluctuations and a length scale that depends on build-
ing geometry, which in turn is described in terms of the effective height
and the aspect ratio of the buildings lining the urban street of concern.
The formulation for the length scale and the relating turbulence and
building geometry contain parameters, whose values are obtained by fit-
ting estimates of concentration from the overall model with correspond-
ing measurements.
The applicability of these models outside the range of measurements
used in the fitting procedure is determined by two criteria: (1) the valid-
ity of the mechanistic foundation, and (2) the variation of the model
parameters, which should be as small as possible. The major strength of
these models is that they are firmly anchored to observations. In formu-
lating their framework, we use an approach that yields “sensible values”
over a wide range of inputs. We achieve this by interpolating between
model formulations that can be supported by theory as well as observa-
tion. For example, the formulation for vertical plume spread (Venkatram
and Schulte, 2014) for the entire range of unstable conditions interpolates
between expressions for neutral and very unstable conditions. These
expressions can be justified using theory, as well as observations from the
Prairie Grass experiment (Barad, 1958). The interpolation is cast in terms
of parameters that provide the best fit between model estimates and
observations. A similar approach is used in constructing the complex ter-
rain model in AERMOD (Venkatram et al., 2001), described in
Appendix A.
This book does not discuss modeling based on computational fluid
dynamics (CFD), which attempts to describe all the details of the
Preface ix

governing processes through the numerical solution of the conservation

equations. On the other hand, we do acknowledge the valuable insight
provided by CFD models that help to formulate semi-empirical models.
There are very few practitioners of semi-empirical modeling, and
most of them have collaborated with us in developing the models
described in this book. Vlad Isakov, Richard Baldauf, Steven Perry, and
David Heist from the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) worked with us in developing the models described in this
book. This collaboration is one of the major reasons that components of
our models are incorporated in practice-oriented models, such as
AERMOD (Cimorelli et al., 2005) and R-LINE (Snyder et al., 2013),
which are widely used to estimate concentrations associated with a variety
of pollutant sources. The semi-empirical models are also components of
modeling systems to estimate the impact of emissions from urban high-
ways (Barzyk et al., 2015) and seaports (Isakov et al., 2017). Other signifi-
cant collaborators are Marko Princevac, David Pankratz, Dennis Fitz,
Alan Cimorelli, Robert Paine, Sarav Arunachalam, Parikshit Deshmukh,
Michelle Snyder, Jeffrey Weil, and Steven Hanna.
My students have played a major role in developing the semi-empirical
models described here. Shuming Du, Qiguo Jing, Jing Yuan, Si Tan, and
Wenjun Qian helped me with my early research in dispersion modeling. I am
deeply grateful to Sam Pournazeri who contributed to several chapters as
well as the Appendix of the book. He is also responsible for the colorful illus-
trations in these sections. The major contributors to the core of the book are
Seyedmorteza Amini and Faraz Enayati Ahangar, my students. Nico Schulte,
the coauthor of this book, collaborated with me in my research and also
helped me bring past research together to create a coherent book.
The research that resulted in the models described in this book has
been supported by the California Air Resources Board, the South Coast
Air Quality Management District, the California Energy Commission,
the National Science Foundation and the USEPA.

REFERENCES
Barad, M.L., 1958. Project Prairie Grass: a field program in diffusion vol II. Geophys.
Res. Pap. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-460X(71)90105-2.
Barzyk, T.M., Isakov, V., Arunachalam, S., Venkatram, A., Cook, R., Naess, B., 2015. A
near-road modeling system for community-scale assessments of traffic-related air pol-
lution in the United States. Environ. Model. Softw 66, 46 56. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.12.004.
x Preface

Cimorelli, A.J., Perry, S.G., Venkatram, A., Weil, J.C., Paine, R.J., Wilson, R.B., et al.,
2005. AERMOD: A dispersion model for industrial source applications. Part I:
General model formulation and boundary layer characterization. J. Appl. Meteorol.
44, 682 693. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2227.1.
Isakov, V., Barzyk, T.M., Smith, E.R., Arunachalam, S., Naess, B., Venkatram, A., 2017.
A web-based screening tool for near-port air quality assessments. Environ. Model.
Softw 98. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.09.004.
Schulte, N., Tan, S., Venkatram, A., 2015. The ratio of effective building height to street
width governs dispersion of local vehicle emissions. Atmos. Environ. 112, 54 63.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.03.061.
Snyder, M.G., Venkatram, A., Heist, D.K., Perry, S.G., Petersen, W.B., Isakov, V., 2013.
RLINE: A line source dispersion model for near-surface releases. Atmos. Environ.
77, 748 756. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.05.074.
Venkatram, A., Brode, R., Cimorelli, A., Lee, R., Paine, R., Perry, S., et al., 2001. A
complex terrain dispersion model for regulatory applications. Atmos. Environ. 35.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00186-8.
Venkatram, A., Schulte, N., 2014. On formulating equations for plume spreads for near-
surface releases. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJEP.2014.065116.
 CHAPTER ONE

Introduction
Contents
Scope of the Book 1
Models Treated in this Book 2
Modeling Emissions for Transport Applications 4
Organization of this Book 8
References 10

SCOPE OF THE BOOK

This book summarizes some of the research conducted during the
last 15 years on estimating the impact of vehicle-related emissions on near
road air quality. Although the impact of roadway emissions on air quality
has been studied since the 1970s, it has become prominent more recently
in the light of a number of epidemiological studies reporting associations
between living within a few hundred meters of high-traffic roadways and
adverse health effects such as asthma and other respiratory impacts, birth
and developmental effects, premature mortality, cardiovascular effects, and
cancer (e.g., Harrison et al., 1999; Brauer et al., 2002; Hoek et al., 2002;
Finkelstein et al., 2004).
Air quality monitoring studies conducted near major roadways indi-
cate that these health effects are associated with elevated concentrations,
compared with overall urban background levels, of motor-vehicle-
emitted compounds, which include carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen
oxides (NOx); coarse (PM10
2.5), fine (PM2.5), and ultrafine (PM0.1) par-
ticle mass; particle number; black carbon, polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons, and benzene (Kim et al., 2002; Hutchins et al., 2000; Kittelson
et al., 2004).
This book describes models that describe the transport and dispersion
of pollutants emitted from vehicles traveling on urban roads. It does not
deal with the chemistry of pollutant formation or the factors that deter-
mine the emissions rate from vehicles. This is a subject with an extensive

Urban Transportation and Air Pollution. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811506-0.00001-4 All rights reserved. 1
2 Urban Transportation and Air Pollution

literature that can be readily consulted by the reader. We confine our-

selves to the modeling of the processes that connect emissions to the cor-
responding concentrations at a receptor. We first review the types of
models that are generally used to estimate concentrations as a backdrop to
the models that we discuss in this book.

MODELS TREATED IN THIS BOOK

An air quality model is a mathematical description of the system
that governs the fate of air pollutants emitted into the atmosphere. The
air quality system consists of a large number of processes, which include
transport by the mean wind, dispersion through turbulence, scavenging
through dry and wet deposition, and chemistry involving the chemical
species in the atmosphere. The relative importance of these processes
depends on the source-receptor distance of concern. For example, at dis-
tances of a few tens of kilometers from a source, transport and dispersion
are the dominant processes although this is not always true.
It is convenient to use different approaches to modeling air pollution
depending on source-receptor distances. For distances of tens of kilo-
meters from the source, a continuously emitted pollutant is treated as a
plume governed by meteorology in the vicinity of the source. For larger
distances, when meteorological variables show significant spatial and tem-
poral variations, it is more convenient to model the fate of emissions
using puff models or Eulerian grid models. In puff models, an emission
over a short period of time is embedded in a puff or air parcel, which is
then tracked as it follows the varying wind field. The puff grows in
response to turbulent dispersion, and the chemical species inside the puff
undergo scavenging and chemical reactions. Puff models require a great
deal of bookkeeping because one needs to keep track of the large number
of puffs that correspond to each hour of emission. Some of this book-
keeping can be avoided through receptor-oriented puff models. In this
approach, the concentration of the species at a receptor is governed only
by the puff that arrives at the time and location of interest. The final state
of this puff is determined by calculating the history of puff before it
arrives at the receptor. This involves tracing the path of the puff as it
passes over emissions and is subject to scavenging and chemical reactions.
Introduction 3

The Eulerian grid model solves the mass conservation equations using
a grid of boxes. In essence, a mass balance is performed for each box for a
short period of time. This mass balance involves inflow and outflow of
material in the box through transport and dispersion, scavenging through
wet and dry processes, and chemical reactions among the species in the
box. The boxes within the domain of interest are interconnected through
transport between the boxes. The computational requirements of a grid
model are proportional to the number of grid boxes used to describe the
domain; a change in grid size by a factor of 2 increases the number of
boxes by a factor of 8. Therefore grid resolution has to be relatively
coarse, about 1 km, to keep the computational requirements at a manage-
able level. Parallel computing is being used to solve this computational
problem, but for the time being, Eulerian grid boxes have horizontal
dimensions of about a kilometer. This means that individual plumes can-
not be resolved in such models. Thus these models are best suited to esti-
mate concentrations averaged over kilometers. Because Eulerian models
can treat complex chemistry, they are used to model the fate of photo-
chemical pollutants over regional and continental scales.
This book focuses on plume-based models applicable to source-
receptor distances of a few kilometers. Most short-range dispersion mod-
els are based on the assumption that meteorological conditions are spa-
tially homogeneous and vary little with time during the period of
interest, which is typically 1 hour. This is equivalent to saying that the
time scale governing the variation in meteorology is greater than the time
of travel between source and receptor. If the meteorological time scale is
1 hour, and the wind speed is 5 m/s, the assumption of steady state is not
likely to be valid for distances much .10 km. At lower wind speeds, the
“valid” distances become smaller. In spite of these limitations, steady state
plume models are often applied beyond their range of applicability with
the justification that the concentration at the receptor is representative of
that when the plume eventually reaches the receptor. In principle, disper-
sion during unsteady and spatially varying conditions can be treated with
puff or particle models, which attempt to model the dispersion of puffs or
particles as the unsteady wind field carries them along their trajectories.
This book does not discuss models based on puff dispersion.
This book focuses on dispersion of near surface releases because most
transportation emissions, such as those from vehicles, occur close to the
ground. The models presented here are derived from data collected in
field and laboratory studies in which emissions were released over flat
4 Urban Transportation and Air Pollution

terrain, and the meteorological variables governing dispersion of the

release were relatively homogeneous over the area in which dispersion
was studied. Such idealized conditions do not apply to the inhomoge-
neous urban areas in which typical transportation sources such as high-
ways and roads are found. However, the models described here represent
a convenient framework to describe data in urban areas, and can be modi-
fied to provide useful estimates of concentrations. We support this con-
tention by showing the evaluation of these models with data from field
studies conducted in urban areas.
The models described here belong to genre that regulatory models,
such as AERMOD (Cimorelli et al., 2005), belong to. These models
require modest computational resources, capture the essential physics of
the system, and are anchored to observations through empirically derived
parameters. They are designed to provide realistic estimates of concentra-
tions associated with emissions from the transportation sector under vary-
ing conditions. For example, these models can provide answers to
questions such as
1. What is the concentration of particulate matter at a distance of 300 m
from the edge of a 40 m highway with a traffic flow rate of 10,000
vehicles/day under a specific meteorological condition?
2. What is the effect of a noise barrier on this concentration?
3. How is the concentration affected if the road is depressed by 6 m?
4. What is the impact of micrometeorology on the spatial distribution of
concentrations next to a road?

MODELING EMISSIONS FOR TRANSPORT

APPLICATIONS
As indicated earlier, we will not go into the chemistry of the forma-
tion of vehicle-related pollutants such as CO, NOx, and hydrocarbons, or
describe models that estimate the emissions of these pollutants. Here, we
will treat emissions as one of the inputs to the dispersion models that we
describe, and show how they are specified in them.
Most of the transport-related sources are mobile: cars, trucks, or
trains. While in principle, we can model the air quality impact of each of
these moving sources, it is more convenient to model emissions by treat-
ing them as a group that is traveling on a road. Let us illustrate this idea
Introduction 5

by considering a road that is associated with a traffic flow rate of Tr vehi-

cles per unit time. Then, any segment of the road, when averaged over
say an hour, appears to be populated by a group of vehicles. In air pollu-
tion modeling, we are usually interested in specifying the emission rate
per unit length of this segment of the road. Assume that density of vehi-
cles in this segment is ρv ðxÞ vehicles per unit length of the road, and x is
the distance along the road in a suitable coordinate system. If the average
emission rate of each vehicle is e_ mass/time, then the emission rate per
unit length of this segment is q 5 ρv e_. Because Tr 5 ρv v, where v is the
average velocity of the vehicle,
 
e_
q 5 Tr : (1.1)
v

As we will see in later chapters, q, the emission rate per unit length of
the road, is the primary way that emission
from vehicles are included in
dispersion models. The combination, e_=v , which we denote by ef , is
called the emission factor, which represents the pollutant mass emitted by
each vehicle when traveling a unit length of the road.
Emissions of pollutants from vehicles are usually expressed as emission
factors because testing procedures specified by the USEPA measure this
quantity. A vehicle is driven on a dynamometer over a specified velocity/
time path called the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) driving cycle, which is
then converted into a distance. Pollutants from the exhaust of the vehicle
during this test are accumulated and converted into pollutant mass, which
when divided by the distance traveled yields the emission factor. Because
the emissions correspond to the FTP driving cycle, the emission factors are
corrected for non-FTP speeds and accelerations using statistical methods.
This approach forms the basis for the most popular emission models such
as MOBILE and EMFAC. These factors can only cover a limited range of
the highway and vehicle characteristics that determine emissions. For
example, these factors do not account for road grade, which has a signifi-
cant impact on emissions. Furthermore, empirically based emission factors
shed little light on the physical processes that govern emissions.
An alternative to the FTP/correction factor approach is the modal
emissions approach (Barth et al., 1996) in which the pollutant emission
rate is related to the fuel consumption rate. The assumption is that the
relationship is linear. The fuel consumption rate, Ff , is in turn related to
the power demand of a vehicle.
6 Urban Transportation and Air Pollution

Figure 1.1 Forces acting on a vehicle.

To examine this idea further, consider the power required for the trac-
tion of a vehicle traveling on a road with a grade of tanðθÞ. Fig 1.1 shows
a free body diagram of a vehicle traveling on the road. The force balance
on a vehicle of mass, m, traveling at a velocity, v, with an instantaneous
acceleration, a, is
1
Ftraction 2 ρCd Af v2 2 mg ðsinθ 1 fr cosθÞ 5 Ma; (1.2)
2
where Ftraction is the traction force at the wheels, ρ is the density of air, Cd
is the drag coefficient, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and fr is the
rolling friction coefficient. The second term on the left-hand side is the
resistance offered by the wind, the third term is the gravitational force,
and the fourth term is rolling friction, which is assumed to be propor-
tional to the normal force on the grade.
The traction power is Ftraction v 5 Ptraction , which can be obtained by
multiplying Eq. (1.2) by v to give
 
1 a
Ptraction 5 ρCd Af v 1 mgv sinθ 1 fr cosθ 1 :
3
(1.3)
2 g
If we assume that the fuel consumption rate and hence the emission
rate is proportional to the traction power, Eq. (1.1) implies
 
1 a
ef B ρCd Af v 1 mg sinθ 1 fr cosθ 1 :
2
(1.4)
2 g
A more realistic model for the emission factor includes other factors
such as combustion stoichiometry, engine speed, and displacement (Barth
and Boriboonsomsin, 2009). But even this simple model tells us that the
emission factor depends on vehicle as well as road characteristics, and is
likely to differ substantially from the FTP emission factor, which is based
on a driving cycle that might differ substantially from that in a specific
case, such as highway driving on a grade.
Introduction 7

Eq. (1.4) indicates that a grade of 3% doubles the fuel consumption

rate and hence the pollutant emission rate of a vehicle with a mass of
1500 kg driving on a highway at 60 mi/h. Here we have assumed
fr 5 0:01; Cd 3 Af 5 0:6 m2 ; and ρ 5 1:2 kg m23 . An acceleration of 3%
of g produces an equivalent effect.
In principle, we could use a “modal” model (Barth et al., 2000) based
on Eq. (1.4) to estimate emissions, but this will require information on
vehicle and road characteristics that might not be always available. Even
with partial information, deterministic emission models allow us to use
pollutant concentrations measured in the vicinity of one highway to esti-
mate that at another highway with different characteristics. Consider this
example in which a concentration of 50 ppb of NOx is measured at 25 m
from a highway with a traffic flow rate of 1000 vehicles/h traveling on
level ground at 65 mi/h. What is the corresponding concentration next
to a similar highway in which the traffic flow rate is 800 vehicles/h, and
the average speed is 50 mi/h on a grade of 4%? Under similar meteoro-
logical conditions, the concentration at the same distance from each of
the highways is proportional to the emission per unit length of the
road. Taking m 5 1500 kg; fr 5 0:01; Cd 3 Af 5 0:6 m2 ; ρ 5 1:2 kg m23 ,
Eqs. (1.1) and (1.4) yield an estimate of 80 ppb.
There is another common method of quantifying emissions that might
be useful in dispersion modeling. This method quantifies emissions in
terms of mass of a specific pollutant emitted per unit mass of fuel burned.
It is estimated by measuring the ratio of the pollutant concentration to
the mass of carbon in the exhaust gases or at a location close enough to
the highway that dispersion is the primary mechanism for the reduction
in exhaust gas concentrations. This ratio is converted into the required
emission metric through information on the carbon content of the fuel.
Singer and Harley (1996) and Ning et al. (2008) provide useful fuel-based
emission factors for a variety of pollutants. This fuel-based emission factor
has been used to produce city-wide estimates of pollutant emissions using
estimates of gasoline and diesel sales.
How can fuel-based emission factors be used in dispersion calcula-
tions? We can convert them into emission rates by multiplying them with
fuel consumption rates, which in turn can be estimated using determin-
istic models (Ross, 1994) that have been discussed earlier. The associated
uncertainty is that we do not know the vehicle and the road characteris-
tics corresponding to any particular measurement of the emission factor
to allow us to scale the measured emission factor using this information.
8 Urban Transportation and Air Pollution

The review of traffic emission models by Smit et al. (2010) indicates

that the error in emission estimates can be over a factor of 2 for most pol-
lutants. We need to account for this uncertainty in applying and evaluat-
ing dispersion models. We suggest the application of deterministic
“modal” emission models in reducing some of this uncertainty.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS BOOK

Chapter 2, Fundamental Concepts of this book discusses terminol-
ogy and concepts used in characterizing air pollutants and the meteoro-
logical processes that govern their concentrations. We first review
different methods of quantifying pollutant concentrations and how to
convert concentrations expressed in one set of units to another. After a
brief description of the composition and vertical structure of the atmo-
sphere, we introduce the important approximation of the vertical
momentum equation that balances gravity with the vertical pressure gra-
dient resulting in the hydrostatic balance equation, which is used to esti-
mate the variation of pressure with height from the ground. We provide a
brief description of the physical processes that govern large-scale winds
and weather systems. These systems determine the meteorological vari-
ables that govern the transport and dispersion of air pollutants. This chap-
ter also discusses the important concept of potential temperature, and
how it relates to the static stability of the atmosphere.
Chapter 3, Fundamentals of Micrometeorology and Dispersion pro-
vides material that is essential to the understanding of the current litera-
ture on modeling dispersion in the surface boundary layer, where most
transport-related emissions occur. Our discussion of micrometeorology
emphasizes its central role in formulating models for the behavior of
plumes in the surface layer. A great deal of micrometeorology is semiem-
pirical in the sense that major results are often based on dimensional anal-
ysis and unknown parameters in equations are obtained by fitting to
observations. This approach often prevents appreciation of their physical
content. We alleviate this problem by using simple physically based mod-
els to justify these results. For example, we estimate the magnitude of the
turbulent velocities generated by buoyancy through relatively simple argu-
ments. We then relate these velocities to the free convection velocity and
Introduction 9

the convective velocity scales that are used in micrometeorological formu-

lations. We also provide an intuitively appealing interpretation of the
Monin-Obukhov length, which is the primary length scale used in
expressions for the velocity and temperature profiles in the surface bound-
ary layer.
Chapter 3, Fundamentals of Micrometeorology and Dispersion shows
how micrometeorology and dispersion theory are combined to derive
expressions for the vertical and horizontal spreads of a pollutant plume
dispersing in the surface boundary layer. The material is not easy going
for a beginning student, but we believe that it is a prerequisite for under-
standing the formulation of plume spreads in models such as AERMOD
(Cimorelli et al., 2005) and RLINE (Snyder et al., 2013; Venkatram
et al., 2013), which are used to estimate the impact of transport-related
emissions.
Chapter 4, The Impact of Highways on Urban Air Quality applies the
methods developed in Chapter 2, Fundamental Concepts to formulating
models for dispersion of vehicle-emitted pollutants from highways. As in
Chapter 3, Fundamentals of Micrometeorology and Dispersion, we delve
into the details of the derivation of the models to allow the reader to
understand the approximations made in their formulations. Rather than
reviewing all the models in current use, we focus on a few that we have
developed. While some might argue that this is a biased approach, our
defense is that the models that we describe are similar to others in use,
and also represent the current state-of-the-art. Another important aspect
of this chapter is that we present the evaluation of these models with
observations to (1) show that the models provide estimates of real world
concentrations and (2) provide the model user with the estimates of
model uncertainty. The chapter deals with how the basic highway model
can be modified to account for the impact of roadside barriers, both solid
and vegetative. We also present a method to estimate the impact of emis-
sions from depressed highways.
Chapter 5, The Impact of Buildings on Urban Air Quality deals with
the effects of urban buildings on dispersion of vehicle emissions. We
review available models that estimate the impact of buildings, and then
focus on a model that we have developed. As in Chapter 4, The Impact
of Highways on Urban Air Quality, we derive the relevant equations, and
then provide an extensive discussion of the evaluation of the model.
Chapter 6, Modeling Dispersion at City Scale summarizes the results
presented in this book in the form of simple models that can be used to
10 Urban Transportation and Air Pollution

estimate the major effects of urban structures on dispersion of vehicle-

emitted pollutants. It also provides a brief description of methods to esti-
mate the micrometeorological inputs that are required to apply dispersion
models in urban areas.

REFERENCES
Barth, M., An, F., Norbeck, J., Ross, M., 1996. Modal emissions modeling: a physical
approach. Transp. Res. Rec. 1520, 81
88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3141/
1520-10.
Barth, M., An, F., Younglove, T., Scora, G., Levine, C., Ross, M., et al., 2000.
Development of a comprehensive modal emissions model. Natl. Coop. Highw. Res.
Progr 5
11.
Barth, M., Boriboonsomsin, K., 2009. Energy and emissions impacts of a freeway-based
dynamic eco-driving system. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 14, 400
410.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2009.01.004.
Brauer, M., Hoek, G., Van Vliet, P., Meliefste, K., Fischer, P.H., Wijga, A., et al., 2002.
Air pollution from traffic and the development of respiratory infections and asthmatic
and allergic symptoms in children. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 166, 1092
1098.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200108-007OC.
Cimorelli, A.J., Perry, S.G., Venkatram, A., Weil, J.C., Paine, R.J., Wilson, R.B., et al.,
2005. AERMOD: a dispersion model for industrial source applications. Part I:
General model formulation and boundary layer characterization. J. Appl. Meteorol.
44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1175/JAM2227.1.
Finkelstein, M.M., Jerrett, M., Sears, M.R., 2004. Traffic air pollution and mortality rate
advancement periods. Am. J. Epidemiol. 160, 173
177. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1093/aje/kwh181.
Harrison, R.M., Leung, P.L., Somervaille, L., Smith, R., Gilman, E., 1999. Analysis of
incidence of childhood cancer in the West Midlands of the United Kingdom in rela-
tion to proximity to main roads and petrol stations. Occup. Env. Med. 56, 774
780.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.56.11.774.
Hoek, G., Brunekreef, B., Goldbohm, S., Fischer, P., van den Brandt, P.A., 2002.
Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air pollution in the
Netherlands: a cohort study. Lancet 360, 1203
1209.
Hutchins, J., Morawska, L., Wolff, R., Gilbert, D., 2000. Concentrations of submicro-
metre particles from vehicle emissions near a major road. Atmos. Environ. 34 (1),
51
59.
Kim, J., Smorodinsky, S., Ostro, B., Lipsett, M., Singer, B., Hogdson, A., 2002. Traffic-
related air pollution and respiratory health: the East Bay Children’s Respiratory
Health Study. Epidemiology 13 (4), S100.
Kittelson, D.B., Watts, W.F., Johnson, J.P., 2004. Nanoparticle emissions on Minnesota
highways. Atmos. Environ. 38 (1), 9
19.
Ning, Z., Polidori, A., Schauer, J.J., Sioutas, C., 2008. Emission factors of PM species
based on freeway measurements and comparison with tunnel and dynamometer stud-
ies. Atmos. Environ. 42, 3099
3114. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2007.12.039.
Ross, M., 1994. EMISSIONS : effects of vehicle and driving characteristics. Annu. Rev.
Energy Environ. 19, 75
112. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
energy.19.1.75.
Introduction 11

Singer, B.C., Harley, R.A., 1996. A fuel-based motor vehicle emission inventory. J. Air
Waste Manag. Assoc. 46, 581
593. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/
10473289.1996.10467492.
Smit, R., Ntziachristos, L., Boulter, P., 2010. Validation of road vehicle and traffic emis-
sion models
a review and meta-analysis. Atmos. Environ. 44, 2943
2953.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.05.022.
Snyder, M.G., Venkatram, A., Heist, D.K., Perry, S.G., Petersen, W.B., Isakov, V., 2013.
RLINE: a line source dispersion model for near-surface releases. Atmos. Environ. 77,
748
756. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.05.074.
Venkatram, A., Snyder, M.G., Heist, D.K., Perry, S.G., Petersen, W.B., Isakov, V., 2013.
Re-formulation of plume spread for near-surface dispersion. Atmos. Environ. 77,
846
855. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.05.073.
 CHAPTER TWO

Fundamental Concepts
Contents
Expressing Concentrations 13
The Composition of Air 17
Hydrostatic Equilibrium 18
The Potential Temperature 21
Atmospheric Stability 22
The Origin of Large-Scale Winds 25
The Pressure Gradient Force 25
The Coriolis Force 27
The Geostrophic Wind 29
High- and Low-Pressure Centers 32
Effects of Friction 34
Fronts 35

This chapter provides a brief review of several topics that help in under-
standing air pollution in urban areas. We first describe methods used to
quantify concentrations of different species in air. We then introduce the
variables that are used to characterize the vertical structure of the atmo-
spheric layer in which pollutants are transported. The last section of this
chapter describes meteorological concepts relevant to air pollution.

EXPRESSING CONCENTRATIONS
The most obvious way of expressing concentrations in air is in
terms of mass per unit volume, which is simply the mass of the species
in a given volume divided by the volume. Concentrations are usually
expressed in terms of milligrams/cubic meter (mg/m3, mg 5 1023 g) or
micrograms/cubic meter (μg/m3, μg 5 1026 g). Concentrations of par-
ticulate matter in the atmosphere are customarily expressed in mass units.
The concentration of a gas in a mixture of gases is most often
expressed in terms of the mixing ratio (q) defined by

Urban Transportation and Air Pollution. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811506-0.00002-6 All rights reserved. 13
14 Urban Transportation and Air Pollution

concentration of species in a volume

q5 : (2.1)
concentration of mixture in the same volume
The concentration is usually expressed in terms of moles of the gas
per unit volume. The mixing ratio is simply the ratio of the number of
moles of the species to the number of moles of the mixture in the volume
used to calculate concentrations. This means that the mixing ratio does
not change if the volume changes. We can always convert mixing ratio to
mass per unit volume concentration units at any temperature and pressure
by calculating the density of the mixture for these conditions.
To see how this is done, let us review the perfect gas law, which states
that:
pV 5 nRu T; (2.2)
2
where p is the pressure in Newtons/m (a unit referred to as the Pascal
denoted by Pa), V is the volume of the gas in m3, n is the number of
moles of the gas, Ru is the universal gas constant and is equal to
8.314 J/(mol K), and T is the temperature in Kelvin.
We can restate Eq. (2.2) in terms of the density of the gas ρ, by
expressing the number of moles, n by
n 5 mg 3 1000=Mw ; (2.3)
where mg is the mass of the gas in kg and Mw is the molecular weight of
the gas-mass in grams of 1 mole or 6:02 3 1023 molecules of the gas.
Substituting Eq. (2.3) in Eq. (2.2) yields:

m 1000R 
g u
p5 T: (2.4)
V Mw
Now, ρ, the density of the gas in mass units is
mg
ρ5 : (2.5)
V
If we define the gas constant specific to the gas as
1000Ru
Rg 5 (2.6)
Mw
an alternate form of the gas law becomes:
p 5 ρRg T : (2.7)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
votes—he contending for district elections, and the delegates to vote
individually. South Carolina was not represented in the convention.
After the first ballot Mr. Van Buren’s vote sensibly decreased, until
finally, Mr. James K. Polk, who was a candidate for the Vice-
Presidency, was brought forward and nominated unanimously for
the chief office. Mr. Geo. M. Dallas was chosen as his colleague for
the Vice-Presidency. The nomination of these gentlemen, neither of
whom had been mentioned until late in the proceedings of the
convention, for the offices for which they were finally nominated,
was a genuine surprise to the country. No voice in favor of it had
been heard; and no visible sign in the political horizon had
announced it.
The Whig convention nominated Henry Clay, for President; and
Theodore Frelinghuysen for Vice-President.
The main issues in the election which ensued, were mainly the
party ones of Whig and Democrat, modified by the tariff and Texas
questions. It resulted in the choice of the Democratic candidates,
who received 170 electoral votes as against 105 for their opponents;
the popular majority for the Democrats being 238,284, in a total vote
of 2,834,108. Mr. Clay received a larger popular vote than had been
given at the previous election for the Whig candidate, showing that
he would have been elected had he then been the nominee of his
party; though the popular vote at this election was largely increased
over that of 1840. It is conceded that the 36 electoral votes of New
York State gave the election to Mr. Polk. It was carried by a bare
majority; due entirely to the Gubernatorial candidacy of Mr. Silas
Wright, who had been mentioned for the vice-presidential
nomination in connection with Mr. Van Buren, but who declined it
after the sacrifice of his friend and colleague; and resigning his seat
in the Senate, became a candidate for Governor of New York. The
election being held at the same time as that for president, his name
and popularity brought to the presidential ticket more than enough
votes to make the majority that gave the electoral vote of the State to
the Democrats.
President Tyler’s annual and last message to Congress, in
December 1844, contained, (as did that of the previous year) an
elaborate paragraph on the subject of Texas and Mexico; the idea
being the annexation of the former to the Union, and the assumption
of her causes of grievance against the latter; and a treaty was pending
to accomplish these objects. The scheme for the annexation of Texas
was framed with a double aspect—one looking to the then pending
presidential election, the other to the separation of the Southern
States; and as soon as the rejection of the treaty was foreseen, and
the nominating convention had acted, the disunion aspect
manifested itself over many of the Southern States—beginning with
South Carolina. Before the end of May, a great meeting took place at
Ashley, in that State, to combine the slave States in a convention to
unite the Southern States to Texas, if Texas should not be received
into the Union; and to invite the President to convene Congress to
arrange the terms of the dissolution of the Union if the rejection of
the annexation should be persevered in. Responsive resolutions were
adopted in several States, and meetings held. The opposition
manifested, brought the movement to a stand, and suppressed the
disunion scheme for the time being—only to lie in wait for future
occasions. But it was not before the people only that this scheme for
a Southern convention with a view to the secession of the slave States
was a matter of discussion; it was the subject of debate in the Senate;
and there it was further disclosed that the design of the secessionists
was to extend the new Southern republic to the Californias.
The treaty of annexation was supported by all the power of the
administration, but failed; and it was rejected by the Senate by a two-
thirds vote against it. Following this, a joint resolution was early
brought into the House of Representatives for the admission of Texas
as a State of the Union, by legislative action; it passed the House by a
fair majority, but met with opposition in the Senate unless coupled
with a proviso for negotiation and treaty, as a condition precedent. A
bill authorizing the President and a commissioner to be appointed to
agree upon the terms and conditions of said admission, the question
of slavery within its limits, its debts, the fixing of boundaries, and the
cession of territory, was coupled or united with the resolution; and in
this shape it was finally agreed to, and became a law, with the
concurrence of the President, March 3, 1845. Texas was then in a
state of war with Mexico, though at that precise point of time an
armistice had been agreed upon, looking to a treaty of peace. The
House resolution was for an unqualified admission of the State; the
Senate amendment or bill was for negotiation; and the bill actually
passed would not have been concurred in except on the
understanding that the incoming President (whose term began
March 4, 1845, and who was favorable to negotiation) would act
under the bill, and appoint commissioners accordingly.
Contrary to all expectation, the outgoing President, on the last day
of his term, at the instigation of his Secretary of State, Mr. Calhoun,
assumed the execution of the act providing for the admission of
Texas—adopted the legislative clause—and sent out a special
messenger with instructions. The danger of this had been foreseen,
and suggested in the Senate; but close friends of Mr. Calhoun,
speaking for the administration, and replying to the suggestion,
indignantly denied it for them, and declared that they would not
have the “audacity” to so violate the spirit and intent of the act, or so
encroach upon the rights of the new President. These statements
from the friends of the Secretary and President that the plan by
negotiation would be adopted, quieted the apprehension of those
Senators opposed to legislative annexation or admission, and thus
secured their votes, without which the bill would have failed of a
majority. Thus was Texas incorporated into the Union. The
legislative proposition sent by Mr. Tyler was accepted: Texas became
incorporated with the United States, and in consequence the state of
war was established between the United States and Mexico; it only
being a question of time and chance when the armistice should end
and hostilities begin. Although Mr. Calhoun was not in favor of war
with Mexico—he believing that a money payment would settle the
differences with that country—the admission of Texas into the Union
under the legislative annexation clause of the statute, was really his
act and not that of the President’s; and he was, in consequence,
afterwards openly charged in the Senate with being the real author of
the war which followed.
The administration of President Polk opened March 4, 1845; and
on the same day, the Senate being convened for the purpose, the
cabinet ministers were nominated and confirmed. In December
following the 29th Congress was organized. The House of
Representatives, being largely Democratic, elected the Speaker, by a
vote of 120, against 70 for the Whig candidate. At this session the
“American” party—a new political organization—first made its
appearance in the National councils, having elected six members of
the House of Representatives, four from New York and two from
Pennsylvania. The President’s first annual message had for its chief
topic, the admission of Texas, then accomplished, and the
consequent dissatisfaction of Mexico; and referring to the
preparations on the part of the latter with the apparent intention of
declaring war on the United States, either by an open declaration, or
by invading Texas. The message also stated causes which would
justify this government in taking the initiative in declaring war—
mainly the non-compliance by Mexico with the terms of the treaty of
indemnity of April 11, 1839, entered into between that State and this
government relative to injuries to American citizens during the
previous eight years. He also referred to the fact of a minister having
been sent to Mexico to endeavor to bring about a settlement of the
differences between the nations, without a resort to hostilities. The
message concluded with a reference to the negotiations with Great
Britain relative to the Oregon boundary; a statement of the finances
and the public debt, showing the latter to be slightly in excess of
seventeen millions; and a recommendation for a revision of the tariff,
with a view to revenue as the object, with protection to home
industry as the incident.
At this session of Congress, the States of Florida and Iowa were
admitted into the Union; the former permitting slavery within its
borders, the latter denying it. Long before this, the free and the slave
States were equal in number, and the practice had grown up—from a
feeling of jealousy and policy to keep them evenly balanced—of
admitting one State of each character at the same time. Numerically
the free and the slave States were thus kept even: in political power a
vast inequality was going on—the increase of population being so
much greater in the northern than in the southern region.
The Ashburton treaty of 1842 omitted to define the boundary line,
and permitted, or rather did not prohibit, the joint occupation of
Oregon by British and American settlers. This had been a subject of
dispute for many years. The country on the Columbia River had been
claimed by both. Under previous treaties the American northern
boundary extended “to the latitude of 49 degrees north of the
equator, and along that parallel indefinitely to the west.” Attempts
were made in 1842 and continuing since to 1846, to settle this
boundary line, by treaty with Great Britain. It had been assumed that
we had a dividing line, made by previous treaty, along the parallel of
54 degrees 40 minutes from the sea to the Rocky mountains. The
subject so much absorbed public attention, that the Democratic
National convention of 1844 in its platform of principles declared for
that boundary line, or war as the consequence. It became known as
the 54–40 plank, and was a canon of political faith. The negotiations
between the governments were resumed in August, 1844. The
Secretary of State, Mr. Calhoun, proposed a line along the parallel of
49 degrees of north latitude to the summit of the Rocky mountains
and continuing that line thence to the Pacific Ocean; and he made
this proposition notwithstanding the fact that the Democratic party—
to which he belonged—were then in a high state of exultation for the
boundary of 54 degrees 40 minutes, and the presidential canvass, on
the Democratic side, was raging upon that cry.
The British Minister declined this proposition in the part that
carried the line to the ocean, but offered to continue it from the
summit of the mountains to the Columbia River, a distance of some
three hundred miles, and then follow the river to the ocean. This was
declined by Mr. Calhoun. The President had declared in his
inaugural address in favor of the 54–40 line. He was in a dilemma; to
maintain that position meant war with Great Britain; to recede from
it seemed impossible. The proposition for the line of 49 degrees
having been withdrawn by the American government on its non-
acceptance by the British, had appeased the Democratic storm which
had been raised against the President. Congress had come together
under the loud cry of war, in which Mr. Cass was the leader, but
followed by the body of the democracy, and backed and cheered by
the whole democratic newspaper press. Under the authority and
order of Congress notice had been served on Great Britain which was
to abrogate the joint occupation of the country by the citizens of the
two powers. It was finally resolved by the British Government to
propose the line of 49 degrees, continuing to the ocean, as originally
offered by Mr. Calhoun; and though the President was favorable to
its acceptance, he could not, consistently with his previous acts,
accept and make a treaty, on that basis. The Senate, with whom lies
the power, under the constitution, of confirming or restricting all
treaties, being favorable to it, without respect to party lines, resort
was had, as in the early practice of the Government, to the President,
asking the advice of the Senate upon the articles of a treaty before
negotiation. A message was accordingly sent to the Senate, by the
President, stating the proposition, and asking its advice, thus shifting
the responsibility upon that body, and making the issue of peace or
war depend upon its answer. The Senate advised the acceptance of
the proposition, and the treaty was concluded.
The conduct of the Whig Senators, without whose votes the advice
would not have been given nor the treaty made, was patriotic in
preferring their country to their party—in preventing a war with
Great Britain—and saving the administration from itself and its party
friends.
The second session of the 29th Congress was opened in December,
1847. The President’s message was chiefly in relation to the war with
Mexico, which had been declared by almost a unanimous vote in
Congress. Mr. Calhoun spoke against the declaration in the Senate,
but did not vote upon it. He was sincerely opposed to the war,
although his conduct had produced it. Had he remained in the
cabinet, to do which he had not concealed his wish, he would, no
doubt, have labored earnestly to have prevented it. Many members of
Congress, of the same party with the administration, were extremely
averse to the war, and had interviews with the President, to see if it
was inevitable, before it was declared. Members were under the
impression that the war could not last above three months.
The reason for these impressions was that an intrigue was laid,
with the knowledge of the Executive, for a peace, even before the war
was declared, and a special agent dispatched to bring about a return
to Mexico of its exiled President, General Santa Anna, and conclude a
treaty of peace with him, on terms favorable to the United States.
And for this purpose Congress granted an appropriation of three
millions of dollars to be placed at the disposal of the President, for
negotiating for a boundary which should give the United States
additional territory.
While this matter was pending in Congress, Mr. Wilmot of
Pennsylvania introduced and moved a proviso, “that no part of the
territory to be acquired should be open to the introduction of
slavery.” It was a proposition not necessary for the purpose of
excluding slavery, as the only territory to be acquired was that of
New Mexico and California, where slavery was already prohibited by
the Mexican laws and constitution. The proviso was therefore
nugatory, and only served to bring on a slavery agitation in the
United States. For this purpose it was seized upon by Mr. Calhoun
and declared to be an outrage upon and menace to the slaveholding
States. It occupied the attention of Congress for two sessions, and
became the subject of debate in the State Legislatures, several of
which passed disunion resolutions. It became the watchword of party
—the synonym of civil war, and the dissolution of the Union. Neither
party really had anything to fear or to hope from the adoption of the
proviso—the soil was free, and the Democrats were not in a position
to make slave territory of it, because it had just enunciated as one of
its cardinal principles, that there was “no power in Congress to
legislate upon slavery in Territories.” Never did two political parties
contend more furiously about nothing. Close observers, who had
been watching the progress of the slavery agitation since its
inauguration in Congress in 1835, knew it to be the means of keeping
up an agitation for the benefit of the political parties—the
abolitionists on one side and the disunionists or nullifiers on the
other—to accomplish their own purposes. This was the celebrated
Wilmot Proviso, which for so long a time convulsed the Union;
assisted in forcing the issue between the North and South on the
slavery question, and almost caused a dissolution of the Union. The
proviso was defeated; that chance of the nullifiers to force the issue
was lost; another had to be made, which was speedily done, by the
introduction into the Senate on the 19th February, 1847, by Mr.
Calhoun of his new slavery resolutions, declaring the Territories to
be the common property of the several States; denying the right of
Congress to prohibit slavery in a Territory, or to pass any law which
would have the effect to deprive the citizens of any slave State from
emigrating with his property (slaves) into such Territory. The
introduction of the resolutions was prefaced by an elaborate speech
by Mr. Calhoun, who demanded an immediate vote upon them. They
never came to a vote; they were evidently introduced for the mere
purpose of carrying a question to the slave States on which they
could be formed into a unit against the free States; and so began the
agitation which finally led to the abrogation of the Missouri
Compromise line, and arrayed the States of one section against those
of the other.
The Thirtieth Congress, which assembled for its first session in
December, 1847, was found, so far as respects the House of
Representatives, to be politically adverse to the administration. The
Whigs were in the majority, and elected the Speaker; Robert C.
Winthrop, of Massachusetts, being chosen. The President’s message
contained a full report of the progress of the war with Mexico; the
success of the American arms in that conflict; the victory of Cerro
Gordo, and the capture of the City of Mexico; and that negotiations
were then pending for a treaty of peace. The message concluded with
a reference to the excellent results from the independent treasury
system.
The war with Mexico was ended by the signing of a treaty of peace,
in February, 1848, by the terms of which New Mexico and Upper
California were ceded to the United States, and the lower Rio
Grande, from its mouth to El Paso, taken for the boundary of Texas.
For the territory thus acquired, the United States agreed to pay to
Mexico the sum of fifteen million dollars, in five annual installments;
and besides that, assumed the claims of American citizens against
Mexico, limited to three and a quarter million dollars, out of and on
account of which claims the war ostensibly originated. The victories
achieved by the American commanders, Generals Zachary Taylor
and Winfield Scott, during that war, won for them national
reputations, by means of which they were brought prominently
forward for the Presidential succession.
The question of the power of Congress to legislate on the subject of
slavery in the Territories, was again raised, at this session, on the bill
for the establishment of the Oregon territorial government. An
amendment was offered to insert a provision for the extension of the
Missouri compromise line to the Pacific Ocean; which line thus
extended was intended by the amendment to be permanent, and to
apply to all future territories established in the West. This
amendment was lost, but the bill was finally passed with an
amendment incorporating into it the anti-slavery clause of the
ordinance of 1787. Mr. Calhoun, in the Senate, declared that the
exclusion of slavery from any territory was a subversion of the
Union; openly proclaimed the strife between the North and South to
be ended, and the separation of the States accomplished. His speech
was an open invocation to disunion, and from that time forth, the
efforts were regular to obtain a meeting of the members from the
slave States, to unite in a call for a convention of the slave States to
redress themselves. He said: “The great strife between the North and
the South is ended. The North is determined to exclude the property
of the slaveholder, and, of course, the slaveholder himself, from its
territory. On this point there seems to be no division in the North. In
the South, he regretted to say, there was some division of sentiment.
The effect of this determination of the North was to convert all the
Southern population into slaves; and he would never consent to
entail that disgrace on his posterity. He denounced any Southern
man who would not take the same course. Gentlemen were greatly
mistaken if they supposed the Presidential question in the South
would override this more important one. The separation of the North
and the South is completed. The South has now a most solemn
obligation to perform—to herself—to the constitution—to the Union.
She is bound to come to a decision not to permit this to go on any
further, but to show that, dearly as she prizes the Union, there are
questions which she regards as of greater importance than the
Union. This is not a question of territorial government, but a
question involving the continuance of the Union.” The President, in
approving the Oregon bill, took occasion to send in a special
message, pointing out the danger to the Union from the progress of
the slavery agitation, and urged an adherence to the principles of the
ordinance of 1787—the terms of the Missouri compromise of 1820—
as also that involved and declared in the Texas case in 1845, as the
means of averting that danger.
The Presidential election of 1848 was coming on. The Democratic
convention met in Baltimore in May of that year; each State being
represented in the convention by the number of delegates equal to
the number of electoral votes it was entitled to; saving only New
York, which sent two sets of delegates, and both were excluded. The
delegates were, for the most part, members of Congress and office-
holders. The two-thirds rule, adopted by the previous convention,
was again made a law of the convention. The main question which
arose upon the formation of the platform for the campaign, was the
doctrine advanced by the Southern members of non-interference
with slavery in the States or in the Territories. The candidates of the
party were, Lewis Cass, of Michigan, for President, and General Wm.
O. Butler, of Kentucky, for Vice-President.
The Whig convention, taking advantage of the popularity of Genl.
Zachary Taylor, for his military achievements in the Mexican war,
then just ended; and his consequent availability as a candidate,
nominated him for the Presidency, over Mr. Clay, Mr. Webster and
General Scott, who were his competitors before the convention.
Millard Fillmore was selected as the Vice-presidential candidate.
A third convention was held, consisting of the disaffected
Democrats from New York who had been excluded from the
Baltimore convention. They met at Utica, New York, and nominated
Martin Van Buren for President, and Charles Francis Adams for
Vice-President. The principles of its platform, were, that Congress
should abolish slavery wherever it constitutionally had the power to
do so—[which was intended to apply to the District of Columbia]—
that it should not interfere with it in the slave States—and that it
should prohibit it in the Territories. This party became known as
“Free-soilers,” from their doctrines thus enumerated, and their party
cry of “free-soil, free-speech, free-labor, free-men.” The result of the
election, as might have been foreseen, was to lose New York State to
the Baltimore candidate, and give it to the Whigs, who were
triumphant in the reception of 163 electoral votes for their
candidates, against 127 for the democrats; and none for the free-
soilers.
The last message of President Polk, in December following, gave
him the opportunity to again urge upon Congress the necessity for
some measure to quiet the slavery agitation, and he recommended
the extension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific Ocean,
passing through the new Territories of California and New Mexico,
as a fair adjustment, to meet as far as possible the views of all parties.
The President referred also to the state of the finances; the excellent
condition of the public treasury; government loans, commanding a
high premium; gold and silver the established currency; and the
business interests of the country in a prosperous condition. And this
was the state of affairs, only one year after emergency from a foreign
war. It would be unfair not to give credit to the President and to
Senator Benton and others equally prominent and courageous, who
at that time had to battle against the bank theory and national paper
money currency, as strongly urged and advocated, and to prove
eventually that the money of the Constitution—gold and silver—was
the only currency to ensure a successful financial working of the
government, and prosperity to the people.
 The new President, General Zachary Taylor, was inaugurated
March 4, 1849. The Senate being convened, as usual, in extra
session, for the purpose, the Vice-President elect, Millard Fillmore,
was duly installed; and the Whig cabinet officers nominated by the
President, promptly confirmed. An additional member of the Cabinet
was appointed by this administration to preside over the new “Home
Department” since called the “Interior,” created at the previous
session of Congress.
The following December Congress met in regular session—the 31st
since the organization of the federal government. The Senate
consisted of sixty members, among whom were Mr. Webster, Mr.
Calhoun, and Mr. Clay, who had returned to public life. The House
had 230 members; and although the Whigs had a small majority, the
House was so divided on the slavery question in its various phases,
that the election for Speaker resulted in the choice of the Democratic
candidate, Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, by a majority of three votes. The
annual message of the President plainly showed that he
comprehended the dangers to the Union from a continuance of
sectional feeling on the slavery question, and he averred his
determination to stand by the Union to the full extent of his
obligations and powers. At the previous session Congress had spent
six months in endeavoring to frame a satisfactory bill providing
territorial governments for California and New Mexico, and had
adjourned finally without accomplishing it, in consequence of
inability to agree upon whether the Missouri compromise line should
be carried to the ocean, or the territories be permitted to remain as
they were—slavery prohibited under the laws of Mexico. Mr. Calhoun
brought forward, in the debate, a new doctrine—extending the
Constitution to the territory, and arguing that as that instrument
recognized the existence of slavery, the settlers in such territory
should be permitted to hold their slave property taken there, and be
protected. Mr. Webster’s answer to this was that the Constitution
was made for States, not territories; that it cannot operate anywhere,
not even in the States for which it was made, without acts of
Congress to enforce it. The proposed extension of the constitution to
territories, with a view to its transportation of slavery along with it,
was futile and nugatory without the act of Congress to vitalize slavery
under it. The early part of the year had witnessed ominous
movements—nightly meetings of large numbers of members from
the slave States, led by Mr. Calhoun, to consider the state of things
between the North and the South. They appointed committees who
prepared an address to the people. It was in this condition of things,
that President Taylor expressed his opinion, in his message, of the
remedies required. California, New Mexico and Utah, had been left
without governments. For California, he recommended that having a
sufficient population and having framed a constitution, she be
admitted as a State into the Union; and for New Mexico and Utah,
without mixing the slavery question with their territorial
governments, they be left to ripen into States, and settle the slavery
question for themselves in their State constitutions.

With a view to meet the wishes of all parties, and arrive at some
definite and permanent adjustment of the slavery question, Mr. Clay
early in the session introduced compromise resolutions which were
practically a tacking together of the several bills then on the calendar,
providing for the admission of California—the territorial government
for Utah and New Mexico—the settlement of the Texas boundary—
slavery in the District of Columbia—and for a fugitive slave law. It
was seriously and earnestly opposed by many, as being a concession
to the spirit of disunion—a capitulation under threat of secession;
and as likely to become the source of more contentions than it
proposed to quiet.
The resolutions were referred to a special committee, who
promptly reported a bill embracing the comprehensive plan of
compromise which Mr. Clay proposed. Among the resolutions
offered, was the following: “Resolved, that as slavery does not exist
by law and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory
acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is
inexpedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction
into or exclusion from any part of the said territory; and that
appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by
Congress in all of the said territory, and assigned as the boundaries
of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any
restriction or condition on the subject of slavery.” Mr. Jefferson
Davis of Mississippi, objected that the measure gave nothing to the
South in the settlement of the question; and he required the
extension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific Ocean as
the least that he would be willing to take, with the specific
recognition of the right to hold slaves in the territory below that line;
and that, before such territories are admitted into the Union as
States, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States at the
option of their owner.
Mr. Clay in reply, said: “Coming from a slave State, as I do, I owe it
to myself, I owe it to truth, I owe it to the subject, to say that no
earthly power could induce me to vote for a specific measure for the
introduction of slavery where it had not before existed, either south
or north of that line.*** If the citizens of those territories choose to
establish slavery, and if they come here with constitutions
establishing slavery, I am for admitting them with such provisions in
their constitutions; but then it will be their own work, and not ours,
and their posterity will have to reproach them, and not us, for
forming constitutions allowing the institution of slavery to exist
among them.”
Mr. Seward of New York, proposed a renewal of the Wilmot
Proviso, in the following resolution: “Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, otherwise than by conviction for crime, shall ever be
allowed in either of said territories of Utah and New Mexico;” but his
resolution was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 23 yeas to 33 nays.
Following this, Mr. Calhoun had read for him in the Senate, by his
friend James M. Mason of Virginia, his last speech. It embodied the
points covered by the address to the people, prepared by him the
previous year; the probability of a dissolution of the Union, and
presenting a case to justify it. The tenor of the speech is shown by the
following extracts from it: “I have, Senators, believed from the first,
that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by
some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining
this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the
attention of each of the two great parties which divide the country to
adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without
success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed, with almost no
attempt to resist it, until it has reached a period when it can no
longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have
had forced upon you the greatest and gravest question that can ever
come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved?
*** Instead of being weaker, all the elements in favor of agitation are
stronger now than they were in 1835, when it first commenced, while
all the elements of influence on the part of the South are weaker.
Unless something decisive is done, I again ask what is to stop this
agitation, before the great and final object at which it aims—the
abolition of slavery in the States—is consummated? Is it, then, not
certain that if something decisive is not now done to arrest it, the
South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession?
Indeed as events are now moving, it will not require the South to
secede to dissolve the Union.*** If the agitation goes on, nothing will
be left to hold the States together except force.” He answered the
question, How can the Union be saved? with which his speech
opened, by suggesting: “To provide for the insertion of a provision in
the constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South
in substance the power she possessed of protecting herself, before
the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of
the government.” He did not state of what the amendment should
consist, but later on, it was ascertained from reliable sources that his
idea was a dual executive—one President from the free, and one from
the slave States, the consent of both of whom should be required to
all acts of Congress before they become laws. This speech of Mr.
Calhoun’s, is important as explaining many of his previous actions;
and as furnishing a guide to those who ten years afterwards
attempted to carry out practically the suggestions thrown out by him.
Mr. Clay’s compromise bill was rejected. It was evident that no
compromise of any kind whatever on the subject of slavery, under
any one of its aspects separately, much less under all put together,
could possibly be made. There was no spirit of concession
manifested. The numerous measures put together in Mr. Clay’s bill
were disconnected and separated. Each measure received a separate
and independent consideration, and with a result which showed the
injustice of the attempted conjunction; for no two of them were
passed by the same vote, even of the members of the committee
which had even unanimously reported favorably upon them as a
whole.
Mr. Calhoun died in the spring of 1850; before the separate bill for
the admission of California was taken up. His death took place at
Washington, he having reached the age of 68 years. A eulogy upon
him was delivered in the Senate by his colleague, Mr. Butler, of South
Carolina. Mr. Calhoun was the first great advocate of the doctrine of
secession. He was the author of the nullification doctrine, and an
advocate of the extreme doctrine of States Rights. He was an
eloquent speaker—a man of strong intellect. His speeches were plain,
strong, concise, sometimes impassioned, and always severe. Daniel
Webster said of him, that “he had the basis, the indispensable basis
of all high characters, and that was unspotted integrity, unimpeached
honor and character!”
In July of this year an event took place which threw a gloom over
the country. The President, General Taylor, contracted a fever from
exposure to the hot sun at a celebration of Independence Day, from
which he died four days afterwards. He was a man of irreproachable
private character, undoubted patriotism, and established reputation
for judgment and firmness. His brief career showed no deficiency of
political wisdom nor want of political training. His administration
was beset with difficulties, with momentous questions pending, and
he met the crisis with firmness and determination, resolved to
maintain the Federal Union at all hazards. His first and only annual
message, the leading points of which have been stated, evinces a
spirit to do what was right among all the States. His death was a
public calamity. No man could have been more devoted to the Union
nor more opposed to the slavery agitation; and his position as a
Southern man and a slaveholder—his military reputation, and his
election by a majority of the people as well as of the States, would
have given him a power in the settlement of the pending questions of
the day which no President without these qualifications could have
possessed.
In accordance with the Constitution, the office of President thus
devolved upon the Vice-President, Mr. Millard Fillmore, who was
duly inaugurated July 10, 1850. The new cabinet, with Daniel
Webster as Secretary of State, was duly appointed and confirmed by
the Senate.
The bill for the admission of California as a State in the Union, was
called up in the Senate and sought to be amended by extending the
Missouri Compromise line through it, to the Pacific Ocean, so as to
authorize slavery in the State below that line. The amendment was
introduced and pressed by Southern friends of the late Mr. Calhoun,
and made a test question. It was lost, and the bill passed by a two-
third vote; whereupon ten Southern Senators offered a written
protest, the concluding clause of which was: “We dissent from this
bill, and solemnly protest against its passage, because in sanctioning
measures so contrary to former precedents, to obvious policy, to the
spirit and intent of the constitution of the United States, for the
purpose of excluding the slaveholding States from the territory thus
to be erected into a State, this government in effect declares that the
exclusion of slavery from the territory of the United States is an
object so high and important as to justify a disregard not only of all
the principles of sound policy, but also of the constitution itself.
Against this conclusion we must now and for ever protest, as it is
destructive of the safety and liberties of those whose rights have been
committed to our care, fatal to the peace and equality of the States
which we represent, and must lead, if persisted in, to the dissolution
of that confederacy, in which the slaveholding States have never
sought more than equality, and in which they will not be content to
remain with less.” On objection being made, followed by debate, the
Senate refused to receive the protest, or permit it to be entered on
the Journal. The bill went to the House of Representatives, was
readily passed, and promptly approved by the President. Thus was
virtually accomplished the abrogation of the Missouri compromise
line; and the extension or non-extension of slavery was then made to
form a foundation for future political parties.
The year 1850 was prolific with disunion movements in the
Southern States. The Senators who had joined with Mr. Calhoun in
the address to the people, in 1849, united with their adherents in
establishing at Washington a newspaper entitled “The Southern
Press,” devoted to the agitation of the slavery question; to presenting
the advantages of disunion, and the organization of a confederacy of
Southern States to be called the “United States South.” Its constant
aim was to influence the South against the North, and advocated
concert of action by the States of the former section. It was aided in
its efforts by newspapers published in the South, more especially in
South Carolina and Mississippi. A disunion convention was actually
held, in Nashville, Tennessee, and invited the assembly of a Southern
Congress. Two States, South Carolina and Mississippi responded to
the appeal; passed laws to carry it into effect, and the former went so
far as to elect its quota of Representatives to the proposed new
Southern Congress. These occurrences are referred to as showing the
spirit that prevailed, and the extraordinary and unjustifiable means
used by the leaders to mislead and exasperate the people. The
assembling of a Southern “Congress” was a turning point in the
progress of disunion. Georgia refused to join; and her weight as a
great Southern State was sufficient to cause the failure of the scheme.
But the seeds of discord were sown, and had taken root, only to
spring up at a future time when circumstances should be more
favorable to the accomplishment of the object.
Although the Congress of the United States had in 1790 and again
in 1836 formally declared the policy of the government to be non-
interference with the States in respect to the matter of slavery within
the limits of the respective States, the subject continued to be
agitated in consequence of petitions to Congress to abolish slavery in
the District of Columbia, which was under the exclusive control of
the federal government; and of movements throughout the United
States to limit, and finally abolish it. The subject first made its
appearance in national politics in 1840, when a presidential ticket
was nominated by a party then formed favoring the abolition of
slavery; it had a very slight following which was increased tenfold at
the election of 1844 when the same party again put a ticket in the
field with James G. Birney of Michigan, as its candidate for the
Presidency; who received 62,140 votes. The efforts of the leaders of
that faction were continued, and persisted in to such an extent, that
when in 1848 it nominated a ticket with Gerritt Smith for President,
against the Democratic candidate, Martin Van Buren, the former
received 296,232 votes. In the presidential contest of 1852 the
abolition party again nominated a ticket, with John P. Hale as its
candidate for President, and polled 157,926 votes. This large
following was increased from time to time, until uniting with a new
party then formed, called the Republican party, which latter adopted
a platform endorsing the views and sentiments of the abolitionists,
the great and decisive battle for the principles involved, was fought
in the ensuing presidential contest of 1856; when the candidate of
the Republican party, John C. Fremont, supported by the entire
abolition party, polled 1,341,812 votes. The first national platform of
the Abolition party, upon which it went into the contest of 1840,
favored the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and
Territories; the inter-state slave trade, and a general opposition to
slavery to the full extent of constitutional power.
Following the discussion of the subject of slavery, in the Senate
and House of Representatives, brought about by the presentation of
petitions and memorials, and the passage of the resolutions in 1836
rejecting such petitions, the question was again raised by the
presentation in the House, by Mr. Slade of Vermont, on the 20th
December 1837, of two memorials praying the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia, and moving that they be referred to a select
committee. Great excitement prevailed in the chamber, and of the
many attempts by the Southern members an adjournment was had.
The next day a resolution was offered that thereafter all such
petitions and memorials touching the abolition of slavery should,
when presented, be laid on the table; which resolution was adopted
by a large vote. During the 24th Congress, the Senate pursued the
course of laying on the table the motion to receive all abolition
petitions; and both Houses during the 25th Congress continued the
same course of conduct; when finally on the 25th of January 1840,
the House adopted by a vote of 114 to 108, an amendment to the
rules, called the 21st Rule, which provided:—“that no petition,
memorial or resolution, or other paper, praying the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia, or any state or territory, or the
slave-trade between the States or territories of the United States, in
which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in
any way whatever.” This rule was afterwards, on the 3d of December,
1844, rescinded by the House, on motion of Mr. J. Quincy Adams, by
a vote of 108 to 80; and a motion to re-instate it, on the 1st of
December 1845, was rejected by a vote of 84 to 121. Within five years
afterwards—on the 17th September 1850,—the Congress of the
United States enacted a law, which was approved by the President,
abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia.
On the 25th of February, 1850, there was presented in the House
of Representatives, two petitions from citizens of Pennsylvania and
Delaware, setting forth that slavery, and the constitution which
permits it, violates the Divine law; is inconsistent with republican
principles; that its existence has brought evil upon the country; and
that no union can exist with States which tolerate that institution;
and asking that some plan be devised for the immediate, peaceful
dissolution of the Union. The House refused to receive and consider
the petitions; as did also the Senate when the same petitions were
presented the same month.
The presidential election of 1852 was the last campaign in which
the Whig party appeared in National politics. It nominated a ticket
with General Winfield Scott as its candidate for President. His
opponent on the Democratic ticket was General Franklin Pierce. A
third ticket was placed in the field by the Abolition party, with John
P. Hale as its candidate for President. The platform and declaration
of principles of the Whig party was in substance a ratification and
endorsement of the several measures embraced in Mr. Clay’s
compromise resolutions of the previous session of Congress, before
referred to; and the policy of a revenue for the economical
administration of the government, to be derived mainly from duties
on imports, and by these means to afford protection to American
industry. The main plank of the platform of the Abolition party (or
Independent Democrats, as they were called) was for the non-
extension and gradual extinction of slavery. The Democratic party
equally adhered to the compromise measure. The election resulted in
the choice of Franklin Pierce, by a popular vote of 1,601,474, and 254
electoral votes, against a popular aggregate vote of 1,542,403 (of
which the abolitionists polled 157,926) and 42 electoral votes, for the
Whig and Abolition candidates. Mr. Pierce was duly inaugurated as
President, March 4, 1853.
The first political parties in the United States, from the
establishment of the federal government and for many years
afterwards, were denominated Federalists and Democrats, or
Democratic-Republicans. The former was an anti-alien party. The
latter was made up to a large extent of naturalized foreigners;
refugees from England, Ireland and Scotland, driven from home for
hostility to the government or for attachment to France. Naturally,
aliens sought alliance with the Democratic party, which favored the
war against Great Britain. The early party contests were based on the
naturalization laws; the first of which, approved March 26, 1790,
required only two years’ residence in this country; a few years
afterwards the time was extended to five years; and in 1798 the
Federalists taking advantage of the war fever against France, and
then being in power, extended the time to fourteen years. (See Alien
and Sedition Laws of 1798). Jefferson’s election and Democratic
victory of 1800, brought the period back to five years in 1802, and
reinforced the Democratic party. The city of New York, especially,
from time to time became filled with foreigners; thus naturalized;
brought into the Democratic ranks; and crowded out native
Federalists from control of the city government, and to meet this
condition of affairs, the first attempt at a Native American
organization was made. Beginning in 1835; ending in failure in
election of Mayor in 1837, it was revived in April, 1844, when the
Native American organization carried New York city for its
Mayoralty candidate by a good majority. The success of the
movement there, caused it to spread to New Jersey and
Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia, it was desperately opposed by the
Democratic, Irish and Roman Catholic element, and so furiously,
that it resulted in riots, in which two Romish Churches were burned
and destroyed. The adherents of the American organization were not
confined to Federalists or Whigs, but largely of native Democrats;
and the Whigs openly voted with Democratic Natives in order to
secure their vote for Henry Clay for the Presidency; but when in
November, 1844, New York and Philadelphia both gave Native
majorities, and so sapped the Whig vote, that both places gave