America’s Container Ports:

Linking Markets at Home and Abroad

January 2011

RITA Bureau of Transportation Statistics

America’s Container Ports:

Linking Markets at Home and Abroad

January 2011

RITA Bureau of Transportation Statistics
To obtain America’s Container Ports, 2011

and other BTS publications

Internet: http://www.bts.gov/publications/americas_container_ports/2011/

Mail: Product Orders

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

BTS Information Service

E-mail: RITAinfo@dot.gov

Recommended citation

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, America’s Container Ports: Linking Markets at 

Home and Abroad. Washington, DC: 2011.

All material contained in this report is in the public domain 

and may be used and reprinted without special permission; 

citation as to source is required.

Cover photo by Chutiporn Chaitachawon.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Bureau of Transportation Statistics
U.S. Department of

Transportation

Ray LaHood

Secretary

Research and

Innovative Technology

Administration

Peter H. Appel

Administrator

Robert L. Bertini, Ph.D.

Deputy Administrator

Bureau of

Transportation

Statistics

Steven K. Smith, Ph.D.

Acting Director

Produced under the 

direction of:

Deborah D. Johnson

Assistant Director

Project Manager

Long X. Nguyen

Major Contributors 

E-Ternational

Felix Ammah-Tagoe, Ph.D.

Shana Johnson

Stephen Pelletier

Other Contributors

Matt Chambers

Jacob Hommeland

Gail Perkins, MARAD

RITA Editor

William H. Moore

RITA Visual Information Specialist

Alpha Wingfield

Acknowledgments

For additional information or 

questions about this report, 

please dial 1-800-853-1351
Table of Contents

Overview.........................................................................................................................................1

Recent Trends...................................................................................................................................1

Vessel Calls at Ports.........................................................................................................................2

Trading Partners...............................................................................................................................2

Major Commodities.........................................................................................................................3

America’s Container Ports............................................................................................................5

Introduction......................................................................................................................................5

Effects of Recent Trends in Container Throughput .........................................................................9

Long-Term Trends in Container Throughput.................................................................................10

Gateways for Inbound and Outbound Traffic ................................................................................12

Port Concentration .........................................................................................................................18

Regional Shifts in Port Market Share ............................................................................................18

Vessel Calls and Capacity ..............................................................................................................19

Ranking of U.S. Ports Among World’s Top Ports..........................................................................21

Trading Partners.............................................................................................................................22

Entries of Oceanborne Container Units.........................................................................................24

Container Entries by All Modes From All Countries.....................................................................25

What’s in the Box?.........................................................................................................................28

Spotlight 1: Landside Access to Seaports......................................................................................31

Spotlight 2: Maritime Security.......................................................................................................35

References.....................................................................................................................................39

List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................................41

Glossary ........................................................................................................................................42
1

Overview

The U.S. marine transportation system handles large volumes of domestic and international freight in support of the Nation’s economic activities. As a vital part of that system, the Nation’s 

container ports handle cargo and are sources of employment, revenue, and taxes for businesses or 

communities where they are located.

This report provides an overview of the movement of maritime freight handled by the Nation’s 

container ports in 2009 through mid-2010, based on the most current available data through that 

time period. It summarizes trends in maritime freight movement since 1995, especially during the 

last 5 years. It also covers the impact of the recent U.S. and global economic downturn on container 

traffic; trends in container throughput; concentration of containerized cargo at the top U.S. ports; 

regional shifts in cargo handled, vessel calls, and port capacity; the rankings of U.S. ports among 

the world’s top ports; and the number of maritime container entries into the United States relative to 

truck and rail containers. The report also includes spotlight summaries of landside access to container ports and maritime security initiatives.

The principal findings of the report are discussed below:

RECENT TRENDS

• In the first half of 2010, U.S. container ports 

handled a total of 110 million metric tons of 

containerized cargo, 17 percent higher than 

the 95 million metric tons handled in the same 

period in 2009, but down 8 percent from the 

120 million metric tons handled in 2008.

• Both U.S. containerized exports and imports 

rose during the first half of 2010, as U.S. 

businesses replenished low inventories and 

production activities increased. Despite this 

upturn, maritime container exports for the first 

half of 2010 were down 6 percent from 2008 

levels and container imports were down 9 

percent.

• The growth in cargo activity at U.S. container 

ports during the beginning of 2010 followed a 

challenging year in 2009, when the tonnage of 

container cargo handled by the Nation’s ports 

fell by 10 percent when compared to 2008.

• The growth in container traffic in early 2010 

affected various sectors of the freight transportation sector. During the first half of 2010, 

active containership capacity worldwide reached 13 million TEUs (20-foot equivalent units—a 

measure for counting containers), up 15 percent from the previous 6 months, as the number of 

idled vessels fell and new vessels were delivered for service.

• The number of intermodal shipping containers and truck trailers transported nationwide on 

railcars by U.S. Class I railroads during January to June of 2010 was 5.2 million units, up 12 

percent from 4.6 million moved by rail during the same period in 2009, but down 7 percent from 

5.6 million in 2008.

Peter Hellebrand
2 America’s Container Ports

• In 2009, the most recent period for which global data are available, worldwide container TEUs 

declined 15 percent, compared to 2008.

• Despite recent fluctuations, today 1 container in every 11 that is engaged in global trade is either 

bound for or originates in the United States, accounting for 9 percent of worldwide container 

traffic.

• U.S. container ports handle more TEUs of imports than exports, although the percentage of 

exports has increased during the most recent 3 years. In 2009, maritime container imports passing through U.S. seaports accounted for 58 percent of total container traffic, down from its peak 

of 67 percent in 2006. 

• On a typical weekday in 2009, U.S. container ports handled an average of 68,000 TEUs of 

freight, up from 37,000 TEUs per day in 1995, but down from the peak of about 78,000 in 2007.

• In 2009, the top 10 U.S. container ports accounted for 85 percent of U.S. containerized TEU 

imports and exports, up from 78 percent in 1995.

West coast ports as a region grew the fastest of any port region between the mid-1980s and 2009, 

but since 2007 the region has experienced the sharpest decline in container traffic. Between 2007 

and 2009, total TEUs handled by west coast ports declined 22 percent, compared with 13 percent 

decline for east coast ports and less than 1 percent increase for gulf coast ports.

VESSEL CALLS AT PORTS

• The majority of containership calls to the United States are made to a relative few ports. The top 

10 U.S. container ports accounted for more than three quarters (77 percent) of containership 

calls.

• U.S. maritime ports also handled larger container vessels than in the past. The average size 

(per call) of container vessels calling at U.S. ports in 2009 was 50,000 deadweight tons (dwt), a 

14 percent increase from 2004, when the average was 44,000 dwt.

• More of the vessels calling at U.S. ports are containerships. In 2009, containerships accounted 

for 33 percent of the total calls by all ships in U.S. ports, up from 31 percent in 2004. 

• In 2009, containerships averaged 3,800 TEUs per port call, up 19 percent from 3,200 TEUs 5 

years earlier.

• More of the larger container vessels are calling at U.S. ports. During the last 5 years, calls by 

post-Panamax containerships of 5,000 TEUs or greater rose by 156 percent (up from 1,700 

calls in 2004 to 4,400 in 2009).1 In 2009, these containerships accounted for 24 percent of all 

containership calls at U.S. seaports, up from 10 percent in 2004.

The containerships calling at U.S. ports are relatively newer than other vessel types that call at the 

Nation’s ports. In 2009, the average age of containerships calling at U.S. ports was approximately 

10 years, compared with about 12 years of age for all other vessels.

TRADING PARTNERS

• In 2009, only 2 U.S. ports—Los Angeles and Long Beach—ranked among the world’s top 20 

container ports as measured in TEUs, placing 16th and 18th respectively. In 2008, the Port of 

New York/New Jersey ranked 20th, but it fell to the 22nd position in 2009. 

1

 Post-Panamax vessels are too large to pass through the Panama Canal. They can carry up to 6,500 TEUs and typically 

have widths exceeding 32.2 meters (105.6 feet). Recent designs of these vessels are able to carry more than 12,000 TEUs. 

The world’s largest container vessel, the Emma Maersk, commissioned in 2006, is officially listed as an 11,000 TEU ship, but 

its cargo capacity is estimated to range from 13,000 to 15,000 TEUs (http://about.maersk.com/en/Fleet/Pages/Fleet.aspx).
America’s Container Ports 3

• In 2009, container trade with the top 10 countries accounted for nearly three-quarters (71 

percent) of imported container TEUs and over half (56 percent) of exported container TEUs. 

The top five U.S. containerized cargo trading partners in 2009 were all Asian countries. China 

was the leading containerized merchandise trading partner, accounting for nearly one-half (48 

percent) of U.S. maritime imported TEUs, almost double from 25 percent in 2000.

On a typical weekday in 2009, an average of nearly 38,000 individual maritime containers (not 

TEUs) carrying imports entered the United States. This was down from about 43,000 in 2008, but up 

from 23,000 in 2000.

MAJOR COMMODITIES

• Containers carry a wide variety of commodities—from sweaters, blouses, and flat-screen 

televisions to computer equipment and wood and paper products. During the first half of 2010, 

America’s container ports handled over $256 billion worth of containerized cargo imports weighing more than 62 million metric tons. They also handled exports worth over $100 billion and 

weighing 48 million metric tons.

• In 2009, U.S. ports handled $474 billion containerized imports, down 18 percent from 2008. By 

weight, imports also dropped 18 percent, from 137 million metric tons to 112 million metric tons. 

The top imported commodities by value in 2009 were print machinery, television and electronics, 

and motor vehicle parts and accessories. By weight, the leading imported commodities were 

furniture, bananas, and worked monumental or building stones.

• U.S. container ports handled $177 billion worth of containerized exports in 2009, down 19 percent from $220 billion in 2008. By weight, exports dropped by 10 percent, from 98 million metric 

tons to 88 million metric tons. The leading exported commodities by value in 2009 were motor 

cars and vehicles, ethylene polymers, and machinery. By weight, the leading exported commodities were paper waste and scrap, iron and steel waste and scrap, and chemical wood pulp.

America’s Container Ports 5

INTRODUCTION

In the first half of 2010, container traffic at the Nation’s leading seaports rebounded as 

U.S. production activities started to recover. During this period, U.S. container ports 

handled a total of 110 million metric tons of containerized cargo, 17 percent more than 

the 95 million metric tons they handled in the same period in 2009 (table 1).2 The increase in volume was due mainly to a continued upturn in international trade during the 

first two quarters of 2010. Even with this rise, the 110 million metric tons handled in early 

2010 was down 8 percent compared to the 120 million metric tons handled in early 2008 

(table 1).

Container traffic rose nationwide and nearly all of the leading U.S. container ports experienced increased throughput. Nine of the top 10 U.S. ports saw increases in containerized 

tonnage, ranging from 11 percent at Houston to 51 percent at Seattle (table 1). Among 

the top 20 U.S. container ports, Wilmington, NC, had the largest increase, at 55 percent. 

Only three of the leading ports saw declines in traffic—Tacoma (down 19 percent), Philadelphia (down 9 percent), and Portland, OR (down 6 percent). By comparison, 12 of the 

top 20 ports saw declines in 2010 compared with 2008. In the same period, Wilmington, 

NC, again had the largest growth, at 46 percent (table 1). Tacoma, WA, experienced the 

sharpest decline, of 36 percent.

Both U.S. containerized exports and imports rose during the first half of 2010, as U.S. 

businesses replenished low inventories and production activities increased (USDOC BEA 

2010a and USFRB 2010a and 2010b). By the end of the second quarter of 2010, U.S. 

container ports had handled over 48 million tons of maritime exports for the 6 months, 17 

percent more than the 41 million tons they handled the same period of 2009 (figure 1). 

They also handled 62 million metric tons of imports, a 16-percent increase over the 54 

million metric tons handled in 2009. Nationally, during the second quarter of 2010 alone, 

the flow of inbound container cargo jumped 24 percent over the same period in 2009 

(34 million metric tons compared with 27 million metric tons). Although container traffic 

was up in early 2010, container ports handled less tonnage compared with early 2008. 

Maritime container exports for the first half of 2010 were down 6 percent from 2008 while 

container imports were down 9 percent. 

The growth in freight activity at U.S. container ports during 2010 followed a less robust 

experience in 2009, when the tonnage of container cargo handled at the Nation’s ports 

fell by 10 percent compared to 2008. That decline can be attributed partly to the slowdown in economic production, adjustments in business inventory, rising unemployment, 

and weak consumer spending (Alessandria et al. 2010). For most of 2009, U.S. businesses trimmed inventories, manufacturing and construction activities slowed, and Americans 

cut back on household spending as the financial markets tightened consumer credit.

During 2009, the total weight of maritime freight handled by America’s container ports 

fell at 15 of the Nation’s top 20 ports (table 1). All the top 5 ports saw a decline in 2009 

compared with 2008. Eight of the Nation’s leading container ports experienced year-onyear drops of more than 10 percent (and ranging as high as 26 percent).

2

 A metric ton—a standard measure used globally—is a unit of weight equal to 2,205 pounds or 1,000 kilograms. 

By comparison, a “short ton,” used in the United States and Canada, is equal to 2,000 pounds or 907 kilograms. 

Thus 1 metric ton equals 1.1 short tons. Yet another measure, the “long” ton, is sometimes used in the United 

Kingdom. A long ton is equivalent to 2,240 pounds, or 1,016 kilograms.

America’s Container Ports
6 America’s Container Ports

Measured by TEUs, U.S. total maritime container 

traffic at all U.S. ports in 2009 was estimated at 

24.9 million TEUs, a 12-percent drop from the 28.3 

million TEUs in 2008 (USDOT MARAD 2010a).3

During 2009, declines in container traffic at ports 

3

 The standard measure for counting containers is the 20-foot 

equivalent unit, or TEU. This measure is used as a common 

base to count containers of various lengths. A standard 40-foot 

container is 2 TEUs, and a 48-foot container equals 2.4 TEUs. 

This measure is also used to describe the capacities of containerships or ports.

on the west coast and east coast averaged 12 

percent; gulf coast ports declined by 5 percent. 

Oakland was the only port among the Nation’s top 

10 container ports that did not see a decline in its 

cargo throughput (figure 2). Its container throughput remained steady at about 1.4 million TEU’s. 

The two largest declines were Charleston, SC, at 

28 percent and Tacoma at 22 percent.

Containerized trade between the United States 

and the rest of the world fell in 2009 in the wake 

of both weak domestic consumer demand, which 

TABLE 1

U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Trade Handled at Leading U.S. Container Ports: 2008–2009 and Q1–Q2 2008–2010

(Thousands of metric tons)

Annual comparison, 

2008 and 2009

Quarterly comparison, 

Q1–Q2 2008 to Q1–Q2 2010

Rank in 

2009 U.S. Customs port 2008 2009

Percent 

change 

2008–2009

Q1–Q2

2008

Q1–Q2

2009

Q1–Q2

2010

Percent 

change 

2008–2010

Percent 

change 

2009–2010

1 Los Angeles, CA 41,134 37,262 -9.4 24,024 18,866 21,787 -9.3 15.5

2 New York/New Jersey, 

NY/NJ 31,309 29,060 -7.2 15,636 12,949 15,236 -2.6 17.7

3 Long Beach, CA 33,041 27,344 -17.2 11,511 7,860 9,820 -14.7 24.9

4 Savannah, GA 17,895 16,619 -7.1 9,195 7,199 9,498 3.3 31.9

5 Houston, TX 13,128 12,423 -5.4 8,522 7,104 7,869 -7.7 10.8

6 Oakland, CA 11,961 12,391 3.6 5,647 5,059 5,721 1.3 13.1

7 Norfolk, VA 13,444 11,858 -11.8 5,996 4,783 5,451 -9.1 14.0

8 Seattle, WA 8,995 9,080 0.9 4,823 3,594 5,434 12.7 51.2

9 Charleston, SC 11,034 8,149 -26.1 5,683 3,676 4,514 -20.6 22.8

10 Tacoma, WA 9,373 7,424 -20.8 4,605 3,606 2,934 -36.3 -18.6

11 Miami, FL 5,146 4,969 -3.4 2,217 1,961 2,177 -1.8 11.0

12 Baltimore, MD 4,461 4,331 -2.9 2,336 1,892 2,288 -2.1 21.0

13 Port Everglades, FL 5,282 4,261 -19.3 1,814 1,592 1,708 -5.8 7.2

14 New Orleans, LA 2,668 2,795 4.7 2,016 1,750 2,154 6.8 23.1

15 San Juan, PR 2,045 2,007 -1.9 888 869 905 1.9 4.2

16 Philadelphia, PA 2,255 2,005 -11.1 1,094 997 910 -16.8 -8.7

17 Jacksonville, FL 1,202 1,589 32.3 537 585 752 40.1 28.6

18 Wilmington, NC 1,152 1,555 35.0 797 747 1,160 45.6 55.3

19 Portland, OR 1,823 1,518 -16.7 1,390 974 913 -34.3 -6.2

20 Wilmington, DE 1,563 1,346 -13.9 601 538 618 2.9 14.9

 Total top 10 ports 191,315 171,610 -10.3 95,641 74,695 88,265 -7.7 18.2

 Total top 20 ports 218,911 197,986 -9.6 109,330 86,600 101,850 -6.8 17.6

Total all U.S. ports1 228,041 206,129 -9.6 120,049 94,731 110,429 -8.0 16.6

Top 10, percent of total 83.9 83.3 79.7 78.8 79.9 

Top 20, percent of total 96.0 96.0 91.1 91.4 92.2 

NOTES: The data in this table include U.S. maritime imports and exports reported from U.S. international trade statistics. They exclude transshipments and military shipments. The port of New York/New Jersey covers U.S. Customs ports of New York, NY and Newark, NJ.

1

 Container ports in all U.S. coastal states and Puerto Rico. 

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from two sources. 

Annual: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), available at http://

www.marad.dot.gov/library_landing_page/data_and_statistics/Data_and_Statistics.htm, as of Sept. 13, 2010. Quarterly: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 

Foreign Trade Division, USA Trade Online, available at http://data.usatradeonline.gov, as of Sept. 20, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 7

Figure 1

Quarterly Tonnage of Container Cargo Handled at U.S. Container Ports: Q1–2008 to Q2–2010

Q1-08 Q2-08 Q3-08 Q4-08 Q1-09 Q2-09 Q3-09 Q4-09 Q1-10 Q2-10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Imports

Exports

Millions of metric tons

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, USA Trade Online, available at http://data.usatradeonline.gov, as 

of Sept. 20, 2010.

Figure 2

U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Trade Handled at Top 10 U.S. Container Ports: 2008 and 2009

(Millions of TEUs)

Los

Angeles

Long 

Beach

New York/

New Jersey

Savannah Oakland Norfolk Houston Seattle Charleston Tacoma

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2008 2009

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU; one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTE: Data are reported for U.S. Customs ports. The port of New York/New Jersey covers U.S. Customs ports of New York, NY and Newark, NJ.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based 

on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export 

Reporting Service (PIERS), as of Sept. 16, 2010.
8 America’s Container Ports

cut import levels, and the overall global economic 

slowdown, which cut foreign demand for U.S. 

exports. During late 2008 and early 2009, as the 

U.S. financial crisis lingered, Americans reduced 

spending on imported clothes, automobiles, and 

other consumer merchandise, such as toys and 

flat-panel televisions. In addition, as the domestic 

financial crisis deepened and the global recession 

widened, overseas trading partners’ demand for 

U.S. goods started to tumble, further weakening the maritime container market. As a result, 

declines occurred in U.S. demand for maritime 

container transportation by ocean vessels, cargohandling activity at the container ports, and the 

volume of intermodal freight moved to and from 

the ports by truck and rail.

The recent trends in maritime container traffic 

are similar to trends in overall U.S. international 

merchandise exports and imports transported by 

all modes of transportation since 2008. The trends 

also reflect changes in the national economy as a 

whole (figure 3 and figure 4).

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

the trends in merchandise exports and imports in 

the first two quarters of 2010 were driven primarily by industrial supplies and materials; foods, 

feeds, and beverages; automotive vehicles, parts, 

and engines; and consumer goods (USDOC CB 

BEA 2010). When adjusted for inflation, the value 

of merchandise exports in the second quarter 

of 2010 rose 3 percent compared with the first 

quarter. The value of merchandise imports rose 

9 percent (figure 3). Since mid-2009 there have 

been four straight quarters with positive quarteron-quarter growth in merchandise exports and 

imports.

Trends in container shipping are directly related to 

patterns in overall international trade, which is a 

primary contributing factor in the Nation’s economic growth. For example, real gross domestic 

product (GDP)—the output of goods and services 

produced by labor and property located in the 

United States—has hovered at approximately a 

1 percent quarter-on-quarter increase since the 

second quarter of 2009. In the second quarter of 

2010, real GDP rose by 1.7 percent. The upturn in 

real GDP primarily reflected positive contributions 

from rises in personal consumption expenditures, 

exports and imports, and Federal Government 

spending (USDOC BEA 2010b).

Figure 3

Quarterly Value of Total U.S. International Merchandise Trade: Q1–2008 to Q2–2010

(Billions of chained 2005 dollars)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Merchandise exports

Merchandise imports

Q1-08 Q2-08 Q3-08 Q4-08 Q1-09 Q2-09 Q3-09 Q4-09 Q1-10 Q2-10

NOTE: To compare economic changes over time, current or nominal values of currencies are adjusted for inflation. In the United States, the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis establishes indices to calculate changes between years. These are used to calculate real chained dollars. Annual 

changes in the indices are chained (multiplied) together to form a time series. Chained dollars, instead of merely reflecting inflation, capture the 

effect of relative changes in prices and in the composition of output. They also better reflect cyclical fluctuations in the economy.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Economic Accounts, National Incomes and Products Account, 

Table 4.2.6., www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/index.asp, as of Sept. 18, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 9

Growth in economic activity and rises in exports 

and imports generally result in increased demand 

for freight transportation services by all modes 

of transportation. Because most U.S. overseas 

merchandise trade (over 66 percent by value and 

99 percent by weight) moves by ocean vessel 

(USDOC CB 2010), the Nation’s container ports 

are immediately impacted by swings in economic 

activity.4 The effects of changes in production 

activity are not limited to seaports; they also affect 

other sectors of the freight transportation industry.

EFFECTS OF RECENT TRENDS IN 

CONTAINER THROUGHPUT

Changes in container throughput affect not just 

marine port and terminal operations, but also other 

transportation modes and transportation service 

providers. The rise in container cargo demand in 

early 2010 affected containership fleet capacity, 

railroads and commercial trucks that service the 

seaports, and the inland warehouses and distribution centers that provide logistical support for the 

entire multimodal freight supply chain.

4

 As used here, overseas trade excludes U.S. merchandise 

trade with Canada and Mexico.

First, due to an increase in the demand for containership services, estimated active containership 

capacity calling at seaports worldwide rose in 

June 2010 from the record lows experienced in 

2009 (AXS-Alphaliner 2010). During the first half 

of 2010, active containership capacity climbed 15 

percent over the previous 6 months, to 13 million 

TEU’s, as the number of idled vessels fell and 

new vessels were delivered for service. Most of 

the surge in capacity was due to the reactivation 

of idle vessels. Because of rising demand for 

containership services, idle capacity dropped to 

350,000 TEUs in June 2010, down from 1.5 million 

TEUs at the end of December 2009.

Second, changes in containerized export and import volumes also affect the number of intermodal 

shipping containers and truck trailers transported 

by rail.5 For example, from January to June in 

2010 the Nation’s Class I railroads handled 5.2 

million units, up 12 percent from 4.6 million during

5

 As used in this report, the term “intermodal” refers to the traditional rail and truck combination only. This involves using rail for 

the long-haul portion of the shipment and trucks for the shorter 

distances at both ends of the shipment. The term is also used 

to describe shipments transported by multiple modes, including 

ocean vessels.

Figure 4

Quarter-to-Quarter Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product and Merchandise Trade: 

Q1–2008 to Q2–2010

(Percent)

−15

−10

−5

0

5

10

Gross domestic product

Export of goods

Import of goods

Q1-08 Q2-08 Q3-08 Q4-08 Q1-09 Q2-09 Q3-09 Q4-09 Q1-10 Q2-10

NOTE: Real GDP growth is measured at seasonally adjusted annual rates based on chained 2005 dollars.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Economic Accounts, National Incomes and Products Account, 

Table 1.1.6., www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/index.asp, as of Sept. 18, 2010.
10 America’s Container Ports

the same months in 2009, but down 7 percent 

from 5.6 million in 2008 (AAR 2010a).6

About 60 percent of rail intermodal traffic consists 

of merchandise imports and exports that interchange between ship and rail at U.S. container 

ports—the remaining 40 percent of rail intermodal 

traffic is domestic (AAR 2009). The imports arrive 

on ocean vessels and are long-hauled by railcars 

to destinations across the country; the exports 

originate across the Nation and are shipped to 

destinations around the world. By June 2010, the 

number of international intermodal containers 

moved from seaports by rail totaled 3.4 million, 

an increase of 14 percent from 2.9 million during 

the same period in 2009, but down 14 percent 

from 3.9 million from the same period in 2008 

(Intermodal Association of North America 2010). 

This growth was due partly to restocking by U.S. 

businesses that had reached record low inventories during the 2009 economic downturn (USDOC 

BEA 2010a and Alessandria et al. 2010).7

Demand for trucking services also moved in concert with the changes in container port throughput. 

In June 2010, according to the American Trucking 

Association, trucking activity nationwide was up 

8 percent over June 2009, the seventh consecutive month-over-month increase. By June 2010, 

year-to-date trucking tonnage was up 7 percent 

compared with the same period in 2009, but down 

about 5 percent compared with same period in 

2008 (ATA 2010).

Nationwide freight activity for all modes, measured 

by the Freight Transportation Services Index (TSI), 

declined 4.0 percent in 2009. However, according to the USDOT’s Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, the index rose 2.9 percent through the 

last 7 months of 2009, a trend that continued into 

early 2010 (USDOT RITA BTS 2010). The freight 

TSI measures changes in the output of services 

provided by the for-hire freight transportation 

industries and consists of data from the tracking of 

for-hire transportation via truck, rail, inland waterway, pipeline, and air freight.

6

 Class I railroads are line-haul freight railroads with 2009 

operating revenues exceeding $401 million. The U.S. Class I 

railroads in 2009 were: BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation, 

Grand Trunk Corporation, Kansas City Southern Railway, 

Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line 

Railroad, and Union Pacific Railroad.

7

 The upward trend in intermodal traffic continued in the third 

quarter of 2010. For the week ending September 25, 2010, intermodal taffic was up by nearly 20 percent compared to 2009, 

and was also up 6 percent from the 2008 levels (AAR 2010b).

Third, in addition to affecting the movement of 

freight throughout the United States, container 

volume also affects the warehousing and distribution of intermodal freight, and the industry investments in freight infrastructure. Logistics providers 

are developing massive integrated freight logistic 

distribution centers at inland locations such as 

Kansas City, Memphis, Columbus, and Chicago 

(Mongelluzzo 2010). Each day, thousands of 

imported containers are transported as far as 

2,000 miles to these hubs—mostly by rail—on 

behalf of large-scale retailers and third-party 

logistics providers. These freight hubs serve both 

east coast and west coast container ports. To 

long-haul the steady stream of imported containers 

that arrive at the seaports into the interior of the 

country, the Nation’s Class I railroads are developing mega hubs and renovating some of their 

rail tracks and tunnels for double-stack trains.8

For example, in August 2010, Norfolk Southern 

opened its Heartland Corridor route to facilitate the 

movement of double-stack trains from the port of 

Norfolk, Virginia, to several hubs in the Midwest, 

including Columbus, Cincinnati, and Chicago. This 

newly expanded corridor and those developed 

by other railroads, including CSX Transportation, 

Union Pacific, and Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe, are likely to alter the domestic movement of 

international freight in coming years.

LONG-TERM TRENDS IN 

CONTAINER THROUGHPUT

Despite recent economic uncertainties and fluctuations in annual merchandise trade, the United 

States remains the world’s largest trading Nation, 

with the world’s biggest economy. Today, 1 container in every 11 that carries global trade is bound 

for or originates in the United States, accounting 

for 9 percent of worldwide container traffic.

In 2009, world maritime container traffic (loaded 

and empty) was estimated at over 432 million 

TEUs, down 15 percent from the 510 million TEUs 

transported in 2008 (table 2). This decline was the 

largest year-on-year percent drop in world container freight in more than a decade, making 2009 

a difficult year for the global container industry.

Despite this recent decline, world container traffic 

more than tripled in volume between 1995 and 

2009, from 137 million TEUs to 432 million TEUs, 

8

 As the term suggests, doubled-stack trains permit containers 

to be stacked two-high, effectively doubling carrying capacity.
America’s Container Ports 11

growing at an 

average annual 

rate of about 9 

percent (table 

2). That extended record 

of growth in 

maritime container freight 

shipments reflects relative expansion of U.S. and 

global economic activity. For example, U.S. total 

container traffic more than doubled in volume 

between 1995 and 2007, from 22 million TEUs to 

an estimated 45 million (although it fell to about 

43 million in 2008 and to 37 million in 2009, the 

lowest level since 2004). From 1995 to 2009, U.S. 

total TEUs rose at an average annual rate of 4 

percent (table 2). The primary factors underlying 

the long-term growth in U.S. maritime container 

traffic are rising trade with Asia-Pacific trading 

partners, particularly China; the increasing importance of merchandise trade to U.S. economic 

activity, and the proportion of merchandise trade 

transported in containers.9 Table 2 also shows that 

between 1995 and 2009, U.S. share of worldwide 

container traffic dropped by about half, from 16 

percent to 9 percent. This drop was due in part to 

faster growth in container trade between Asian and 

European countries and among Asian countries.

Looking ahead, the volume of containers that 

U.S. seaports will handle in the coming years will 

be determined mainly by how much the United 

States continues to rely on imported manufactured 

9

 Asia-Pacific refers to Australia, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, 

Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South 

Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and various Pacific islands.

Table 2

U.S. v. World Maritime Container Traffic and Gross Domestic Product: 1995–2009

Container traffic (total TEUs loaded and empty) Gross Domestic Product (current U.S. dollars)

World 

(millions)

United States 

(millions)

U.S. share of 

world total 

(percent) U.S. rank

World 

(billions)

United States 

(billions)

U.S. share of 

World GDP 

(percent) U.S. rank

1995 137.2 22.3 16.3 1 29,649 7,415 25.0 1

1996 150.8 22.6 15.0 1 30,373 7,839 25.8 1

1997 160.7 24.5 15.3 1 30,245 8,332 27.5 1

1998 169.6 26.2 15.4 2 30,017 8,794 29.3 1

1999 184.6 28.0 15.2 2 31,180 9,354 30.0 1

2000 233.5 30.4 13.0 2 32,114 9,952 31.0 1

2001 245.1 30.7 12.5 2 31,903 10,286 32.2 1

2002 269.5 32.7 12.1 2 33,210 10,642 32.0 1

2003 307.4 36.3 11.8 2 37,332 11,142 29.8 1

2004 300.8 38.7 12.9 2 41,998 11,868 28.3 1

2005 306.0 42.0 13.7 2 45,431 12,638 27.8 1

2006 426.4 44.4 10.4 2 49,155 13,399 27.3 1

2007 436.6 45.0 10.3 2 55,392 14,062 25.4 1

2008 510.1 42.8 8.4 2 61,221 14,369 23.5 1

2009 432.0 37.2 8.6 2 57,937a 14,119 24.4 1

Percent change, 

1995-2009 214.9 66.6 

Average annual 

rate (percent), 

1995-2009 8.5 3.7 

a World 2009 GDP is an estimate that includes projections by the International Monetary Fund for some countries.

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU, and one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

SOURCES: TEUs, world estimates, 1995–1999: Containerisation International Yearbook (London: Informa Group, Inc., 1997–2001); 2000–2009: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, based on Containerisation International Online, www.ci-online.co.uk, as of Oct. 5, 2010. TEUs, U.S. estimates, 1995–2009: American 

Association of Port Authorities, Industry Statistics; 1995–2009, www.aapa-ports.org/Industry, as of Sept. 16, 2010. GDP: World estimates from International Monetary 

Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/index.aspx, as of Sept. 16, 2010; U.S. estimates from U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, www.bea.gov/national, as of Sept. 16, 2010.

The global container 

shipping industry 

experienced a 15-

percent decline in 

world TEUs in 2009
12 America’s Container Ports

goods, which countries it trades with the most, and 

which products it imports rather than produces 

domestically. Rising demand for foreign manufactured products would likely mean that even more 

post-Panamax container vessels would carry 

such products to the Nation’s seaports, enabling 

continued growth in containerization.

Globally, the United States ranked second in 

container traffic in 2009, a position it has held 

since China took over the lead position in 1998. 

Nonetheless, the United States remains the 

world’s leading trading nation, accounting for 11 

percent of total world merchandise trade in 2009 

(figure 5). U.S. total imports ranked first, accounting for over 13 percent of global imports in 2009. 

With 9 percent of total global exports, however, the 

United States lags both China, the new leading 

world exporter, and Germany (WTO 2010). In 

2009, China became the top world exporter, with 

10 percent of the value of traded merchandise. 

Overall, though, the United States remained the 

world’s largest economy, accounting for 24 percent 

of world GDP in 2009 (table 2).

From 1995 to 2008, the volume of containerized 

cargo moving through U.S. seaports grew at a 

faster rate, 5 percent, than U.S. real GDP growth, 

which stood at 3 percent (figure 6). During most 

of the 1990s, strong growth of the U.S. economy, 

rising household wealth and income in the United 

States, and steady consumer demand at home 

spurred U.S. international goods trade, resulting in 

greater demand for containerized freight transportation services.

A comparison of the year-on-year percent change 

between U.S.-loaded container TEUs and real 

GDP shows a correlation between container 

maritime industry trends and general economic 

conditions (figure 7). This comparison shows the 

effect that economic cycles have on U.S. container 

trade, as evidenced by declines in TEUs during 

the 2001 and 2008–2009 recessions. As figure 7 

shows, the container trade trend is more volatile 

than the GDP trend. However, assuming that the 

strong cyclical relationship continues, when the 

U.S. economy fully recovers and the volume of 

merchandise imports and exports rebounds to 

pre-recession levels, U.S. container ports are 

likely to see a continuation of the 2010 increase in 

container throughput.

GATEWAYS FOR INBOUND AND 

OUTBOUND TRAFFIC

While America’s container ports serve as gateways 

for both merchandise imports and exports, overall 

they handle more TEUs of imports than exports. In 

2009, the U.S. deficit in maritime container traffic—the gap between exports and imports—narrowed to 4.1 million TEUs as maritime container 

imports fell 15 percent while exports fell 8 percent 

(figure 8). This marked the third year in a row that 

the deficit narrowed, following record high imports 

in 2006. Between 2007 and 2009, although the 

United States exported less merchandise than 

it imported, imports declined steeply because of 

the economic slowdown at home. Exports grew 

at a modest pace and did not decline as much as 

imports.

Before 1998, the difference between U.S. international container imports and exports was less than 

1 million TEUs per year. By 2009, this gap was 

more than 4 million TEUs, with imports accounting 

for a larger share of total container traffic (figure 

8). The gap had also reached more than 4 million 

earlier, in 2001, and grew to 10 million in 2006 

before narrowing. In 2009, maritime container 

imports passing through U.S. seaports accounted 

for 58 percent of total container traffic. While this 

is a steady increase from 51 percent in 1995, 

it is down from the peak in 2006 when imports 

accounted for 67 percent of total container traffic. 

The decline in the relative share of imports reflects 

a relative rebound in container exports, likely 

due to the fall of the U.S. dollar relative to the 

European euro and other major currencies making American goods more affordable overseas. 

This contributed to the rise in maritime container 

exports. A stronger dollar provides Americans 

with greater purchasing power and results in 

more goods being imported, while a weaker dollar 

encourages foreign buyers to purchase more U.S. 

products.10

Figure 9 shows the location of the Nation’s top 25 

maritime container port gateways for U.S. international containerized exports and imports in 2009. 

The top three gateways were Los Angeles, Long 

Beach, and New York/New Jersey. Containerized 

10 Because the merchandise trade deficit is more complicated 

than simple changes in relative prices, a fall in the U.S. dollar 

is not always effective in closing the gap between exports and 

imports. Domestic recessions are often more effective in cutting 

demand for imports and therefore reducing the trade balance.
America’s Container Ports 13

Figure 5

World’s Top 10 Merchandise Trade Countries: 2004, 2009, and January to June 2010

(Percent of world total)

United 

States

China 

(excluding

Hong Kong)

Germany Japan France Netherlands United 

Kingdom

Italy South 

Korea

Belgium

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2004 2009 Jan to Jun 2010

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from World Trade Organization, World Trade Organization, Trade Statistics, at http://stat.wto.org/Home/WSDBHome.aspx, as of Sept. 18, 

2010.

Figure 6

Growth in U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Trade, Overall Freight, and Real GDP: 1995–2009

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

U.S.-loaded TEUs

U.S. real GDP

Freight TSI

(Index 2005 = 100)

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU; one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTE: Real GDP growth is measured at seasonally adjusted annual rates based on chained 2005 dollars. TSI figures are annualized estimates 

based on the monthly published estimates.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based 

on GDP data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Economic Accounts, National Incomes and Products 

Account, www.bea.gov/national/, as of Sept. 16, 2010. TEU data based on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 

which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS). Freight TSI data based on monthly freight TSI 

estimates from U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
14 America’s Container Ports

Figure 7

Year-on-Year Percent Change in U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Trade and Real GDP: 1995–2009

(Percent)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

−14

−10

−6

−2

2

6

10

14

U.S.−loaded TEUs

U.S. real GDP

NOTE: Real GDP growth is measured at seasonally adjusted annual rates based on chained 2005 dollars.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based 

on data from Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Economic Accounts, National Incomes and Products Account, 

www.bea.gov/national/, as of Sept. 16, 2010. TEU data based on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are 

drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS).

Figure 8

U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Exports and Imports: 1995–2009

(Millions of TEU)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

−15

−10

−5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Exports Imports

Balance (exports minus imports)

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU; one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import and Export 

Reporting Service (PIERS), available at www.marad.dot.gov/data_statistics, as of Sept. 18, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 15

goods handled by these leading ports serve the 

international trade needs of coastal states with 

seaports as well as landlocked states that depend 

on seaports to export and import merchandise. 

The containerized cargo arrives at and leaves the 

seaports mostly by rail or truck, carried by either 

a single transportation mode or via an intermodal 

truck-rail combination.

Container traffic gap varied for the major seaports 

in 2009 (figure 10). At Los Angeles, the Nation’s 

largest container port, the volume of imported 

TEUs exceeded exports by nearly 2 million, 

reflecting inbound trade with Asia, particularly 

China. At the port of Houston, on the other hand, 

exported TEUs were 292,000 more than imports. 

This difference reflects variation in each port’s 

foreign trading partners, primary commodities 

handled, and services provided by ocean-shipping 

carriers that call at the ports.

Overall U.S. international maritime container traffic 

nearly doubled between 1995 and 2009 (figure 

11). In 2009, about 25 million loaded TEUs of U.S. 

international oceanborne trade moved through 

U.S. container ports, up from 13 million in 1995 

(JOC PIERS 2010a). If the current rebound follows 

the pattern experienced after 2001, long-term 

growth is likely to resume after the U.S. and global 

economies recover. The upturn experienced 

during the first half of 2010 may be evidence of the 

beginning of that turnaround.

In 2009, U.S. container ports handled a daily 

average of 68,000 TEUs, up from 37,000 TEUs 

per day in 1995, but down from the peak of 78,000 

Figure 9

Top 25 Container Ports for U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Trade: 2009

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU, and one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTE: The data in this figure include only loaded containers in U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, exports, and transshipments. Therefore, the trade levels will be greater than those reported from U.S. international trade statistics, which exclude transshipments. The 

data also exclude military shipments.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based 

on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export 

Reporting Service (PIERS), available at www.marad.dot.gov, as of Sept. 18, 2010.
16 America’s Container Ports

in 2008 (table 3). The large number of containers 

moving through the Nation’s seaports highlights 

the significance of container traffic and its potential impacts on the economy, local communities, 

national security, and the natural environment. It 

also underscores the challenges of handling this 

cargo efficiently, and addressing such challenges 

as alleviating highway congestion around the 

seaports, improving landside access to ports, and 

removing freight bottlenecks at intermodal transfer 

locations where trucks and railroads connect to 

marine terminals.

Greater use of containers will require growth in 

the intermodal capacity needed to handle the 

increased flow of goods. For example, in 2009, 

loaded container throughput for the port of New 

York/New Jersey, the Nation’s third largest 

container port, was 3.6 million TEUs (PANYNJ 

2010). Assuming a typical line-haul truck carries 

an equivalent of two TEUs, this annual throughput 

translates into 1.8 million one-way truck trips per 

year.11 This is equivalent to nearly 7,000 truck trips 

each weekday resulting from containerized cargo. 

Assuming that each trailer is approximately 40 feet 

long, the trailers would stretch about 53 miles on a 

typical work day if lined up end to end. By comparison, the estimate was 46 miles in 2004 and 30 

miles in 1999.

11 A line-haul truck is usually a tractor-trailer combination of 

three or more axles. A typical line-haul trailer is approximately 

40 to 48 feet long and in most States is permitted to move a 

maximum of 80,000 pounds gross weight.

Figure 10

Top 25 Container Ports for U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Trade, Exports Minus Imports: 2009

(Thousands of TEUs)

Houston, TX

Oakland, CA

Port Everglades, FL

Savannah, GA

New Orleans, LA

West Palm Beach, FL

Miami, FL

Jacksonville, FL

Norfolk, VA

Mobile, AL

Portland, OR

Chester, PA

Wilmington, NC

Boston, MA

Charleston, SC

Tacoma, WA

Gulfport, MS

Baltimore, MD

San Juan, PR

Wilmington, DE

Philadelphia, PA

Seattle, WA

New York/New Jersey, NY/NJ

Long Beach, CA

Los Angeles, CA

−2,500 −2,000 −1,500 −1,000 −500 0 500

Balance (exports minus imports)

-1,974

-1,257

-1,093

-167

-107

-94

-87

-44

-49

-40

-39

-20

-9

-5

17

17

21

39

52

57

79

92

96

114

292

Ports where 

exports exceeded 

imports in 2009

Ports where 

imports exceeded

exports in 2009

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU; one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTE: The data in this figure include only loaded containers in U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, exports, and transshipments. Therefore, the trade levels will be greater than those reported from U.S. international trade statistics, which exclude transshipments. The 

data also exclude military shipments. The port of New York/New Jersey covers U.S. Customs ports of New York, NY and Newark, NJ.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based 

on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export 

Reporting Service (PIERS), available at www.marad.dot.gov, as of Sept. 18, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 17

Figure 11

U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Trade: 1995–2009

(Millions of loaded TEUs)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

13.3 

14.8 14.9 15.6 

16.6

17.9 18.1 

19.7 

21.3 

23.9

26.1

27.6 

29.0 

28.3

25.0

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU; one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTES: Totals are for all container ports in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The data in this figure include only loaded containers in U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, exports, and transshipments.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import and Export 

Reporting Service (PIERS), available at www.marad.dot.gov/data_statistics, as of Sept. 18, 2010.

Table 3

Top 10 Ports for U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Trade by Loaded TEUs: 1995, 2000, 2008, and 2009

Annual traffic (thousands) Daily average Trend

U.S. Customs port 1995 2000 2008 2009 1995 2000 2008 2009

Percent 

change, 

2008–2009

Percent 

change, 

1995–2009

Average 

annual 

growth rate, 

1995–2009 

(percent)

Los Angeles, CA 1,849 3,228 5,611 5,011 5,066 8,843 15,373 13,730 -10.7 171.0 7.4

Long Beach, CA 2,137 3,204 4,553 3,748 5,855 8,777 12,474 10,268 -17.7 75.4 4.1

New York/New Jersey, 

NY/NJ 1,537 2,200 3,956 3,577 4,211 6,028 10,838 9,799 -9.6 132.7 6.2

Savannah, GA 445 720 2,106 1,907 1,219 1,973 5,771 5,226 -9.4 328.6 11.0

Oakland, CA 919 989 1,388 1,392 2,518 2,709 3,803 3,814 0.3 51.5 3.0

Norfolk, VA 647 850 1,585 1,372 1,773 2,330 4,341 3,759 -13.4 112.1 5.5

Houston, TX 489 733 1,363 1,255 1,340 2,009 3,733 3,437 -7.9 156.6 7.0

Seattle, WA 993 960 1,080 1,068 2,721 2,630 2,958 2,927 -1.0 7.6 0.5

Charleston, SC 758 1,246 1,326 951 2,077 3,414 3,632 2,605 -28.3 25.4 1.6

Tacoma, WA 604 647 1,118 870 1,654 1,773 3,063 2,384 -22.1 44.2 2.6

Total top 10 ports 10,378 14,777 24,085 21,152 28,432 40,486 65,985 57,949 -12.2 103.8 5.2

Total all ports1 13,328 17,938 28,309 24,989 36,515 49,144 77,558 68,463 -11.7 87.5 4.6

Top 10, percent of total 77.9 82.4 85.1 84.6 77.9 82.4 85.1 84.6 

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU, and one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTE: The data in this table include only loaded containers in U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, exports, and transshipments. Therefore, the trade 

levels will be greater than those reported from U.S. international trade statistics, which exclude transshipments. The data also exclude military shipments. 1

 Container ports in all U.S. coastal states and Puerto Rico. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), as of Sept. 16, 2010.
18 America’s Container Ports

PORT CONCENTRATION

Since 1995, container activity at U.S. seaports 

has shown a greater concentration of vessel calls 

and cargo traffic in a few leading ports because of 

increased use of larger, faster, and more specialized vessels. Modern post-Panamax vessels are 

longer than two football fields and can carry up to 

12,500 TEUs. Currently, few west coast ports can 

accommodate these vessels.

In 2009, the top 10 U.S. container ports accounted 

for 85 percent of containerized imports and 

exports (measured in TEUs), up from 78 percent 

in 1995. Five of the top 10 container ports in the 

United States are on the west coast, four are on 

the east coast, and one is on the gulf coast (table 

3).

From 1995 to 2009, the port of Los Angeles grew 

the most in terms of absolute TEUs handled, 

reflecting increased U.S. trade with Asia-Pacific 

countries, particularly China, and the transportation of higher-value-per-ton Asian manufactured 

goods into the United States. New York/New 

Jersey was second, showing significant growth in 

U.S. trade with Europe. The ports of Savannah, 

Los Angeles, and Houston had the largest average 

annual growth rates (table 3). The growth rates for 

Savannah and Houston reflect the expansion in 

U.S. container trade with Latin American countries 

and changes in the location of freight logistics 

hubs and distribution service centers. The growth 

in Savannah’s containerized traffic also underscores the increase in retail import distribution 

centers in the Savannah area—several national 

retailers have established large distribution centers 

there.

REGIONAL SHIFTS IN PORT 

MARKET SHARE

The increased use of oceanborne containers in 

transporting U.S. international trade continues 

to affect port operations and the distribution of 

total maritime trade among U.S. ports. Before the 

mid-1980s, east coast ports handled the majority of U.S. international maritime trade. As U.S. 

trade with Asia-Pacific countries grew, the east 

coast ports’ share of international maritime trade 

declined and west coast ports’ share increased 

(figure 12). In 1986, west coast ports surpassed 

east coast ports in maritime cargo handled. This 

trend has continued, although the gap between 

the two regions has narrowed.

As measured in TEUs, over half of U.S. containerized merchandise trade passes through west coast 

ports. In 2009, 51 percent of U.S. containerized 

imports and exports passed through these ports, 

down slightly from 56 percent in 2006 (figure 12). 

West coast ports as a region grew the fastest 

beginning in the mid-1980s, but they suffered the 

sharpest decline in container traffic since 2007 

(figure 13). Between 2007 and 2009, total TEUs 

handled by west coast ports declined 22 percent, 

compared with 13 percent decline for east coast 

ports and less than 1 percent increase for gulf 

coast ports.

West coast ports handle the most container trade 

today, but they have also had a larger share of the 

oceanborne containerized trade deficit since 2007 

than ports in other regions. Today, west coast 

ports serve more as import gateways to the United 

States than as export gateways while east coast 

ports handle more exports than imports, despite 

the decline in the east coast’s regional market 

share.

Since 1980, changes in industrial activity in the 

Midwest United States have affected the volume 

and type of cargo moving through Great Lakes 

ports. For example, the relocation of automobile 

final-assembly plants and companies that produce 

auto parts had an impact on manufacturing activities in the Midwest. With the emergence of automakers and parts producers in other locations of 

the United States, maritime cargo originating in the 

Midwest and cargo transport via the Great Lakes 

dwindled. In 2008, according to the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes ports handled 

nearly 3 million short tons of maritime exports and 

imports, compared with about 10 million short 

tons in 1980. They handled 1 million short tons 

of exports in 2008, down from 8 million in 1980 

(USACE NDC 2008). The volume of containerized cargo handled by Gulf of Mexico ports more 

than quadrupled during this period, although their 

relative share remained steady as volume at west 

coast ports rose.

Changes in container trade also affect the pattern 

of freight movement within the United States. For 

example, some east coast ports are expecting an 

increase in their container traffic after completion 

of the Panama Canal expansion that is currently 

underway. Additional traffic through these ports 

will increase cargo movements on east coast 

rail and truck freight corridors. Some ports use 

marine highways as an alternative to transport 
America’s Container Ports 19

goods shorter distances.12 The growth in U.S. 

containerized cargo shipping places pressure on 

the Nation’s transportation network, affecting local 

traffic congestion and contributing to traffic delays 

in urban areas surrounding the major U.S. container ports. (See Spotlight 1 on landside access 

to the seaports.)

VESSEL CALLS AND CAPACITY

Between 2004 and 2009, the number of containership calls at U.S. ports has remained fairly steady, 

averaging about 18,000 per year. By contrast, 

container capacity of the calling vessels grew by 

19 percent during this same period, from 59 million 

to 70 million TEUs.

In 2009, there were more than 18,200 containership calls at U.S. seaports, down 3 percent from 

2008. These vessel calls accounted for 33 percent 

12 The term “marine highway” refers to coastal waterways that 

are used to move freight (e.g., from Long Beach to Portland 

or from New York/New Jersey to Savannah). It includes the 

movement of containers and wet and dry bulk cargoes.

of the total calls made by all oceangoing vessel 

types at U.S. ports in 2009 (table 4).13 Calls at U.S. 

container ports in 2009 accounted for 6 percent of 

global containership calls at world ports, ranking 

third behind calls in China and Japan (USDOT 

MARAD 2010a).14

Container vessel calls as a share of total vessel 

calls at U.S. ports continue to rise (figure 14). In 

2009, these vessels accounted for 33 percent of 

the total calls by all ships, up from 31 percent in 

2004 (table 5). The average size of these vessels 

per call has also increased, by more than 19 percent, from 3,200 TEUs in 2004 to more than 3,800 

TEUs in 2009 (table 5 and figure 15, left axis).

U.S. maritime ports are handling larger container 

vessels than in the past. The average size per call 

of container vessels that docked at U.S. ports in 

13 Of the remainder, 35 percent were by tankers, 15 percent 

by dry-bulk vessels, 9 percent by roll-on/roll-off ships, and 8 

percent by general cargo ships and other types.

14 In 2009, there were 293,755 global containership calls. China 

had 43,690 (15 percent), Japan had 22,094 (8 percent) and the 

United States had 18,206 (6 percent) (USDOT MARAD 2010a).

Figure 12

Coastal Port Region’s Market Share of U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized TEUs: 1980–2009

(Percent)

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

West/Pacic Coast

East/Atlantic Coast

Gulf Coast

Percent

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals 

one TEU; one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTES: Totals are for all container ports in all 50 states and Puerto 

Rico. The data in this figure include both loaded and unloaded containers in U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, 

exports, and transshipments.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

based on data from the American Association of Port Authorities, 

available at www.aapa.org, as of Sept. 18, 2010.

Figure 13

Trend in U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized 

Export and Import TEUs by Coastal Port Region: 

1980–2009

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

West/Pacic Coast

East/Atlantic Coast

Gulf Coast

(Index 1980 = 100)

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals 

one TEU, and one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTES: Totals are for all container ports in all 50 states and Puerto 

Rico. The data in this figure include both loaded and unloaded containers in U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, 

exports, and transshipments.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

based on data from the American Association of Port Authorities, 

available at www.aapa.org, as of Sept. 18, 2010.
20 America’s Container Ports

Table 4

Top 25 U.S. Container Ports by Port Calls and Vessel Type: 2009

Ranked 

by 

container 

capacity Port/State

 All vessel types Containership 

 Containerships as 

percent of port’s total 

vessels 

Average vessel size per 

call (dwt)

 Calls 

(total 

vessels) 

 Capacity 

(dwt, 

thousands) 

 Calls 

(total 

vessels) 

 Capacity 

(dwt, 

thousands) Calls Capacity 

All vessel 

types

Container

ships

1

Los Angeles/

Long Beach, CA 4,312 285,194 2,442 147,347 56.6 51.7 66,140 60,339 

2

New York/

New Jersey, NY/NJ 4,430 220,616 2,319 124,997 52.3 56.7 49,800 53,901 

3 San Francisco, CA 3,275 190,668 1,859 111,546 56.8 58.5 58,219 60,003 

4 Savannah, GA 2,219 112,557 1,714 95,709 77.2 85.0 50,724 55,840 

5 Virginia Ports, VA 2,502 134,680 1,615 84,943 64.5 63.1 53,829 52,596 

6 Charleston, SC 1,865 85,748 1,312 68,035 70.3 79.3 45,978 51,856 

7 Seattle, WA 920 53,190 676 39,029 73.5 73.4 57,816 57,736 

8 Houston, TX 6,153 277,117 931 38,380 15.1 13.8 45,038 41,224 

9 Tacoma, WA 1,149 55,253 576 30,284 50.1 54.8 48,088 52,577 

10 Miami, FL 893 30,463 591 26,589 66.2 87.3 34,113 44,989 

11 Baltimore, MD 1,562 57,596 397 19,536 25.4 33.9 36,874 49,209 

12 Port Everglades, FL 1,055 34,427 597 17,961 56.6 52.2 32,633 30,085 

13 Jacksonville, FL 1,487 48,036 434 16,346 29.2 34.0 32,304 37,664 

14 New Orleans, LA 4,226 210,844 331 13,992 7.8 6.6 49,892 42,273 

15 Honolulu, HI 596 20,552 392 13,530 65.8 65.8 34,482 34,515 

16 Philadelphia, PA 2,171 131,734 340 10,887 15.7 8.3 60,679 32,019 

17 San Juan, PR 927 20,973 455 10,174 49.1 48.5 22,625 22,359 

18 Wilmington, NC 514 19,301 174 7,272 33.9 37.7 37,551 41,794 

19 Boston, MA 520 24,300 133 7,084 25.6 29.2 46,732 53,262 

20 Mobile, AL 901 45,517 171 6,960 19.0 15.3 50,518 40,700 

21 Dutch Harbor, AK 156 7,206 141 6,864 90.4 95.2 46,194 48,677 

22 Columbia River, OR 1,925 80,291 98 5,256 5.1 6.5 41,710 53,637 

23 Tampa, FL 889 33,247 53 2,292 6.0 6.9 37,398 43,249 

24 Kodiak, AK 95 2,024 95 2,024 100.0 100.0 21,309 21,309 

25 Freeport, TX 740 40,101 106 1,852 14.3 4.6 54,190 17,474 

 Total top 5 ports 16,738 943,714 9,949 564,542 59.4 59.8 56,382 56,744 

 Total top 10 ports 27,718 1,445,486 14,035 766,860 50.6 53.1 52,150 54,639 

 Total top 25 ports 45,482 2,221,636 17,952 908,889 39.5 40.9 48,846 50,629 

Total all U.S. ports1 55,560 2,968,567 18,206 913,978 32.8 30.8 53,430 50,202 

 Top 5, percent of U.S. total 30.1 31.8 54.6 61.8 

 Top 10, percent of U.S. total 49.9 48.7 77.1 83.9 

 Top 25, percent of U.S. total 81.9 74.8 98.6 99.4 

KEY: dwt = deadweight ton.

NOTES: Data include oceangoing vessels 10,000 deadweight tons and greater. Capacity equals dwt multiplied by calls. San Francisco includes Oakland, San Francisco, and 

other ports. Virginia ports include all Hampton Roads area ports (e.g., Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth). Los Angeles and Long Beach are counted as one port in this 

table.

1

 All seaports in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The data in this table include only loaded containers in U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, exports, 

and transshipments. Therefore, the trade levels will be greater than those reported from U.S. international trade statistics, which exclude transshipments. The data also 

exclude military shipments.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from the Lloyd’s Maritime Intelligence Unit, Vessel Movement Data File, and are available at www.

marad.dot.gov, as of Sept. 17, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 21

2009 was 50,000 deadweight tons (table 4). This 

is a 15 percent jump from about 44,000 dwt in 

2004 (table 5).

The larger vessels now operating in the worldwide 

fleets are increasingly calling at U.S. ports (figure 

16). During the last 5 years, calls by containerships of 5,000 TEUs or greater increased by 156 

percent, from 1,700 calls in 2004 to 4,400 calls in 

2009 (table 5). In 2009, these very large containerships accounted for 24 percent of all containership 

calls at U.S. seaports, an increase from 10 percent 

in 2004 (USDOT MARAD 2010a). Increases in 

vessel calls and containership capacity, and the 

introduction of large post-Panamax vessels, affect 

port operation, port productivity, and infrastructure 

requirements. They also affect environmental 

considerations and community-impact issues.

Newer vessels are calling at U.S. ports, and the 

containerships that call have been in service for a 

shorter time than other vessel types that call at the 

Nation’s ports (figure 17). While the average age 

of all vessels calling at U.S. seaports was 10.3 

years in 2009, down from 11.8 years in 2004, the 

average age of containerships calling at U.S. seaports during the past 5 years has been 10 years 

(table 5). This trend reflects the replacements 

of older vessels with newer ones built in the late 

1990s. 

The majority of containership calls in the United 

States are concentrated at a handful of U.S. container ports. In 2009, the top five U.S. container 

ports handled over half (55 percent) of container 

vessel calls and 62 percent of container cargo capacity. The top 10 container ports accounted for 77 

percent of containership calls. In 2004, the top five 

container ports handled 58 percent of container 

vessel calls and 62 percent of the cargo capacity.

RANKING OF U.S. PORTS AMONG 

WORLD’S TOP PORTS

Based on preliminary data for 2009, only 2 U.S. 

ports—Los Angeles and Long Beach—ranked 

among the world’s top 20 container ports when 

measured by TEUs, placing 16th and 18th respectively (table 6). In 2008, the Port of New York/New 

Jersey ranked 20th, but it subsequently dropped 

to the 22nd in 2009. Since 2000, both Los Angeles 

and Long Beach have dropped in the rankings 

of the world’s top 20 ports, not due to declining 

volume but because container traffic at Asian 

ports grew at a faster rate. Chinese seaports have 

become more dominant since 2000, and today 6 of 

the top 10 world ports are in China. In 2000, 4 of 

these Chinese ports were not in the top 10 (table 

6). Figure 18 shows the locations of the top 20 

world container ports in 2009, the 2009 ranking by 

TEUs of cargo handled, and the cargo increases 

since 2000.

Figure 14

Vessel Calls at U.S. Seaports: 2002-2009

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

All vessel types (left axis) Containerships (left axis)

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Containerships as percent of total 

vessels (right axis)

Number of calls Percent

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, as of Sept. 18, 2010.
22 America’s Container Ports

Table 5

Number and Average Size and Age of Vessels Calling at U.S. Ports: 2004 and 2009

2004 2009

Percent change, 

2004–2009

Calls by all vessel types 59,885 55,560 -7.2

Calls by container vessels 18,279 18,206 -0.4

Calls by containerships 5,000 TEUs and over 1,734 4,434 155.7

 Containerships as percent of total vessel calls 30.5 32.8 

 Containerships 5,000 TEUs and over as percent of total vessel calls 9.5 24.4 

Average containership vessel size per call (TEUs) 3,221 3,848 19.5

Average containership vessel size per call (dwt) 43,610 50,202 15.1

Average age all vessel types 11.8 10.3 -12.7

Average age container vessels 10.5 10.1 -3.8

KEY: dwt = deadweight ton. TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU, and one 40-foot container equals two TEUs. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from the Lloyd’s Maritime Intelligence Unit, Vessel Movement Data File, and 

Vessel Calls Snapshot 2009, August 2010, available at www.marad.dot.gov, as of Sept. 17, 2010.

TRADING PARTNERS

The United States exports and imports maritime 

goods to and from more than 170 countries, but 

the vast majority of its trade is with relatively few 

trading partners. In 2009, the top 10 countries 

accounted for nearly three-quarters (71 percent) 

of inbound container TEUs, while more than half 

(56 percent) of the outbound container TEUs were 

to 10 countries. The top five U.S. containerized 

cargo trading partners in 2009 were all in Asia: 

China, Japan, Hong Kong (China), South Korea, 

and Taiwan.15 China was the leading containerized 

merchandise trading partner, accounting for nearly 

one-half (48 percent) of U.S. maritime imported 

TEUs, almost double the 25 percent of such trade 

in 2000. China accounted for 22 percent of U.S. 

exported TEUs in 2009, more than double the 9 

percent it received in 2000 (figure 19 and figure 

20).

15 For the analysis in this report, U.S. merchandise trade with 

China and Hong Kong are considered separate. As used here, 

China refers to China alone.

Figure 15

Average Containership Size Per Call at U.S. Ports: 2002–2009

0 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

TEUs (left axis)

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

dwt (right axis)

TEUs dwt

KEY: dwt = deadweight ton. TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU; one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from the Lloyd's Maritime Intelligence Unit, Vessel Movement Data File, and are available at www.marad.dot.gov, as of Sept. 17, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 23

Figure 16

Containership Calls at U.S. Ports by Vessel Size: 2004 and 2009

Less than

2,000

2,000–2,999 3,000–3,999 4,000–4,999 5,000 

and over

0

1,000

,2000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2004 2009

TEU

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Vessel Calls Snapshot 2009, August 2010, available at www.marad.dot.

gov, as of Sept. 17, 2010.

Figure 17

Average Age of Vessels Per Call at U.S. Ports: 2004 and 2009

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Containerships All types

Years of age

10.5 10.6 10.2 10.0 10.1 10.1 

11.8 11.6 11.2 11.1 10.9 10.3

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Vessel Calls Snapshot 2009, August 2010, available at www.marad.dot.

gov, as of Sept. 17, 2010.

While China’s share of the total U.S. container 

trade grew between 2000 and 2009, the other 

top five trading partners saw declines in their 

total maritime containerized cargo trade with the 

United States. Japan is now the second largest 

trading partner for U.S. oceanborne containerized 

exports, having been overtaken by China in 2003. 

Japan’s share of U.S. container cargo continues 

to decrease, and now accounts for 3 percent of 

U.S. imports and 7 percent of U.S. exports. In 

2009, U.S. maritime container imports from China 

alone were larger than those from more than 160 

countries combined (i.e., those countries grouped 

into the “others” category in figure 19).

The types of goods that the U.S. exports and 

imports to and from major trading partners affects the types of vessels in which the goods are 

shipped (container, dry bulk, general cargo, or 

tanker), the number of port calls that are made, 

and the seaports the vessels use. For instance, 

while most U.S.-Canada maritime trade involves 

agricultural products, lumber, and petroleum products, most U.S.-Germany maritime trade involves 
24 America’s Container Ports

manufactured products, such as automobiles and 

machinery; shipping those products requires different types of vessels—such as dry bulk, tanker, 

and container. 

Differences in exports and imports are also 

reflected in the value of the goods. For example, 

in 2008, U.S. maritime imports from Japan were 

valued at over $7,000 per ton, but U.S. exports 

to Japan were valued at $800 per ton, reflecting 

differences in the types of goods and the growth 

in high-value containerized imports to U.S. ports 

(USDOC CB 2010). Major U.S. maritime imports 

from Japan include passenger cars, car parts, and 

electronic equipment; major U.S. maritime exports 

to Japan include agricultural products, industrial 

machinery, and chemicals.

ENTRIES OF OCEANBORNE 

CONTAINER UNITS

The data in this section, the following section, 

figure 21 and table 7 are from U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP). The CBP data on 

containers entering the country are expressed in 

actual individual container counts and differ from 

TEUs, which count one 20-foot container as one 

TEU and one 40-foot container as two TEUs. 

Because containers come in different lengths (for 

Table 6

Top 20 World Container Ports: 2000, 2008, and 2009

(Thousands of loaded and unloaded TEUs)

Rank in 

2000

Rank in 

2008

Rank in 

2009 Port name Country 2000 2008 2009

Percent 

change, 

2008–2009

Percent 

change, 

2000–2009

Average 

annual rate 

(percent), 

2000–2009

2 1 1 Singapore Singapore 17,040 29,918 25,866 -13.5 52 4.7

6 2 2 Shanghai China 5,613 27,980 25,002 -10.6 345 18.1

1 3 3 Hong Kong China 18,098 24,248 20,983 -13.5 16 1.7

11 4 4 Shenzhen China 3,994 21,414 18,250 -14.8 357 18.4

3 5 5 Busan South Korea 7,540 13,425 11,955 -11.0 59 5.3

38 8 6 Guangzhou China 1,430 11,001 11,190 1.7 683 25.7

13 6 7 Dubai United Arab Emirates 3,059 11,828 11,124 -6.0 264 15.4

65 7 8 Ningbo China 902 11,226 10,503 -6.4 1,064 31.4

24 10 9 Qingdao China 2,120 10,320 10,260 -0.6 384 19.1

5 9 10 Rotterdam Netherlands 6,280 10,800 9,743 -9.8 55 5.0

32 14 11 Tianjin China 1,708 8,500 8,700 2.4 409 19.8

4 12 12 Kaohsiung Taiwan 7,426 9,677 8,581 -11.3 16 1.6

12 15 13 Port Klang Malaysia 3,207 7,970 7,310 -8.3 128 9.6

10 13 14 Antwerp Belgium 4,082 8,664 7,310 -15.6 79 6.7

9 11 15 Hamburg Germany 4,248 9,700 7,010 -27.7 65 5.7

7 16 16 Los Angeles United States 4,879 7,850 6,749 -14.0 38 3.7

113 18 17 Tanjung Pelepas Malaysia 418 5,600 6,000 7.1 1,335 34.4

8 17 18 Long Beach United States 4,601 6,488 5,068 -21.9 10 1.1

49 22 19 Xiamen China 1,085 5,035 4,680 -7.0 331 17.6

25 21 20 Laem Chabang Thailand 2,105 5,128 4,622 -9.9 120 9.1

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU, and one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTE: The 2009 data in this table from Containerization International are preliminary.

SOURCES: 2000: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from various 

sources. 2008 and 2009: Maritime Administration, special tabulations, and Containerisation International Online, www.ci-online.co.uk, as of Sept. 17, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 25

example, 20 feet, 40 feet, and 48 feet), the CBP 

figures on individual units differ from the TEU figures, which convert the tonnage of goods moved 

in the containers into TEUs.

In 2009, there were about 10 million oceanborne 

container entries into the United States, down 

slightly from a peak of 12 million in 2006, but 

still higher than in 2000 (figure 21). On a typical 

weekday in 2009, an average of nearly 38,000 

individual maritime containers carrying imports 

entered the United States, up from about 23,000 

in 2000. The challenge of handling large volumes 

of containerized imports from U.S. trading partners 

can also be seen in the number of individual 

container entries processed by CBP.

CONTAINER ENTRIES BY ALL 

MODES FROM ALL COUNTRIES

On a typical weekday in 2009, a total of more 

than 81,000 individual container units entered the 

United States by ocean vessel, truck, and rail. In 

2000, the figure was about 71,000 units per day.

Oceanborne containers represent less than half 

the container traffic entering the United States. 

Overall in 2009, there were more than 21 million 

container entries into the United States by all 

modes of transportation, down 14 percent from 

nearly 25 million in 2008. Of those containers, 

over 11 million entered the Nation by truck and rail 

from Canada and Mexico, compared to 10 million 

by water (table 7). Between 2008 and 2009, the 

number of both maritime and truck container units 

(loaded and unloaded) crossing into the United 

States declined by 13 percent, while rail container 

units declined by 21 percent. Irrespective of these 

declines, the large number of containers crossing 

by land into the United States reflects the importance of U.S. trade with two of its top three trading 

partners.16

16 In 2009, the top 3 U.S. trading partners were Canada, China, 

and Mexico.

Figure 18

Top 20 World Container Ports: 2000 and 2009

Antwerp, Belgium (14)

Hamburg,

Germany (15)

Dubai,

U A E (7)

Tanjung Pelepas,

S Malaysia (17) ingapore, Singapore (1)

Port Klang,

Malaysia (13)

Laem Chabang,

Thailand (20)

Hong Kong,

China (3)

Guangzhou,

China (6)

Shenzhen,

China (4)

Kaohsiung,

Taiwan (12)

Xiamen, China (19)

Ningbo, China (8)

Busan,

South Korea (5)

Tianjin,

China (11)

Qingdao,

China (9)

Shanghai, China (2)

Long Beach,

United States (18)

Los Angeles,

United States (16)

Rotterdam, Netherlands (10)

2000 2009

Total Loaded and Unloaded

TEUs

15 - 25 million

6 - 14 million

1 - 5 million

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU, and one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTE: Numbers in parenthesis are the 2009 port rankings.

SOURCES: 2000: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

based on data from various sources. 2009: Maritime Administration, special tabulations and Containerisation International Online, www.ci-online.

co.uk, as of Sept. 17, 2010.
26 America’s Container Ports

Figure 19

Top 10 Trading Partners for U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Imports: 2000, 2005, and 2009

China 

(excluding 

Hong Kong)

Japan South 

Korea

Hong 

Kong

Taiwan Vietnam Germany Thailand India Italy Others

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Share of total TEUs, 2000 Share of total TEUs, 2005

Share of total TEUs, 2009

Percent

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU; one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTE: For the analysis in this report, U.S. merchandise trade with China and Hong Kong (which is a special administrative region of China) are 

considered separately. As used here, China excludes Hong Kong.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, as of Sept. 18, 2010.

Figure 20

Top 10 U.S. Partners for U.S. Waterborne Foreign Containerized Exports, 2000, 2005, and 2009

China 

(excluding 

Hong Kong)

Japan South 

Korea

Taiwan Hong 

Kong

India Belgium Germany Brazil Indonesia Others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Share of total TEUs, 2000

Share of total TEUs, 2005

Share of total TEUs, 2009

Percent

KEY: TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. One 20-foot container equals one TEU; one 40-foot container equals two TEUs.

NOTE: For the analysis in this report, U.S. merchandise trade with China and Hong Kong (which is a special administrative region of China) are 

considered separately. As used here, China excludes Hong Kong.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, as of Sept. 18, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 27

Figure 21

Maritime Container Entries into the United States: 2000–2009

(Millions of container units of all sizes)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Annual total

6.0 

5.6 

8.0 

9.3 

10.4 

11.4 11.7 11.6 11.4 

9.9 

NOTE: Data for vessel container entries for years 2008 and 2009 are based on "fiscal year" numbers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on 

data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Mission Support Services, Operations Management Database.

Table 7

Container Entries into the United States from All Countries and by All Modes: 2000–2009

(Thousands of entries)

Year

Maritime 

containers full

Maritime 

containers empty

Truck 

containers full

Truck 

containers empty

Rail 

containers full

Rail 

containers empty Overall total

2000 5,353 635 7,685 2,748 1,482 685 18,587 

2005 10,933 481 8,850 2,603 1,794 875 25,536 

2006 11,238 480 8,721 2,689 1,792 935 25,855 

2007 11,038 578 8,428 2,791 1,748 1,005 25,588 

2008 10,638 719 7,680 2,947 1,645 1,029 24,659 

2009 9,048 806 6,626 2,607 1,262 866 21,215 

Modal shares (percent)

2000 28.8 3.4 41.3 14.8 8.0 3.7 100.0 

2005 42.8 1.9 34.7 10.2 7.0 3.4 100.0 

2006 43.5 1.9 33.7 10.4 6.9 3.6 100.0 

2007 43.1 2.3 32.9 10.9 6.8 3.9 100.0 

2008 43.1 2.9 31.1 12.0 6.7 4.2 100.0 

2009 42.7 3.8 31.2 12.3 5.9 4.1 100.0 

KEY: NA = Not available.

NOTE: Data for vessel container full and vessel container empty for years 2008 and 2009 are based on fiscal year numbers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data 

from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Mission Support Services, Operations Management Database.
28 America’s Container Ports

WHAT’S IN THE BOX?

Modern containers carry numerous commodities, 

from sweaters, blouses, and flat-screen televisions to computer equipment, wood, and paper 

products. Containers have reduced the cost of 

safely transporting such goods as children’s toys, 

clothing, and electronics from factories halfway 

across the globe to neighborhood discount stores 

across America, and cut the time it takes to load 

and unload the large vessels used in transporting 

these goods. Similarly, tons of frozen meats and 

manufactured machinery and parts from all across 

the United States are regularly shipped in containers to markets abroad.

During the first half of 2010, America’s container 

ports handled over $256 billion worth of containerized cargo imports weighing more than 62 million 

metric tons. They also handled exports worth over 

$100 billion and weighing 48 million metric tons 

(table 8 and table 9).

In 2009, U.S. ports handled $474 billion worth of 

containerized imports, down 18 percent from 2008. 

By weight, imports dropped 18 percent, from 137 

million metric tons to 112 million metric tons. The 

leading imported commodities by value in 2009 

were print machinery, televisions and electronics, and motor vehicle parts and accessories. By 

weight, the leading imported commodities were 

furniture, bananas, and worked monumental or 

building stones (table 8).

U.S. container ports handled $177 billion worth of 

containerized exports in 2009, down 19 percent 

from $220 billion in 2008. By weight, exports 

dropped by 10 percent, from 98 million metric tons 

to 88 million metric tons (table 9). The leading 

exported commodities by value in 2009 were automobiles and other vehicles, ethylene polymers, 

and machinery. By weight, the leading exported 

commodities were paper waste and scrap, iron 

and steel waste and scrap, and chemical wood 

pulp. The value of containerized exports declined 

more than the weight in part because of changes 

in the value per ton of the commodities and the 

mix of commodities, as well as the drop in the 

value of the U.S. dollar relative to currencies of the 

Nation’s leading trading partners in 2009.
America’s Container Ports 29

Table 8

Value and Weight of U.S. Containerized Imports by 4-Digit Commodity Code: 2008 to Jan–Jul 2010

(Rank in 2009)

Commodity 

code Commodity description 2008 2009 Jan-Jun 2010 

Percent 

change 

2008-2009

Value

(Millions of current U.S. dollars)

8443 Print machinery, including ink-jet, copy, and parts 16,613 14,277 6,752 -14.1

8528 TV receivers, including video monitors and projectors 17,059 13,465 6,259 -21.1

8708 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles 17,346 13,293 8,704 -23.4

6110 Sweaters, pullovers, vests, knitted or crocheted 11,072 10,080 3,963 -9.0

9403 Furniture and parts 11,909 9,499 5,373 -20.2

9504 Articles for arcade, table or parlor games, and parts 11,125 9,354 3,137 -15.9

3004 Medicaments, mixed or not, in dosage 7,175 9,246 5,560 28.8

8471 Automatic data process machines and magnetic readers 9,321 8,442 6,273 -9.4

9503 Toys, scale models, puzzles, and parts 8,974 8,354 3,301 -6.9

6403 Footwear, outer sole, rubber, plastic, or leather 9,251 8,016 3,904 -13.4

All other commodities 460,895 370,055 203,119 -19.7

Top 10 commodities 119,846 104,025 53,227 -13.2

 Top 10, percentage of all commodities 20.6 21.9 20.8 

Total, all commodities 580,740 474,080 256,346 -18.4

Weight

(Thousands of metic tons)

9403 Furniture and parts 5,035 4,082 2,383 -18.9

0803 Bananas and plantains, fresh or dried 2,842 2,876 1,566 1.2

6802 Worked monument, stone, art, granule 3,918 2,557 1,439 -34.7

8708 Parts and accessories for motor vehicles 3,009 2,289 1,470 -23.9

2701 Coal, briquettes, and ovoids from coal 2,791 2,199 731 -21.2

2203 Beer made from malt 2,364 2,024 1,023 -14.4

2710 Oil, not crude, from petroleum and bitum mineral 1,474 1,769 1,199 20.1

4011 New pneumatic tires or rubber 2,121 1,745 987 -17.7

9401 Seats (except barber, dental, etc.) and parts 2,110 1,732 1,165 -17.9

6908 Glazed ceramic flags and paving and hearth tiles 1,944 1,466 777 -24.6

All other commodities 109,585 89,580 49,618 -18.3

Top 10 commodities 27,606 22,739 12,740 -17.6

 Top 10, percentage of all commodities 20.1 20.2 20.4 

Total, all commodities 137,191 112,319 62,358 -18.1

NOTE: Commodity code is the 4-digit harmonized tariff schedule (HTS) for internationally traded goods. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division, USA Trade Online, available at http://data.usatradeonline.gov, as of Sept. 20, 2010.
30 America’s Container Ports

Table 9

Value and Weight of U.S. Containerized Exports by 4-Digit Commodity Code: 2008 to Jan–Jul 2010

(Rank in 2009)

Commodity 

code Commodity code and description 2008 2009

 Jan-Jun 

2010 

Percent 

change 

2008-2009

Value

(Millions of current U.S. dollars)

8703 Motor cars and vehicles for transporting persons 8,605 4,535 2,137 -47.3

3901 Polymers of ethylene in primary forms 4,191 3,859 1,379 -7.9

8431 Parts for machinery of headings 4,797 3,377 1,775 -29.6

8708 Parts and accessories for motor wehicles 4,121 2,695 2,273 -34.6

5201 Cotton, not carded or combed 3,886 2,660 1,249 -31.5

7204 Ferrous waste and scrap; remelt iron and steel ingot 3,626 2,302 1,078 -36.5

0802 Nuts, fresh or dried 1,938 2,253 1,143 16.2

0203 Meat of swine (pork), fresh, chilled or frozen 2,662 2,101 1,093 -21.1

4703 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, not dissolving grades 1,986 1,904 921 -4.1

8421 Centrifuges, filter machinery for liquid or gases 2,107 1,788 935 -15.2

All other commodities 181,849 149,707 87,414 -17.7

Top 10 commodities 37,919 27,472 13,984 -27.6

 Top 10, percentage of all commodities 17.3 15.5 13.8 

Total, all commodities 219,769 177,179 101,398 -19.4

Weight

(Thousands of metic tons)

4707 Waste and scrap of paper or paperboard 7,631 8,780 3,860 15.1

7204 Ferrous waste and scrap; remelt iron and steel ingot 7,103 5,278 2,436 -25.7

4703 Chemical woodpulp, soda or sulfate, not dissolving grades 2,992 3,324 1,631 11.1

3901 Polymers of ethylene in primary forms 2,507 3,187 1,469 27.1

1214 Rutabagas, hay, clover and other forage products 2,282 2,557 1,246 12.0

4804 Kraft paper and paperboard, uncoat and rolls 2,529 2,310 1,295 -8.7

5201 Cotton, not carded or combed 2,462 2,088 1,313 -15.2

2303 Residues of starch, or sugar, or brewing 1,574 1,939 1,547 23.2

1201 Soybeans, whether or not broken 2,226 1,851 943 -16.9

0207 Meat and edible offal of poultry, fresh, chill or frozen 1,924 1,805 843 -6.2

All other commodities 64,727 55,193 31,488 -14.7

Top 10 commodities 33,231 33,119 16,583 -0.3

 Top 10, percentage of all commodities 33.9 37.5 34.5 

Total, all commodities 97,958 88,312 48,071 -9.8

NOTE: Commodity code is the 4-digit harmonized tariff schedule (HTS) for internationally traded goods. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Division, USA Trade Online, available at http://data.usatradeonline.gov, as of Sept. 20, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 31

SPOTLIGHT 1: LANDSIDE ACCESS TO SEAPORTS

Throughput at U.S. container ports is expected to return to pre-recession levels as the economy rebounds 

from the economic downturn and the associated drop in container traffic that took place between December 2007 and June 2009 (JOC 2010b). As U.S. seaports modernize and expand to accommodate larger 

ships and more complex intermodal operations, however, their opportunities for growth and operational 

efficiency are often constrained by landside congestion and capacity challenges. Several key factors 

constrain the ability of the Nation’s container ports to reduce landside congestion and increase access and 

freight traffic capacity. These factors include location in urban areas, land-use challenges, and funding.

Location in Major Metropolitan Areas 

Most U.S. seaports are sited in or near major metropolitan areas that have infrastructure challenges and 

roads that need upgrades to allow them to accommodate large and heavy commercial trucks. Container 

ports produce significant traffic on local roads, adding to the levels of traffic and congestion already 

present in major metropolitan areas (table 10). This conflict between freight vehicular traffic and private 

automobile traffic can be mitigated when landside improvements to container ports are designed for both 

freight and passenger vehicles. For example, a large number of at-grade rail crossings coupled with an 

increasing amount of freight leaving container ports via rail can add to road congestion. In many of these 

cases new grade separations could alleviate that congestion, but constructing grade separations requires 

significant investment (NRC TRB NCHRP 2003). A recent major example of a grade separation project 

is the Alameda Corridor in southern California. This 20-mile rail cargo expressway links the ports of 

Long Beach and Los Angeles to the Nation’s rail network near downtown Los Angeles (ACTA 2010). 

Construction began in 1997 and operations began in April 2002, bypassing over 200 at-grade railroad 

crossings where cars and trucks used to wait for long freight trains to pass.

Land Values and Competing Uses

The growth in container traffic and containership size has made it necessary for container ports to 

expand and increase berth lengths, crane sizes, and railway and highway access. Often, however, expansion plans have conflicted with local community concerns. Container port operations are not always in 

line with local land-use policies, and often waterfront land is desired for higher value residential and 

commercial uses not compatible with the industrial operations of a seaport. These factors are often 

compounded by environmental concerns. It now takes about 10 years to bring a new marine terminal 

from the conceptual stages into operation (USDOT MARAD 2009). Beyond the port facility itself, a true 

systemwide intermodal strategy to address container port-related freight traffic movements requires the 

collaboration of all neighboring jurisdictions as well as private-sector partners to achieve a framework 

for balancing competing transportation and land development needs (NRC TRB NCHRP 2003).

Funding Challenges

As with the rest of the U.S. transportation system, funding for the expansion of container ports and port 

technology and efficiency improvements is a challenge. Historically, many ports and marine terminals 

have been financed by local taxes or private sector investment. However, in recent years not all ports or 

terminal operators have been able to finance the container port expansions and improvements necessary 

to accommodate today’s larger container ships. Today, port efficiency improvements are typically implemented through public-private partnerships. A mix of grants and tax credits may be needed to support 

these improvements. Despite the challenging funding environment, many U.S. container ports continue 

to pursue port capacity expansion and intermodal improvements. The Nation’s ports are expected to add 

approximately 12 million TEUs of capacity in the next several years (USDOT MARAD 2009).

continued next page
32 America’s Container Ports

Congestion Mitigation and Land-Use Initiatives at U.S. Seaports

In recent years many ports have begun to consider how local land access, port authorities, private sector 

freight partners, and local and regional governments can address land use and congestion mitigation 

issues collaboratively.

For example, in 2007 Washington State announced a container ports project to improve coordination and 

investment in rail and container port freight mobility. The initiative intends to examine current land-use 

regulations and their impacts on the effective functioning of container ports, and to provide recommendations for improvements on how to better accommodate both urban and industrial growth (Washington 

State 2009).

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Goods Movement Program is working on 

a comprehensive regional goods movement plan and implementation strategy, scheduled for completion 

in 2011 (SCAG 2010). This plan will include an extensive analysis of current goods movement patterns, 

warehouse location and capacity levels, future intermodal freight system demand and technologies, and 

financing strategies that will allow the southern California region to develop infrastructure to meet future 

freight demand at an intermodal, systemwide level (SCAG, et al. 2008).

Landside congestion is also being mitigated through increased use of America’s waterways as an extension or alternative to use of surface transportation modes. In August 2010, for example, the USDOT’s 

Maritime Administration (MARAD) launched its America’s Marine Highway Program to officially 

designate 18 marine corridors and other initiatives for further development to increase waterborne 

freight movements (figure 22). MARAD will distribute grants to sponsors of designated marine highway 

projects (USDOT MARAD 2010b). One of the projects selected for further development in the Marine 

Highway Program is the East Coast Marine Highway Initiative, a partnership between Port Canaveral, 

FL, the Port of New Bedford, MA, and the Port of Baltimore, MD. This initiative aims to develop marine 

highway service along the East Coast that could transport both domestic and international containers, 

trucks, and trailers, removing freight from the congested, 1,000-mile-long Interstate 95 corridor (JOC 

2010c).

Similarly, the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Initiative, supported by Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, 

is a proposed upgrade of existing east-west highway and noncoastal connections to the ports of Corpus 

Christi and Beaumont. This project aims to provide less congested, more reliable routes for the movement of commercial freight and equipment for national security and emergency response. The highway 

is envisioned as having a dedicated freight element in some places, and if constructed could provide 

additional capacity and access to the ports via routes that do not travel through air quality non-attainment 

areas (Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Initiative, 2010).17

During the past few years, while U.S. container ports have been tackling these infrastructure challenges 

in response to increased demand for their services, they have also had to face rising competition from 

Mexican and Canadian ports. Mexico is currently planning new container port facilities that could 

potentially attract cargo otherwise bound for U.S. ports on the west coast. In 2005, Canada established a 

Pacific Gateway Strategy program, providing increased funding for infrastructure for its west coast ports 

to improve landside access and intermodal marine connections (USDOT MARAD 2009). To ensure that 

U.S. container ports remain competitive, ports and their partners (including shipping lines, truck and rail 

carriers, and other private and public entities) must continue to collaborate to address landside access and 

intermodal transportation system issues.

17 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) designates areas of the country where air pollution levels persistently 

exceed national ambient air quality standards as air quality “nonattainment” areas. An area can be in nonattainment status 

for any of a number of “criteria” air pollutants, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide particulate matter, 

lead, ozone, or particulate matter. More information about ambient air quality standards can be accessed on the EPA’s 

website: http://epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/.

continued next page
America’s Container Ports 33

Figure 22

America’s Marine Highway Corridors

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, America’s Marine Highway Program, available at http://www.marad.dot.

gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/mhi_home/mhi_home.htm, as of Jan. 3, 2011.

M-5

M-95

M-10

M-90

M-70 M-55

M-5 

(AK)

M-65

M-40

M-49

M-87

M-5 (AK)

M-64

M-A1

M-84

M-580

America’s Marine Highway Corridors

M-2

LEGEND

MH Corridor

MH Connector

MH Crossing

U.S. Interstate

M-55

M-70

M-95

M-5

M-90

M-90

continued next page
34 America’s Container Ports

 Table 10 

 U.S. Maritime Port Activity and Landside Traffic Delay per Traveler in Surrounding Urban Area 

Ranked by 

port calls by 

all vessel types U.S. Customs port

 Port calls and capacity by all 

vessel types (2009) 

 Overall maritime cargo 

tonnage—domestic and 

international (2008) 

Landside annual traffic delay 

per traveler in surrounding 

urban area (2007)1

 Calls 

 Capacity 

(dwt, 

millions) 

Total short 

tons 

(millions)

Rank by 

tonnage

Hours of 

delay Rank

1 Houston, TX 6,153 277 212 2 56 4

2 New York/New Jersey, NY/NJ 4,430 221 153 3 44 14

3 Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA 4,312 285 60 11 70 1

4 New Orleans, LA 4,226 211 73 6 20 61

5 San Francisco Bay Area ports, CA2 3,275 191 1 127 55 5

6 Virginia ports, VA3 2,502 135 45 16 29 41

7 Savannah, GA 2,219 113 35 22 NA NA

8 Philadelphia, PA 2,171 132 32 24 38 29

9 Columbia River ports, OR4 1,925 80 27 29 37 34

10 Charleston, SC 1,865 86 21 39 38 29

11 Baltimore, MD 1,562 58 43 17 44 14

12 Jacksonville, FL 1,487 48 21 37 39 24

13 Port Arthur, TX 1,270 80 32 25 11 79

14 Tacoma, WA 1,149 55 27 28 43 19

15 Port Everglades, FL 1,055 34 22 36 NA NA

16 Texas City, TX 1,011 66 53 13 56 4

17 Corpus Christi, TX 972 65 77 5 9 85

18 San Juan, PR 927 21 11 49 NA NA

19 Seattle, WA 920 53 26 31 43 19

20 Mobile, AL 901 46 68 9 NA NA

21 Miami, FL 893 30 7 66 47 11

22 Tampa, FL 889 33 40 19 47 11

23 Freeport, TX 740 40 30 26 NA NA

24 Lake Charles, LA 662 48 54 12 NA NA

25 Honolulu, HI 596 21 14 43 26 47

KEY: dwt = deadweight tons. NA = Not available in the Texas Transportation Institute 2009 Annual Urban Mobility Study. 

NOTES: 1 The most recent year for which data on landside annual traffic delay are available is 2007. These data cover metropolitan areas not just the port area. Annual delay per traveler equals 

extra travel time for peak-period travel during the year divided by the number of travelers who begin a trip during the peak period (6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m.). These peak-period travel times are 

compared with times for free-flow speeds (60 mph on freeways and 35 mph on principal arterials).

2

 San Francisco Bay Area ports: Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond, San Francisco, and Stockton.

3

 Virginia ports: Norfolk, Richmond, Newport News, and Portsmouth.

4

 Columbia–Snake River ports: Portland, Longview, Vancouver, and Kalama.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from three sources. Port calls data: 

Maritime Administration, Ports Calls Data, at www.marad.dot.gov, as of Sept. 30, 2010. Cargo weight data: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, Waterborne 

Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 2008, Part 5–National Summaries 2008, at www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm, as of Oct. 7, 2010. Traffic delay data: Texas Transportation Institute, 2009 Annual Urban Mobility Study, Table 1, available at mobility.tamu.edu/ums, as of Oct. 7, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 35

SPOTLIGHT 2: MARITIME SECURITY

Containerships present unique and particularly complex security challenges, including securing cargo 

against tampering and theft, monitoring containers through the international supply chain, and protecting 

against piracy. During its journey through the supply chain, a single container passes through a number 

of facilities, vessels, and ports, and potentially could be compromised at any of these points by people 

seeking to transport illicit materials of all kinds. Containers have been used, for example, to transport illicit drugs, people, and illegal weapons (GAO 2009b). While notable progress has been made in increasing port and container security over the past decade, major challenges still remain.

Securing the Port Environment

In 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has 

made progress in implementing risk management practices at U.S. ports, particularly in conducting risk 

assessments and evaluating individual threats (GAO 2010). At the port level, the implementation of 

the Transportation Workers Identification Card (TWIC) by the USCG and the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) in the past 2 years is one of the most significant security developments. The TWIC 

program requires that all maritime workers undergo background checks and obtain a biometric identification card that allows them unescorted access to secure facilities and vessels. Despite some implementation challenges, TSA reported enrolling 1.1 million workers in the TWIC program, or over 93 percent 

of the estimated 1.2 million users, by the April 15, 2009 statutory deadline (GAO 2009a). By December 

2010, TSA reported that 1.7 million workers have enrolled in the TWIC program and 1.6 million of the 

printed identification cards were activated (DHS TSA 2010).

Protecting Containers on the Seas

Piracy on the seas remains a significant international maritime security concern that impacts all types 

of cargo ships, including containerships. The United States established a Combined Task Force in 2001 

to conduct maritime security operations in the Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, and 

Indian Ocean. This is part of a global effort designated as the Combined Maritime Forces Mission. More 

than 25 nations contribute naval forces to the global effort against piracy (USDOD, U.S. Navy 2010). 

The Combined Maritime Forces patrol more than 2.5 million square miles of international waters. The 

task force’s activities focus on piracy deterrence and apprehension of pirates and, on occasion, involve 

rescuing hijacked ships. On September 9, 2010, for example, U.S. marines boarded a German-owned 

cargo ship that had been taken hostage by pirates in the Gulf of Aden, successfully rescuing the ship’s 

11-man crew and capturing 9 pirates (Whitlock 2010). In 2009 and 2010, hundreds of pirates were 

captured in the Gulf of Aden alone.

Monitoring Containers in Transit

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS) Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) 

implemented its newest maritime security practice, the Importer Security Filing (commonly known as 

“10+2”), which requires that importers provide 12 shipping data elements 24 hours before a ship arrives 

(see box 1). The Importer Security Filing requirement is designed to provide additional data to help CBP 

identify containers that may pose a risk for terrorism (GAO 2009b).

The 10+2 requirements are just the latest in a series of initiatives to secure U.S.–bound freight traveling 

in containers while in transit. Following the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, 

the U.S. Congress enacted several critical pieces of legislation designed to reduce the vulnerability of the 

maritime transportation system to terrorist attack.

continued next page
36 America’s Container Ports

Post 9-11 Maritime 

Security Initiatives

The 2002 Maritime 

Transportation Security 

Act (MTSA) tasked the 

U.S. Coast Guard with 

coordinating all Federal 

maritime and port-level 

security planning and 

incidence response 

operations. The Security 

and Accountability for 

Every Port Act, or SAFE 

Port Act (2006), required 

that USDHS work with 

relevant public and private 

sector partners domestically and internationally to 

develop and implement a 

strategic plan to “enhance 

the security of the international supply chain” 

(USDHS 2007). CBP is responsible for ensuring the 

security of containerized 

cargo through a number 

of initiatives (table 11). Through these initiatives, CBP has taken the lead internationally in organizing 

customs agencies’ efforts to develop uniform and enhanced security practices, and has implemented 

new container evaluation, scanning, and risk management procedures.

The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) was developed in response to the SAFE Port Act, but the implementation of its goal of using advanced noninvasive scanning technology to scan 100 percent of U.S. 

bound containers for radiological and nuclear materials has been a challenge. Three foreign ports have 

participated in the SFI from its operational start in 2007 and two additional ports have since joined the 

program, but no participating port has achieved 100-percent scanning. Two SFI pilot program ports 

have ceased participating in the program, citing concerns about the safety of the scanning technology, their inability to allocate port personnel to the SFI program, and negative impacts of container 

scanning on port efficiency. CBP now plans to implement SFI only at select ports where the risk of 

terrorism may be higher, complementing the scanning component with efforts to gather additional 

container information to increase container security. DHS officials recognize the difficulty of scanning 

100 percent of U.S.-bound containers by July 2012 as required by law. The feasibility of scanning 100 

percent of containers at more than 600 foreign ports remains daunting (GAO 2009b).

In addition to programs by the CBP and Department of Energy at foreign ports, the U.S. Coast Guard 

also operates a foreign port security program known as the International Port Security Program. Under 

this initiative, established in 2004, the Coast Guard works with foreign ports to improve overall port 

security practices to meet the standards of the International Maritime Organization’s ISPS (International Ship and Port Facility Security) Code. Through this program, USCG officers visit foreign ports 

to assess their security practices and assist them in the implementation of best practices for optimal 

security. However, some foreign ports have resisted USCG’s efforts to visit—insisting that they also 

be allowed to visit and assess the security practices of U.S. ports, which the USCG has allowed (GAO 

2010).

Box 1

Data Elements for Importer 

Security Filing (commonly 

called “10+2”)

Importers are required to 

provide the following 10 data 

elements:

1. Seller or owner name and 

address

2. Buyer or consignee name 

and address

3. Importer of record number/

foreign trade zone applicant 

identification number

4. Consignee number(s)

5. Manufacturer (or supplier) 

name and address

6. Ship-to party name and 

address

7. Country of origin

8. Commodity Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule U.S. number

9. Container stuffing location

10. Consolidator (stuffer) 

name and address

Carriers are required to provide the following 2 additional 

data elements:

1. Vessel stow plan

2. Container status messages 

regarding loaded containers 

destined for the United States

SOURCE: Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), 2008. 73 Federal 

Register 71730 (Nov. 25, 2008). Importer 

Security Filing and Additional Carrier 

Requirements, Final Rule.

continued next page
America’s Container Ports 37

Table 11U.S. Maritime Security InitiativesInitiative Year Implemented Responsible Agency Description Progress to DateAutomated Targeting System (ATS)

1999 CBP ATS is a mathematical model that uses weighted rules to assign a risk score to arriving cargo 

shipments based on shipping information.

In use.

Container Security Initiative (CSI)

2002 CBP CBP staff work with participating foreign ports 

to target and examine high-risk container cargo abroad.

58 foreign ports now participate in CSI, comprising the origin for 86 percent of all imported containerized cargo (USDHS CBP 2010).

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)

2001 CBP DHS CBP works on a voluntary basis with 

private firms, contract logistics carriers and others to improve the security of their firm’s supply chains in exchange for various benefits, including a reduced likelihood that the containers of participating firms will be examined.

As of March 2008, C-TPAT had more than 8,200 certified members, accounting for 80 percent of the value of imported goods (USDHS CBP 2008). In a 2007 survey firms reported that prior to joining C-TPAT nearly half did not have security plans in place for their supply chains (USDHS CBP 2007).

Megaports Initiative 2003 U.S. Department of 

Energy (USDOE) 

Radiation detection equipment has been installed at key foreign ports, for foreign governmental personnel to use in scanning containers bound for the U.S. and our allies.

As of October 2010, implemented at 27 ports, 16 others are in the implementation process (USDOE, NNSA 2010).

Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade (SAFE) Framework of Standards

2005 CBP CBP, along with international partners, developed the SAFE Framework, a set of cargo 

security practice principles based on CBP’s C-TPAT and CSI programs. 

Including the United States, 157 countries have signed letters of intent for implementing the SAFE Framework. 

Secure Freight Initiative (SFI)

2006 USDOE, CBP Program at select ports to scan 100 percent 

of U.S.-bound container cargo for nuclear and radiological materials.

As of April 2010, SFI was operational at 5 ports, and had ceased operating at 2 (GAO 2010).

Domestic Port Radiation 2007 USDHS Program to scan 100 percent of containers arriving in the United States with radiation detection 

equipment prior to leaving a domestic port. 

As of April 2009, CBP had 409 radiation portal monitors deployed at domestic ports, through which approximately 98 percent of all arriving containers passed through. 

Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements (10+2)

2009 CBP The importer is responsible for supplying CBP 

with 10 shipping data elements 24 hours prior to lading while the vessel carrier is required to provide 2 data elements in addition to those previously required. 

In place since 2009. 

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based mostly on Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2009B. Feasibility and Cost- Benefit Analysis Would, assist DHS and Congress in, assessing and Implementing the Requirement to Scan 100 Percent of U.S.-Bound Containers, October 30. Available at www.gao.gov/products/GAO10-12, as of Sept. 24, 2010; except where noted.

America’s Container Ports 39

References

Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA). 2010. Fact Sheet. Available at www.acta.org/projects/projects_completed_alameda_factsheet.asp, as of Nov. 18, 2010.

Alessandria, G., J. P. Kaboski, and V. Midrigan. 2010. The Great Trade Collapse of 2008-09: An Inventory Adjustment? 

National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 16059, June 2010. Available at www.nber.org/papers/w16059, 

as of Oct. 20, 2010.

American Trucking Association (ATA). 2010. ATA Truck Tonnage Index. Monthly Press Releases, from Feb. 24, 2010 to Jul. 

27, 2010. Available at www.truckline.com/Newsroom/Pages/pressreleases.aspx, as of Oct. 2, 2010. Historical Trucking Index 

Database, as of Mar. 25, 2009. Personal communication.

Association of American Railroads (AAR). 2009. Class I Railroad Statistics 2009. Available at www.aar.org/Resources/

Resources%20Landing.aspx, as of Mar. 20, 2009.

Association of American Railroads (AAR). 2010a. Weekly Railroad Traffic July 1, 2010. Available at www.aar.org/NewsAndEvents/Freight-Rail-Traffic/2010/07/2010-07-01_railtraffic.aspx, as of Oct. 2, 2010.

Association of American Railroads (AAR). 2010b. Weekly Railroad Traffic September 30, 2010. Available at www.aar.org/

NewsAndEvents/Freight-Rail-Traffic/2010/09/2010-09-30-railtraffic.aspx, as of Oct. 2, 2010.

AXS-Alphaliner. 2010. AXS-Alphaliner Newsletter, no. 2010/26. Available at www.alphaliner.com, as of Oct. 1, 2010.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2009a. DHS’s Progress and Challenges in Key Areas of Maritime, Aviation, and 

Cybersecurity, December 2. Available at www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-106, as of Sept. 24, 2010.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2009b. Feasibility and Cost-Benefit Analysis Would Assist DHS and Congress 

in Assessing and Implementing the Requirement to Scan 100 Percent of U.S.-Bound Containers, October 30. Available at 

www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-12, as of Sept. 24, 2010.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2010. DHS Progress and Challenges in Key Areas of Port Security, July 21. Available at www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-940T, as of Sept. 24, 2010.

Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Initiative. 2010. A Strategic Transportation System Linking Military Facilities to Deployment 

Seaports. Available at http://www.gulfcoaststrategichighway.org/index.html, as of Oct. 5, 2010.

Intermodal Association of North America. 2010. Rail Intermodal Traffic Activity—Press Releases, May 13, 2010 and Aug. 13, 

2010. Available at www.intermodal.org/pressroom_files/index.shtml, as of Oct. 2, 2010.

The Journal of Commerce (JOC). 2010a. Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS). Annual Container Trade Data. The 

Journal of Commerce 11, no. 15 (Apr. 12): 50.

The Journal of Commerce (JOC). 2010b. Port Congestion Could Return in Some Sectors. Available at The Journal of Commerce Online, www.joc.com, as of Sept. 27, 2010.

The Journal of Commerce (JOC). 2010c. Port Of Baltimore Selected For Further Study As Marine Highway Project. Available 

at The Journal of Commerce Online, www.joc.com, as of Oct. 5, 2010.

Mongelluzzo, B. 2010. The Port Moves Inland. The Journal of Commerce, 11, no. 36 (Sept. 13): 30–32.

National Research Council (NRC), Transportation Research Board (TRB). National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

(NCHRP). 2003. Report 497: Financing and Improving Land Access to U.S. Intermodal Cargo Hubs. Washington, DC.

The Port Authority of New York/New Jersey (PANYNJ). 2010. Monthly Loaded Container Statistics Online. Available at www.

panynj.gov/port/monthly_loaded_containers.html, as of Oct. 3, 2010.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2009. Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and 

Implementation Strategy Study Update. Available at http://www.scag.ca.gov/goodsmove/ as of Sept. 27, 2010.

Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange 

County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), San Bernardino Associated 

Governments (SANBAG), Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) Districts 7, 8, 11 & 12, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (SCAG, et. al.). 2008. Multi-County 

Goods Movement Action Plan. Available at http://www.scag.ca.gov/goodsmove/ as of Sept. 27, 2010.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Navigational Data Center (NDC). 2008. Waterborne Commerce of the United 

States, Part 5–National Summaries. Table 1.2. Available at http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil//wcsc/pdf/wcusnatl08.pdf as of 

Nov. 18, 2010.
40 America’s Container Ports

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2010a. National Income and Product Accounts Table. Table 1.1.6 Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars. Available at www.bea.gov/National/

nipaweb2010/SelectTable.asp as of Sept. 30, 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2010b. Gross Domestic Product: Second 

Quarter 2010 (Final). News release, Sept. 30, 2010. Available at www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.

htm.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Census Bureau (CB). 2010. Foreign Trade Division, USA Trade Online. Available 

at http://data.usatradeonline.gov, as of Sept. 20, 2010.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Census Bureau (CB) and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2010. U.S. 

International Trade in Goods and Services (July 2010). Press release, Aug. 11. Available at www.census.gov/foreign-trade/

Press-Release/2010pr/06/ftdpress.txt.

U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD). U.S. Navy. 2010. Combined Task Force 150. Available at www.cusnc.navy.mil/

cmf/150/index.html, as of Oct. 1, 2010.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 2010. Megaports Initiative. Available online at nnsa.energy.gov, as of Oct. 1, 2010.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). 2007. Strategy to Enhance International Supply Chain Security. Washington, DC. July. Available at www.dhs.gov, as of Mar. 31, 2009.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). 2007. Customs-Trade Partnership 

Against Terrorism, Cost-Benefit Survey Report of Results, August. Available online at www.cbp.gov, as of Sept. 24, 2010.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2008. Fact Sheet: C-TPAT. March 

27. Available at www.cbp.gov,, as of Oct. 7, 2010.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA). 2010. TWIC Dashboard. 

December 13. Available at www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/twic_dashboard.pdf, as of Dec. 13, 2010.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2009. America’s Ports and Intermodal 

Transportation System. Washington, DC. Available at www.marad.dot.gov, as of Sept. 27, 2010.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2010a. Vessel Calls Snapshot 2009. 

Washington, DC. Available at www.marad.dot.gov/.../Vessel_Calls_at_US_Ports_Snapshot.pdf , as of Oct. 4, 2010.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2010b. America’s Marine Highway Program. Available at www.marad.dot.gov, as of Oct. 5, 2010.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS). 2010. Transportation Services Index press release, as of Feb. 18, 2010 and June 9, 2010. 

Available at www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/.

U.S. Federal Reserve Bank (USFRB). 2010a. Statistical Release. Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization. Available at 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/G17/Current/default.htm, as of Oct. 20, 2010.

U S. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (USFRB). 2010b. Economic Research. Index of Industrial Production. Available at 

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO, as of Oct. 20, 2010.

Washington State. 2009. Governor’s Container Ports Initiative: Recommendations of the Container Ports and Land Use 

Work Group Main Report. Available at www.ofm.wa.gov/reports/ContainerPorts.pdf, as of Sept. 27, 2010.

Whitlock, C. U.S. Marines nab Somali pirates in Gulf of Aden. The Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2010, A1.

World Trade Organization (WTO), 2010. Trade Statistics. Available at http://stat.wto.org/Home/WSDBHome.aspx, as of Sept. 

18, 2010.
America’s Container Ports 41

List of Abbreviations

AAR Association of American Railroads

ATA American Trucking Association

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

CB U.S. Census Bureau

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

dwt deadweight ton

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office

GDP gross domestic product

HTS harmonized tariff schedule

ICC International Chamber of Commerce

JOC Journal of Commerce

MARAD Maritime Administration

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NRC National Research Council

PIERS Port Import and Export Reporting Service

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration

TEU twenty-foot equivalent container unit

TRB Transportation Research Board

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TSI Transportation Services Index

TTI Texas Transportation Institute

TWIC Transportation Worker Identification Credential

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
42 America’s Container Ports

Glossary

Definitions in this glossary are adapted from the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and 

Innovative Technologies Administration, Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, available at www.bts.gov/

dictionary.

Break-bulk. Packages of maritime cargo that 

are handled individually, palletized, or unitized for 

purposes of transportation as opposed to bulk and 

containerized freight.

Chained dollars. A measure used to express 

real prices, defined as prices that are adjusted to 

remove the effect of changes in the purchasing 

power of the dollar. Real prices usually reflect 

buying power relative to a reference year. The 

“chained-dollar” measure is based on the average 

weights of goods and services in successive pairs 

of years. It is “chained” because the second year 

in each pair, with its weights, becomes the first 

year of the next pair. Before 1996, real prices were 

expressed in constant dollars, a weighted measure 

of goods and services in a single year. See also 

current dollars.

Class I freight railroad. Defined by the American 

Association of Railroads each year based on 

annual operating revenue. For 2009, the threshold 

for Class I railroads was revenues exceeding $401 

million. A railroad is dropped from the Class I list 

if it fails to meet the annual revenue threshold for 

three consecutive years.

Container. A large standard-size metal box 

into which cargo is packed for shipment aboard 

specially configured oceangoing containerships. 

It is designed to be moved with common handling 

equipment to enable high-speed intermodal 

transfers in economically large units between 

ships, railcars, truck chassis, and barges using a 

minimum of labor. Therefore, the container rather 

than the cargo in it serves as the transfer unit.

Container Port. A harbor with marine terminal 

facilities for transferring cargo between containerships and land transportation, such as truck or rail.

Containerization. A system of intermodal freight 

transportation that uses standard containers that 

can be loaded onto vessels, railcars, and trucks. It 

involves the stowage of general or special cargo in 

a container for transport in the various modes.

Containership. A cargo vessel designed and constructed to transport, within specifically designed 

cells, portable tanks, and freight containers, which 

are lifted on and off with their contents intact.

Containerized cargo: Cargo that is practical to 

transport in a container and results in a more 

economical shipment than could be achieved by 

shipping the cargo in some other form of unitization (e.g., break-bulk).

Container throughput. A measure of the number 

of containers handled over a period of time. It is a 

standard measure for the productivity of a seaport. 

Container throughput is measured by twenty-foot 

equivalent units (TEU).

Current dollars. Dollar value of a good or service 

in terms of prices current at the time the good or 

service is sold. See also chained dollars.

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism 

(C-TPAT). A voluntary public-private partnership 

program in which the private owners of supply 

chain infrastructure and cargo work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to improve the security 

of the international supply chain. See www.cbp.

gov for details.

Deadweight tons (dwt). The total weight of a 

ship’s load, including cargo, fuel, and crew. The 

deadweight tonnage of a ship is the difference 

between its weight when completely empty and its 

weight when fully loaded.

Dry Bulk Cargo. Cargo which may be loose, 

granular, free-flowing, or solid, such as grain, 

coal, and ore, and is shipped in bulk rather than in 

package form. Dry bulk cargo is usually handled 

by specialized mechanical handling equipment at 

specially designed dry bulk terminals.

General Cargo. General cargo consists of those 

products or commodities—such as timber, structural steel, rolled newsprint, concrete forms, and 

agricultural equipment—that are not conducive to 

packaging or unitization. Break-bulk cargo (e.g., 

packaged products such as lubricants and cereal) 

are often regarded as a subdivision of general 

cargo.

Gross domestic product (GDP). The total value 

of goods and services produced by labor and 
America’s Container Ports 43

property located in the United States. As long as 

the labor and property are located in the United 

States, the supplier (the workers and, for property, the owners) may be either U.S. residents or 

residents of foreign countries.

Highway-rail crossing. A location where one or 

more railroad tracks intersect a public or private 

thoroughfare, a sidewalk, or a pathway.

Intermodal container. A freight container designed to be used interchangeably in two or more 

modes of transport.

Intermodal. Used to denote movements of cargo 

containers interchangeably between transport 

modes—i.e., motor, water, and air carriers—and 

where the equipment is compatible within the 

multiple systems.

Just in time (JIT). A method of inventory control 

in which warehousing is minimal or nonexistent. 

A container is the movable warehouse and must 

arrive “just in time,” or not too early or too late.

Marine terminal. A designated area of a port 

used for the transmission, care, and convenience 

of cargo and/or passengers in the interchange of 

them between land and water carriers or between 

two water carriers. It includes wharves, warehouses, covered and/or open storage spaces, cold 

storage plants, grain elevators and/or bulk cargo 

loading and/or unloading structures, landings, and 

receiving stations.

Marine Transportation System (MTS). Consists 

of all the intermodal components that are part of 

the maritime domain, including ships, ports, inland 

waterways, intermodal rail and truck, and other 

users of the maritime system.

Merchandise trade exports. Merchandise 

transported out of the United States to foreign 

countries whether such merchandise is exported 

from within the U.S. Customs Service territory, 

from a U.S. Customs bonded warehouse, or from 

a U.S. Foreign Trade Zone. (Foreign Trade Zones 

are areas, operated as public utilities, under the 

control of U.S. Customs with facilities for handling, 

storing, manipulating, manufacturing, and exhibiting goods.)

Merchandise trade imports. Commodities of 

foreign origin entering the United States, as well 

as goods of domestic origin returned to the United 

States with no change in condition or after having 

been processed and/or assembled in other countries. Puerto Rico is a customs district within the 

U.S. Customs territory, and its trade with foreign 

countries is included in U.S. import statistics. 

U.S. import statistics also include merchandise 

trade between the U.S. Virgin Islands and foreign 

countries even though the islands are not officially 

a part of the U.S. Customs territory.

Metric tons. A metric ton—a standard measure 

used globally—is a unit of weight equal to 2,205 

pounds or 1,000 kilograms. By comparison, a 

“short ton,” used in the United States and Canada, 

is equal to 2,000 pounds or 907 kilograms. Thus, 

1 metric ton equals 1.1 short tons. (Yet another 

measure, the “long” ton, is sometimes used in the 

United Kingdom. A long ton is equivalent to 2,240 

pounds, or 1,016 kilograms.)

Port. A harbor area in which marine terminal facilities for transferring cargo between ships and land 

transportation are located.

Post-Panamax vessels. Ocean vessels that are 

too large to pass through the Panama Canal. 

They typically have widths exceeding 32.2 meters 

(105.6 feet) and can carry up to 6,500 TEUs. 

Recent designs of these vessels are able to carry 

more than 12,000 TEUs.

Real gross domestic product (GDP). The real 

counterpart to current/nominal GDP, obtained 

by valuing output in a given year at prices from 

another year, called the base year. It reflects 

correction for inflation and changes in the price of 

goods and services.

Roll-on/roll-off vessel. Ships that are designed to 

carry wheeled containers or other wheeled cargo 

and that use the roll-on/roll-off method for loading 

and unloading.

Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). A joint program 

of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and 

the U.S. Department of Energy that is designed to 

scan U.S.-bound containers for nuclear or radiological materials at their foreign ports of origin. 

See www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_security/

secure_freight_initiative for details.

Short-Sea Shipping. Short-sea shipping describes the movement of freight along coastal 

waterways (for example, from Long Beach to 

Portland or from New York/New Jersey to Savannah). It includes the movement of containers and 

wet and dry bulk cargoes.

Tanker. An oceangoing ship designed to haul 

liquid bulk cargo in world trade.

Twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU). The standard 

unit for measuring the volume of containers that 
44 America’s Container Ports

seaports handle. Standard container sizes are 20 

feet, 40 feet, and 48 feet long.

Transportation Worker Identification Credential 

(TWIC). The Transportation Worker Identification 

Credential (TWIC) is a security program designed 

to ensure that individuals who pose a threat do 

not gain unescorted access to secure areas of the 

Nation’s maritime transportation system. TWIC is 

administered by the Transportation Security Administration and U.S. Coast Guard. The program 

issues tamper-resistant biometric identification 

cards to workers who require unescorted access to 

secure areas of ports, vessels, and outer continental shelf facilities, and to all credentialed merchant 

mariners.
America’s Container Ports 45

Other recent BTS maritime-related reports

America’s Container Ports: Freight Hubs That Connect Our Nation to Global 

Markets 2009 examines the movement of maritime freight handled by the Nation’s 

container ports in 2008 and summarizes trends in maritime freight movement since 

1995. It covers the impact of the 2007-2008 U.S. and global economic downturn on 

U.S. port container traffic, trends in container throughput, concentration of containerized cargo at the top U.S. ports, regional shifts in cargo handled, vessel calls 

and capacity in ports, the rankings of U.S. ports among the world’s top ports, and 

container entries into the United States by ocean, truck, and rail. (36 pages, 2009).

Maritime Trade & Transportation 2007 provides an update on the major marine 

infrastructure, maritime-related transportation services, domestic and international 

freight and passenger trade, the economic impact of the Maritime Transportation 

System, safety and environment, national security, and shipbuilding. It also presents 

information about the St. Lawrence Seaway and the U.S. Coast Guard (92 pages, 

2008).

America’s Container Ports: Delivering the Goods 2007 examines trends in U.S. 

containerized cargo and freight activity at major U.S. container ports. It reviews the 

direction of container traffic, port concentration, regional port trends, vessel calls 

and capacity, trading patterns, and container entries by all modes (11 pages, 2007).

For the latest maritime-related data products and publication, 

please visit the BTS Maritime Program website at

www.bts.gov/programs/maritime_program
Printed on paper containing recycled post 

consumer waste paper.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/americas_container_ports/2011/