U.S. International Trade and 

Freight Transportation Trends

U.S. Department of Transportation

Bureau of Transportation Statistics
North American Trade and Travel Trends examines

recent patterns in U.S. international trade and passenger

travel with Canada and Mexico. It also reviews modal

shares of NAFTA-partner trade and travel, examines the

geography of the trade and travel flows, and identifies key

influencing factors (31 pages, 2001).

U.S. International Travel and Transportation Trends

examines recent trends in U.S. international travel overall,

as well as overnight and same-day travel for all modes of

transportation. It reviews the linkage between transportation and international travel, examines changing patterns in

modal shares, geography and purpose of travel, and identifies key influencing factors. Particular attention is paid to

air travel and security issues (42 pages, 2002).

Other reports in this series:
U.S. International Trade and

Freight Transportation Trends

Bureau of 

Transportation

Statistics

U.S. Department of Transportation
Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Our mission: To lead in developing transportation data and information of

high quality and to advance their effective use in both public and private

transportation decisionmaking.

Our vision for the future: Data and information of high quality will support

every significant transportation policy decision, thus advancing the quality of

life and the economic well-being of all Americans.

To obtain U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

and other BTS publications

Phone: 202-366-DATA [press 1]

Fax: 202-366-3197

Internet: www.bts.gov

Mail: Product Orders

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

U.S. Department of Transportation

400 Seventh Street, SW, K-15

Washington, DC 20590

Information Service

Email: answers@bts.gov

Phone: 1-800-853-1351

Recommended citation

U.S. Department of Transportation

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends, BTS03-02

Washington, DC: 2003
Acknowledgments

U.S. Department of

Transportation

Norman Y. Mineta

Secretary

Michael P. Jackson

Deputy Secretary

Bureau of

Transportation

Statistics

Rick Kowalewski

Acting Director

William J. Chang

Associate Director for 

Information Systems

John V. Wells

Chief Economist

Produced under the 

direction of:

Wendell Fletcher

Assistant Director for 

Transportation Analysis

Project Manager

Lisa Randall

Editor

Marsha Fenn

Major Contributors

Felix Ammah-Tagoe

Michael Sprung

Michael Szustakowski

Other Contributors

Don Bright

Martha Courtney

Scott Dennis

Chester Ford

Patrick Flanagan

Alpha Glass

Elijah Henley

Deborah Johnson

Pamela Lafontaine

Nathan Liu

Marcus Mathias

Matthew Sheppard

Lynn Weidman

Layout

Lorisa Smith

Cover Design

Colabours 

Communications Inc.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

Overview of Merchandise and Services Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Overall Trends in U.S. International Merchandise Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Importance of Merchandise Trade

to the U.S. Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Shifts in Major Trading Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Modal Trends in U.S. Merchandise Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

International Maritime Trade and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Growth and Shift in Container Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Port Concentration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Port Calls and Vessel Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Major Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

International Air Freight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Top Air Freight Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

U.S. International Air Cargo Revenues and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

North American Trade and Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

U.S.-NAFTA: Overall Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

U.S.-NAFTA Trade: Modal View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

NAFTA Trade and U.S. States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Land Ports and Border Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Multimodal View:Top Gateways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Trends in Major Commodities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Trade in Transportation-Related Goods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Transportation Services Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Transportation Services Trade by Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Factors of Change and Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Underlying Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Conclusion: Freight Growth and Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Appendix A: Transportation Security and International Trade . . . . . . . . . 101

Appendix B: International Trade and Transportation:

Data Issues and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Appendix C: Statistical Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Appendix D: List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > v <

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 1 <

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview. As the world’s largest trading nation, the United

States imports and exports more merchandise than any

other country. This report provides a broad overview of changes

in U.S. international merchandise trade since 1990 and how

transportation modes and services enable this trade, which is a

vital part of the U.S. economy. 

From 1990 to 2001, U.S. gross domestic product (GDP),

overall merchandise trade, and the merchandise trade deficit all

experienced substantial growth, although at varying rates. The

relative importance of export and import merchandise trade to

the U.S. economy also increased during this period. Between

1990 and 2001, the ratio of the value of merchandise trade to

GDP rose from 13 to 22 percent in inflation-adjusted terms.

Furthermore, U.S. merchandise exports compared to the production of tradable goods has risen, meaning goods exports have

become more important to domestic production despite the

decline in manufacturing’s share of GDP.

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks exacerbated an

economic slowdown already in progress, resulting in a marked

decline in U.S. international trade and freight movements. U.S.

merchandise trade was down 6.2 percent in 2001, with most of

the decline taking place after the attacks. Compared with the

same period in 2000, the value of overall U.S. merchandise

trade dropped 1.7 percent from January through August 2001,

but dropped 14.7 percent between September and December.

While all modes were affected by September 11, air cargo saw

the largest decline in freight activity (13 percent by value), followed by trucking (8 percent), maritime (3 percent), and rail (2

percent). Pipeline activity increased by 12 percent.

In the aftermath of the attacks, transportation security

concerns have focused on the vulnerability of the U.S. transportation system. Because large volumes of traded merchandise

from all over the world enter the United States daily on ships and

airplanes, and on trucks and trains from Canada and Mexico,

transportation security has become a top priority with growing

attention focused on international import traffic. For example,

in 2001, about 19 million containers were used to transport

imports into the United States, 6 million by ocean vessel and 13

million by truck and rail from Canada and Mexico. The attacks
changed how government and industry view cargo security and

both are seeking ways to enhance security for traded goods from

their foreign points of origin to final destinations within the

United States. 

Shifts in Major Trading Partners. The United States trades

with nearly 200 countries worldwide. In 2001, 15 countries

alone accounted for 77 percent of the value of merchandise

trade. One-third of this trade was with Canada and Mexico,

our partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA). Due to strong growth in NAFTA and Asian Pacific

trade, relative to that with Europe, the share of trade passing

through border crossings and freight corridors with Canada

and Mexico and with West Coast ports has increased, as has

related container and intermodal traffic. 

Modal Trends. Over 1.6 billion tons of international merchandise moved to and from the United States in 2001, accounting for 10 percent of the 16 billion tons of freight moved on the

nation’s transportation system. Even though maritime transportation is the predominant mode for moving U.S. international freight (whether measured by weight or value), freight

transported by other modes, notably air and truck, has grown

faster. While air cargo accounts for less than 1 percent of U.S.

merchandise trade tonnage, it accounts for over one-quarter of

the value of the trade. The number of truck crossings into the

United States from Canada and Mexico grew at an average

annual rate of 5 percent per year since NAFTA’s inception in

1994 and is expected to continue to climb, especially between

Mexico and the United States once all NAFTA trucking provisions are fully implemented. Security concerns and demands

now affect all modal transportation networks and the ports and

border crossings serving U.S. international freight flows.

Trends in Major Commodities. Since at least 1980, manufactured goods’ share of the value of U.S. merchandise trade has

increased, affecting the growth in containerization and the

demand for intermodal transportation. Although the United

States continues to produce, export, and import vast quantities

of natural resources, such as coal and petroleum products, and

raw materials, such as lumber, these goods’ share of the value of

trade declined as the commodity mix of U.S. international trade

changed. Growth in higher-value manufactured goods was a

> 2 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 3 <

major reason for the rise in air cargo and emergence of U.S.

airports as world leaders in handling this cargo. Also, U.S. trade

in transportation-related goods (motor vehicles, aircraft, rail

locomotives, and ships and boats) nearly doubled between

1990 and 2001. A $24 billion surplus in aircraft and parts trade

was the single highest surplus of any commodity in U.S. international trade in 2001. Changes in the commodity mix of U.S.

trade and our major trading partners affect transportation

choices and the border and port facilities that handle the trade. 

Transportation Services Trade. U.S. international trade in

freight transportation and airport and seaport services generates substantial revenues for U.S. carriers and ports. Freight and

port services facilitate domestic and international movement of

freight and are essential to U.S. global competitiveness. Between

1990 and 2001, the United States maintained a trade surplus in

airport and seaport services as the volume of merchandise

imports and the payments by foreign carriers for using U.S. ports

rose. However, the United States had a deficit in freight services.

This deficit grew in large part because of the sustained growth

of the U.S. economy that spurred demand for imported merchandise transported by foreign carriers. The freight services

deficit contrasts with the surplus in overall U.S. services trade.

Air carriers accounted for most of the receipts for exports of

U.S. freight services, overtaking ocean carriers in 1997. 

Factors of Change and Continuity. Many factors have

influenced the pace of expansion in U.S. international merchandise and transportation services trade, including growth and

changes in the U.S. population and economy, increased internationalization of the U.S. economy, advances in transportation

and telecommunications technology, easing of regulatory structures in international transportation markets, and reduction of

trade barriers. Shifts in the composition of the U.S. economy

toward more services, increased dependence on imports for

manufactured products, and changes in major trading partners

likely will continue to affect goods movements within the United

States for many years to come. While the pace of trade with

Canada and Mexico will affect the relative roles of trucking and

rail, growth trends in trade with Pacific Rim nations will impact

U.S. containerized cargo throughput and intermodal traffic.

Also, trends in U.S. direct investment abroad and foreign direct
investment into the United States will continue to complement

the movement of merchandise trade and affect U.S. transportation services carriers. 

Trade Growth and Concerns. With the growth in U.S.

international merchandise trade, the condition and performance of the nation’s freight transportation infrastructure, such

as local access roads at ports, at-grade rail crossings, dredging

and channel depths, and availability of truck-only lanes for port

access, will continue to be an important transportation concern.

Landside access to U.S. ports, congestion on highways around

major gateways, delays at border crossings, and environmental

and community concerns may also continue to affect the movement of merchandise from, to, and within the United States.

Government and industry efforts to enhance transportation security while ensuring the efficient flow of goods are likely to affect

freight throughput at the major U.S. gateways, although the full

impacts of the security measures remain uncertain.

> 4 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends
INTRODUCTION 

Today, Americans are buying more imported merchandise

than ever before, and more of the goods produced in U.S.

factories are bound for export. Much of the imported merchandise is transported in containers from far-flung corners of the

world, raising the need for heightened cargo security measures

from the foreign points of origin to the final destinations in the

United States. In 2001, the U.S. transportation system carried

merchandise exports worth $731 billion and merchandise

imports valued at $1.1 trillion (in current dollars). Transporting

this merchandise requires a significant amount of equipment.

For example, in 2001, there were over 936,000 aircraft,

215,000 maritime vessels, and 19 million vessel, truck, and rail

container entries into the United States.1 From a national security perspective, the large amount of transportation equipment

involved in U.S. international trade highlights the possible

threat of using freight vessels and vehicles for terrorist activity.

This vulnerability underscores the importance of national measures aimed at improving security while maintaining quick and

efficient freight flows (see appendix A, Transportation Security

and International Trade, pp. 101–109).

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist

attacks on the United States, improving security and maintaining

an efficient flow of goods have become key transportation and

international trade issues. Immediately following the attacks,

the U.S. economy and international transportation networks

were affected as merchandise imports and exports temporarily

declined and the volume of freight passing through the nation’s

airports, seaports, and land borders slowed. In the attacks’

aftermath, cargo security and handling have received increased

attention, with government and industry seeking enhancements

in this area. A key component of this effort is expanded information on traded goods and crews, such as advance and near

real-time data (see appendix B, International Trade and Transportation: Data Issues and Challenges, pp. 111–114).

This report provides an overview of U.S. international merchandise trade, reviews changes in trading patterns and modal

trends, and examines shifts in the patterns of freight demand

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 5 <

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on U.S.

Department of the Treasury (2002).
> 6 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

among U.S. international freight gateways.2 In addition, the

report reviews the changing mix of traded commodities, focusing

especially on transportation-related goods. It also examines U.S.

freight transportation and port services and their important role

in facilitating U.S. international merchandise trade.

The report further analyzes the critical role freight transportation continues to play in enabling international trade and

discusses capacity and access challenges that growth in international freight pose to the U.S. freight transportation system. It

also looks at some of the new security challenges facing the U.S.

freight transportation system as the nation implements transportation security measures following the 2001 terrorist

attacks. The report concludes with a discussion of some of the

major underlying factors that are driving change and continuity

in U.S. international merchandise trade and the possible effects

of trade growth on the nation’s transportation networks. For

most of the major topics discussed in this report, detailed trade

and transportation data tables are provided in appendix C.

These tables complement the tables in the text.

OVERVIEW OF MERCHANDISE AND SERVICES TRADE

Although total U.S. international trade, including trade of

goods and services, rose throughout the 1990s, levels fell in

2001. U.S. merchandise trade, the primary focus of this report,

accounted for more than three-quarters of total U.S. international trade in 2001.3

From 1990 to 2000, the United States experienced strong

growth in merchandise trade and economic output. During this

period, the expanding U.S. economy favorably affected U.S.

international merchandise trade, which grew at an average

annual rate of 9.3 percent, about three times the rate of the

nation’s economy in inflation-adjusted terms (box 1). Between

2000 and 2001, however, real GDP grew by 1.2 percent while

total merchandise trade declined by 3.9 percent.4

2 This report generally examines merchandise trade trends from 1990 to 2001. Unless otherwise stated, references to U.S. trade and trade balances represent U.S. merchandise trade only.

Due to limitations of data availability, some of the maritime and aviation trends are only

reviewed through 2000, because 2001 data were unavailable at the time this report was prepared. This report also includes a section on transportation services trade.

3 Total U.S. international trade includes both merchandise and services trade.

4 In current dollars, GDP grew by 3.4 percent and U.S. merchandise trade declined by 6.2 percent (USDOC BEA 2002a).
Since 1990, freight transportation and port services used in moving

the traded goods have also increased.

Between 1990 and 2001, U.S. exports

(receipts) and imports (payments) for

freight services grew at an average

annual rate of 5.3 percent, while port

services grew at 4.2 percent per year

(in current dollars) (USDOC BEA

2003). During this period, the United

States remained the world’s largest

exporter of transportation services,

maintaining its share of the global

export of these services at about 16

percent (IMF 2001).

The U.S. freight transportation

system has shaped and been shaped by

the increase in and changing demands

of international trade. Major U.S. seaports have grown in importance,

reflecting, in part, the use of large container vessels to ship goods between

ports in Europe, the Pacific Rim, and

the United States. Increased containerization and other developments by the

nation’s freight railroads have contributed to the continued

expansion in intermodal transportation. Growth in international

air freight has contributed to the emergence of U.S. cargo airports

as global leaders in this industry. Expanded trade between the

United States and its top two trading partners, Canada and

Mexico, has increased the importance of north-south surface

freight corridors relative to the traditional east-west movement

of international trade.

This expansion in trade has been accompanied by changes

in how freight moves. It has raised concerns about potential

capacity bottlenecks at major freight gateways, for example,

landside access to and from seaports and traffic congestion that

can cause delays and impact the cost-effective delivery of goods.

Since many of the nation’s major ports are located primarily in

metropolitan areas, delays and congestion sometimes occur as

port-related truck and rail traffic flow into local passenger

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 7 <

To compare trends in economic activity, current or

nominal values of currencies must be deflated or

adjusted for inflation. This is important because a fundamental issue in comparing GDP and economic data over

time is determining how much of any increase is real

and how much reflects price inflation. This report uses

inflation-adjusted figures whenever official statistics are

available. Where inflation-adjusted data are unavailable,

as is the case with official overall merchandise trade

data prior to 1987 and all trade data by country, mode

of transportation, and specific commodity detail, the

report uses current dollar figures without controlling

for inflation.

For GDP and overall U.S. merchandise imports and

exports, inflation-adjusted chained 1996 dollars are presented, as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The technique used to derive chained dollars adjusts for

inflation and captures the effect of relative changes in

prices and the composition of economic output better

than nominal or current value.

While adjusting for inflation is important to reflect

the correct size of any change in the value of trade,

other factors such as foreign currency exchange rates,

business cycles, balance of payments, stock market

news, and policies of central banks affect the prices of

goods and services traded internationally. Due to the

complexity of the factors that influence international

trade, it is difficult to control for trading partners’ inflation rates as well as currency exchange fluctuations.

Box 1

Current and Inflation-Adjusted

Economic Data
traffic. Furthermore, the effects of trade-related transportation

on the quality of life in communities near or adjacent to major

gateways and corridors are a concern. After September 11,

security issues have come to the forefront and heightened cargohandling procedures are being implemented at all of the nation’s

ports of entry, but their long-term implications for throughput

are not yet known.

> 8 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends
OVERALL TRENDS IN U.S.

INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISE TRADE 

The United States is the world’s largest merchandise-trading

nation,5 accounting for 12 percent of world merchandise

exports and about 19 percent of world merchandise imports in

20006 (table 1). From 1990 to 2001, the value of U.S. international merchandise trade more than doubled (in inflationadjusted dollars), from $891 billion to over $2 trillion (table 2,

p. 10). During this period, the value of U.S. merchandise trade

grew at an average annual rate of 8 percent, while growth in U.S.

real gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 3 percent per year. 

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 9 <

5 This report primarily analyzes trends in U.S. international merchandise trade in terms of value,

because aggregate trade data for both exports and imports by weight are not available for all

modes of transportation. It is possible, when prices change significantly, for the value of trade to

change at a rate different from the quantity or volume of trade. Where possible, this report uses

reported data or estimates of aggregate weight by mode of transportation to show changes in

trade volumes.

6 The United States is also the largest services trading nation, accounting for about 20 percent of

total private service exports (WTO 2001).

Table 1

Top 10 Leading Exporters and Importers in World Merchandise Trade: 2000

(Billions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank in Rank in

2000 Exporters Value Percent 2000 Importers Value Percent

1 United States 781 12.3 1 United States 1,258 18.9 

2 Germany 552 8.7 2 Germany 503 7.5 

3 Japan 479 7.5 3 Japan 380 5.7 

4 France 298 4.7 4 United Kingdom 337 5.1 

5 United Kingdom 284 4.5 5 France 305 4.6 

6 Canada 277 4.3 6 Canada 245 3.7 

7 China 249 3.9 7 Italy 236 3.5 

8 Italy 238 3.7 8 China 225 3.4 

9 Netherlands 213 3.3 9 Hong Kong 214 3.2 

10 Hong Kong 202 3.2 10 Netherlands 198 3.0 

Total, top Total, top 

10 countries 3,573 56.1 10 countries 3,901 58.5 

Total, Total,

all countries1 6,364 100.0 all countries1 6,669 100.0 

1 Includes significant re-exports or imports for re-export.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from the World Trade Organization, "Table

1.5: Leading Exporters and Importers in World Merchandise Trade, 2000," International Trade Statistics 2001, available at http://www.wto.

org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2001_e/section1/i05.xls, as of June 11, 2002.
U.S. merchandise exports accounted for 38 percent of

traded goods in 2001, compared with 44 percent in 1990.

Imports grew to 62 percent of traded goods in 2001. The

different growth rates for imports and exports resulted in a

sharp rise in the U.S. merchandise trade deficit (figure 1). In just

over a decade, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit more than

quadrupled from $105 billion to $490 billion (in inflationadjusted dollars). Despite this large increase, the deficit rose at a

slower rate in 2001 when compared with 2000, as both exports

and imports fell (table 2). Throughout most of the 1990s, strong

growth of the U.S. economy spurred the rise in imports and

increased the merchandise trade deficit. Rising household wealth

and income in the United States and strong consumer demand

> 10 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 2

U.S. International Merchandise Trade and Gross Domestic Product: 1990–2001

(Billions of chained 1996 dollars)

Export share Import share 

Total Balance of total of total

Real merchandise (exports– merchandise merchandise

Year GDP1 trade Exports Imports imports) trade (percent) trade (percent)

1990 6,708 891 393 498 –105 44.1 55.9 

1991 6,676 919 421 498 –77 45.8 54.2 

1992 6,880 994 450 544 –94 45.3 54.7 

1993 7,063 1,062 463 598 –135 43.6 56.4 

1994 7,348 1,186 508 678 –170 42.8 57.2 

1995 7,544 1,308 569 739 –170 43.5 56.5 

1996 7,813 1,427 618 808 –190 43.3 56.7 

1997 8,160 1,631 708 923 –215 43.4 56.6 

1998 8,509 1,754 723 1,031 –309 41.2 58.8 

1999 8,857 1,911 751 1,159 –408 39.3 60.7 

2000 9,224 2,152 836 1,316 –480 38.9 61.1 

2001 9,334 2,068 789 1,279 –490 38.2 61.8 

Percentage 

change,

1990–2001 39.1 132.0 100.6 156.8

Annual growth 

rate (percent) 3.0 8.0 6.5 9.0

1 To compare economic changes over time, current or nominal values of currencies must be deflated or adjusted for inflation. In the

United States, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 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. Chained 1996 dollars are the most currently available indices from BEA for adjusting for inflation.

KEY: GDP = gross domestic product.

NOTE: Data reflect revisions through February 2002 and are based on the National Income and Products Accounts (NIPA) basis. The NIPA

basis reflects adjustments for statistical differences and coverage to the Balance of Payments basis.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Accounts, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of Aug. 1,

2002.
are some of the key factors that continue to contribute to the

increase in merchandise imports. Growth in trade, whether

imports or exports, results in higher levels of international

freight movement and the demand for expanded freight transportation services.

In 2001, the value of total U.S. international merchandise

trade declined nearly 4 percent from the record $2.2 trillion

reached in 2000 (in inflation-adjusted terms), the largest annual

decrease since 19907 (figure 2). In 2000, both trade and GDP

grew at high positive rates. The decline in 2001 was due, in

part, to the weakness of global economic activity and the effect

of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Exports were particularly

affected, falling by 6 percent in 2001, while imports fell 3

percent.8 Between 1990 and 2001, merchandise trade saw

greater year-to-year fluctuations than U.S. GDP due to its

dependence on global economic activity.

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 11 <

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2001

–500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Billions of chained 1996 $

Total

Imports

Exports

Trade balance

Figure 1

Value of U.S. International Merchandise 

Trade: 1990–2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from the

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Accounts,

available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of March 2002.

7 Data on inflation-adjusted exports and imports of goods are only available from 1987 and the

4 percent annual decrease is the largest recorded decline since then. The only other decline was

a less than 1 percent decline in imports in 1991 that followed the U.S. economic recession in

that year but was offset by a 7 percent growth in U.S. merchandise exports.

8 Export of transportation services also declined during 2001. See section on U.S. services trade.
IMPORTANCE OF MERCHANDISE TRADE

TO THE U.S. ECONOMY

Despite the 2001 decline in trade, the relative importance of

international merchandise trade to the overall U.S. economy has

increased during the past three decades. Not only did the growth

rate in trade continue to exceed the growth rate in the overall

U.S. economy (figure 3), but the ratio of international goods

trade in comparison to GDP also rose. By 2001, U.S. international merchandise trade (both exports and imports) was more

than 20 times greater than in 1970, while total U.S. economic

> 12 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 –4

–2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Real GDP Total merchandise trade

Average GDP 

growth rate 

(3.0)

Average trade 

growth rate 

(8.0)

Percentage change 

from previous year

NOTE: Real gross domestic product (GDP) and total merchandise trade are in chained 1996 inflationadjusted dollars.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Accounts, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of March 2002.

Figure 2

U.S. International Merchandise Trade and Real GDP: 1990–2001
output was about 10 times greater (in current dollars).9 The

ratio of the value of U.S. merchandise trade to GDP reached 22

percent in 2001, a sizeable jump from 13 percent in 1990 (both

in inflation-adjusted terms). 

Although it is instructive to compare the ratio of

international merchandise trade to overall GDP, this ratio

understates the importance of international goods trade because

overall GDP is derived from both goods and services. The ratio

of merchandise trade to goods GDP is, therefore, more comparable than the ratio to overall GDP. Compared with three

decades ago, international merchandise trade today has risen in

relation to goods GDP (the proportion of GDP produced by the

goods sectors). Of the primary GDP sectors, only agriculture,

mining, and manufacturing are significant producers of goods

that are traded internationally (figure 4). The construction sector

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 13 <

9 A similar comparison in inflation-adjusted terms is possible only for 1987 to 2001, because

data on total merchandise trade, adjusted for inflation in chained dollars, are unavailable prior

to 1987. For the comparable data in real terms, see Statistical Appendix table C-3, p. 117.

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

 Index of current $

1970 = 100

Merchandise trade

Gross domestic product

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

 Index of chained 1996 $

1987 = 100

Real merchandise trade

Real gross domestic product

Figure 3

U.S. International Merchandise Trade and Gross Domestic Product: 1970–2001

NOTE: This figure shows current dollars because data on total

merchandise trade that are adjusted for inflation in chained

dollars are only available starting from 1987.

NOTE: 1987 is the earliest year for which the U.S. Department of

Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis reports total merchandise trade figures that are adjusted for inflation in chained 1996

dollars.

SOURCE: U.S. Departmnet of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Account (NIPA), available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of

August 2002.
produces goods (e.g., highways, bridges, and buildings) that are

not traded internationally and are excluded from merchandise

trade statistics. 

The ratio of goods exports to goods GDP was 43 percent

in 2000, up from 15 percent in 1970.10 This suggests a rapid

surge in merchandise exports compared to domestic goods production, a surge also evident in inflation-adjusted data available

from 1987 to 2000. By contrast, a relatively modest change is

seen when comparing goods exports to overall GDP (figure 5).

Examining trends in the major commodities also confirms the

increasing importance of exports to the goods-producing sectors

of the U.S. economy. 

With international trade growing so rapidly, planning and

deployment of multimodal freight transportation systems and

services to effectively move the resulting cargo have become key

areas to address. The development and maintenance of intermodal connectors is a particularly critical consideration, since

such connections are often the weakest links in the nation’s

multimodal transportation networks (USDOT MARAD 2002b,

p. 3-5; USDOT FHWA 2000, p. 33).11

> 14 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Goods producing sectors

Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries

Mining

Manufacturing

Construction (nontradable goods)

} Goods

Tradable merchandise

Nongoods producing sectors

Transportation and public utilities

Wholesale and retail trade

Finance, insurance, and real estate

Other services

Government Tradable services

Services }

Figure 4

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Sector

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, Office of Transportation Analysis, May 2002.

10 Export figures represent the value of the traded commodity. In contrast, goods GDP figures

for agriculture, mining, and manufacturing represent the value-added by production of goods of

these sectors to the U.S. economy. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that over 40 percent

of U.S. merchandise production was exported in 2001 (Bordo et al. 1999). 

11 Intermodal connectors are often local, county, or city streets and remain one of the key areas

where improvements are needed in the intermodal transportation system (USDOT MARAD

2002b, p. 3–5; USDOT FHWA 2000, p. 33).
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 15 <

1970 1980 1990 2000

0

10

20

30

40

Percent (in current $)

Ratio of goods exports to goods GDP

Ratio of goods exports to overall GDP

1987 1991 1995 2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent (in chained 1996 $)

Ratio of goods exports

to goods GDP

Ratio of goods exports to overall GDP

50

Figure 5

Merchandise Export Trade and Goods Production 

in the U.S. Economy: 1970–2000

NOTE: Goods production refers to the agriculture, mining, and manufacturing sectors based on the 1987

Standard Industrial Classification.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from U.S.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Accounts (NIPA)

basis, revisions through August 2001, available at http:// www.bea.doc. gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of August

2002.

SHIFTS IN MAJOR TRADING PARTNERS

The overwhelming majority of U.S. merchandise trade is with

relatively few countries, although the United States trades

with nearly 200 countries worldwide.12 In 2001, over threequarters (77 percent) of the value of U.S. merchandise trade was

with 15 countries (table 3). Of these, just five countries—Canada,

Mexico, Japan, China, and Germany—accounted for over half

(54 percent) of the value of U.S. international trade in goods.

Nearly one-third of U.S. merchandise trade was with Canada

and Mexico, the U.S.-NAFTA trade partners. Canada, the top

U.S. trading partner for decades, remained the leading country

and accounted for over one-fifth ($381 billion) of U.S. merchandise trade in 2001. The relatively high concentration of U.S.

trade with a few major trading partners, and the geographic

spread of the remaining trade among the other countries, influences the modes of transportation used in moving international

freight to and from the United States. The proximity of Canada

and Mexico to the United States allows surface modes (trucks,

rail, and pipeline) to be the primary modes of transportation for

NAFTA trade. For all the other U.S. trading partners, maritime

vessels and air transportation are, by necessity, the modes used. 

The 2001 decline in trade levels affected U.S. trade partners

differently. Trade with a number of the top 25 trading partners

declined sharply in 2001 compared with 2000 (table 4). Among

the top 10 trading partners, trade with Taiwan declined the

most (21 percent), followed by South Korea (16 percent) and

Japan (13 percent). Trade with the Asian countries was hit the

hardest, in part because of sluggish demand in those countries

and the global decline in the information technology industry.13

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 17 <

12 This discussion of trade with the major trading partners uses current dollar figures because

detailed official trade data by country, commodity, and mode of transportation are unavailable

in inflation-adjusted real dollars. While adjusting for inflation is important to reflect the correct

size of changes in the value of trade, other factors, e.g., foreign currency exchange rates, business cycles, balance of payments, stock market news, and central bank policies, affect the prices

of goods and services traded internationally. Due to the complexity of the factors that influence

international trade, it is difficult to control for trading partners’ inflation rates as well as currency exchange fluctuations.

13 One area of the U.S. economy that was hit particularly hard by the economic downturn in

2001 was the information technology (IT) sector. As private sector demand for IT products

sagged, U.S. international trade in these commodities fell by 16 percent from $145 billion in

2000 to $122 billion in 2001. This slump in IT-related goods accounted for about one-fifth of

the 2001 U.S. trade decline. Among the top countries for IT-related trade with the United

States, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea were especially hard hit in 2001 in this area.

See appendix table C-22 (p. 140) for the source data.
> 18 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 3

Top 25 U.S. International Merchandise Trade Partners by Value: 2001

(Millions of current U.S. dollars)

Value of total Value of total Value of Value of

U.S. trade maritime total air total surface

Rank Country (all modes) trade trade trade

1 Canada 380,693 9,180 24,999 346,515

2 Mexico 232,942 20,148 11,997 200,797

3 Japan 184,241 115,204 63,667 5,371

4 China 121,515 96,277 20,173 5,065

5 Germany 89,265 42,067 35,733 11,465

6 United Kingdom 82,195 26,214 45,980 10,001

7 South Korea 57,381 30,819 23,805 2,757

8 Taiwan 51,543 25,160 24,165 2,218

9 France 50,191 12,974 27,744 9,473

10 Italy 33,740 15,940 15,131 2,669

11 Singapore 32,671 7,043 21,766 3,862

12 Malaysia 31,717 10,361 20,217 1,139

13 Brazil 30,391 17,157 10,061 3,173

14 Netherlands 29,025 12,507 14,339 2,179

15 Ireland 25,689 2,337 21,978 1,374

16 Hong Kong1 23,722 11,153 11,477 1,092

17 Belgium 23,653 11,593 9,834 2,226

18 Venezuela 20,920 19,413 1,331 177

19 Thailand 20,724 12,631 7,150 942

20 Israel 19,453 3,836 14,267 1,350

21 Switzerland 19,409 3,055 14,956 1,398

22 Saudi Arabia 19,304 16,865 1,116 1,323

23 Philippines 18,995 6,511 11,976 508

24 Australia 17,424 10,466 5,797 1,161

25 India 13,502 7,007 5,867 628

All other trading 

partners 242,680 172,532 53,075 17,073

Top 25 countries 1,630,305 545,916 465,527 618,863

Top 25, % of total 87.0 76.0 89.8 97.3

Total, all 

countries 1,872,985 718,448 518,602 635,935

North America 613,635 29,328 36,996 547,312

% of total 32.8 4.1 7.1 86.1

Overseas 1,259,350 689,120 481,606 88,624

% of total 67.2 95.9 92.9 

1 Hong Kong has officially been a part of China since 1997. However, the United States continues to

publish merchandise trade statistics separately for Hong Kong.

NOTE: Surface includes truck, rail, pipeline, and other miscellaneous modes.

SOURCES: Compiled by U.S. Department of Transporation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based

on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Exports

of Merchandise CD and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2001.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 19 <

Table 4

Top 25 U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

Partners by Value: 2001 vs. 2000

(Millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank in Percentage

2001 Country 2000 2001 change

1 Canada 405,639 380,693 –6.1

2 Mexico 247,631 232,942 –5.9

3 Japan 211,831 184,241 –13.0

4 China 116,316 121,515 4.5

5 Germany 87,981 89,265 1.5

6 United Kingdom 85,038 82,195 –3.3

7 South Korea 68,202 57,381 –15.9

8 Taiwan 64,894 51,543 –20.6

9 France 50,035 50,191 0.3

10 Italy 37,003 33,740 –8.8

11 Singapore 36,564 32,671 –10.6

12 Malaysia 36,050 31,717 –12.0

13 Brazil 31,677 30,391 –4.1

14 Netherlands 29,215 29,025 –0.6

15 Ireland 26,077 25,689 –1.5

16 Hong Kong1 24,201 23,722 –2.0

17 Belgium 24,136 23,653 –2.0

18 Venezuela 23,891 20,920 –12.4

19 Thailand 23,032 20,724 –10.0

20 Israel 22,727 19,453 –14.4

21 Switzerland 20,725 19,409 –6.3

22 Saudi Arabia 20,449 19,304 –5.6

23 Philippines 20,116 18,995 –5.6

24 Australia 18,898 17,424 –7.8

25 India 14,349 13,502 –5.9

All other 

trading partners 250,628 242,680 –3.2

Top 25 countries 1,746,678 1,630,305 –6.7

Top 25,

% of total 87.5 87.0 

Total, all 

countries 1,997,306 1,872,985 –6.2

North America 653,270 613,635 –6.1

% of total 32.7 32.8 

Overseas 1,344,036 1,259,350 –6.3

% of total 67.3 67.2 

1 Hong Kong has officially been a part of China since 1997. However, the United

States continues to publish merchandise trade statistics separately for Hong

Kong.

SOURCES: Compiled by U.S. Department of Transporation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, March 2002; based on U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.

Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Exports of Merchandise CD and U.S.

Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2000 and 2001.
U.S. trade relationships have changed over the past three

decades (table 5). By far the most pronounced changes have

been the rising importance of Mexico and China. In 1970,

Mexico was the fifth ranked U.S. trading partner with about $3

billion in merchandise trade with the United States. By 2001,

Mexico had moved past Japan and was the second leading trading partner with about $233 billion trade. China, the 24th

largest U.S. trading partner in 1980,14 rose to the 10th position

in 1990, and in 2001 was the 4th ranked trading partner with

over $121 billion in merchandise trade. If the current growth

rate of U.S.-China trade continues, China may overtake Japan

in the very near future. These striking shifts in the geography of

U.S. trade relationships clearly underscore the growth of North

American trade and the associated land trade routes, as well as

the growth in Pacific Rim trade and the greater role of U.S.

West Coast maritime ports.

Since 1970, as trade with Mexico and China mushroomed,

trade with major European partners grew more slowly, thereby

changing the relative importance of trans-Atlantic trade. During

this period, U.S. trade with several other Pacific Rim nations

also grew rapidly. In particular, trade with South Korea,Taiwan,

Singapore, and Malaysia grew quickly as these nations became

centers for global manufacturing. Most notably in 1970, Japan

was the only Asian country among the top 10 U.S. trading partners. Today, 4 of our top 10 trading partners are from Asia—

Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan (table 6, p. 22).

These shifts in the major U.S. trading partners affect the

global pattern of U.S. merchandise trade and the transportation

of these goods. Contemporary patterns of goods production and

trade—in which manufacturing and assembly operations are

often located in different countries—depend on extensive and

reliable transportation and logistics networks worldwide. For

example, the automobile industry brings together a large number of different components manufactured in various locations

in several countries. As global automakers rely on factories in

many parts of the world to make cars, the demand for transportation services will grow. General Motors builds automobiles

in Thailand for markets in Japan and Europe; DaimlerChrysler

> 20 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

14 In 1970, China was not listed separately in the official trade statistics. It was listed as part of

the “Communist World.”
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 21 <

Table 5

Top 25 U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

Partners by Value: 1970–2001

(Millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Total trade,

1970 1980 1990 2001 Country 2001

1 1 1 1 Canada 380,693 

5 3 3 2 Mexico 232,942 

2 2 2 3 Japan 184,241 

24 10 4 China1 121,515 

3 4 4 5 Germany2 89,265 

4 5 5 6 United Kingdom 82,195 

17 13 7 7 South Korea 57,381 

15 9 6 8 Taiwan 51,543 

7 7 8 9 France 50,191 

6 11 9 10 Italy 33,740 

38 23 12 11 Singapore 32,671 

36 26 20 12 Malaysia 31,717 

12 16 17 13 Brazil 30,391 

8 14 11 14 Netherlands 29,025 

45 47 30 15 Ireland 25,689 

13 17 13 16 Hong Kong3 23,722 

9 15 14 17 Belgium4 23,653 

10 10 18 18 Venezuela 20,920 

44 38 23 19 Thailand 20,724 

22 33 25 20 Israel 19,453 

14 21 19 21 Switzerland 19,409 

56 6 15 22 Saudi Arabia 19,304 

21 27 26 23 Philippines 18,995 

11 20 16 24 Australia 17,424 

19 35 27 25 India 13,502 

All other 

trading partners 242,680 

Top 25 countries 1,630,305 

Top 25, % of total 87.0 

Total, all 

countries 1,872,985 

1 In 1970, China was not listed separately in official U.S. trade statistics. It was listed as part

of the "Communist World."

2 For 1970, 1980, and 1990, Germany includes both West Germany and East Germany.

3 Hong Kong has officially been a part of China since 1997. However, the United States continues to publish merchandise trade statistics separately for Hong Kong.

4 Merchandise trade figures for Belgium include Luxembourg for 1970, 1980, and 1990 but

not 2001.

SOURCES: Compiled by U.S. Department of Transporation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,

March 2002.

2001 data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S.

Exports of Merchandise CD and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2001.

1970, 1980, 1990 data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical

Abstract of the United States (Washington, DC: 1982, 1985, and 1991).
> 22 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 6

Top 25 U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

Partners by Value: 1970 and 2001

(Millions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank in Total trade by Rank in Total trade by 

1970 Country all modes 2001 Country all modes 

1 Canada 20,171 1 Canada 380,693

2 Japan 10,527 2 Mexico 232,942

3 Germany1 5,910 3 Japan 184,241

4 United Kingdom 4,730 4 China 121,515

5 Mexico 2,923 5 Germany 89,265

6 Italy 2,669 6 United Kingdom 82,195

7 France 2,425 7 South Korea 57,381

8 Netherlands 2,179 8 Taiwan 51,543

9 Belgium and Luxembourg 1,891 9 France 50,191

10 Venezuela 1,841 10 Italy 33,740

11 Australia 1,597 11 Singapore 32,671

12 Brazil 1,510 12 Malaysia 31,717

13 Hong Kong 1,350 13 Brazil 30,391

14 Switzerland 1,159 14 Netherlands 29,025

15 Taiwan 1,076 15 Ireland 25,689

16 Spain 1,075 16 Hong Kong2 23,722

17 South Korea 1,013 17 Belgium3 23,653

18 Sweden 942 18 Venezuela 20,920

19 India 870 19 Thailand 20,724

20 South Africa 853 20 Israel 19,453

21 Phillipines 845 21 Switzerland 19,409

22 Israel 742 22 Saudi Arabia 19,304

23 Colombia 664 23 Philippines 18,995

24 Argentina 613 24 Australia 17,424

25 Peru 555 25 India 13,502

All other trading All other trading

partners 13,046 partners 242,680 

Top 25 countries 70,130 Top 25 countries 1,630,305 

Top 25, % of total 84.3 Top 25, % of total 87.0 

Total, Total,

all countries 83,176 all countries 1,872,985

North America 23,094 North America 613,635

% of total 27.8 % of total 32.8 

Overseas 60,082 Overseas 1,259,350

% of total 72.2 % of total 67.2 

1 Includes $5,868 million for the Federal Republic of Germany (formerly West Germany) and $42 million for the Democratic Republic of Germany (formerly East Germany).

2 Hong Kong has officially been a part of China since 1997. However, the United States continues to publish merchandise trade statistics separately for Hong Kong.

3 Merchandise trade figures for Belgium include Luxembourg for 1970, 1980, and 1990 but not 2001.

SOURCES: Compiled by U.S. Department of Transporation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, March 2002.

2001 data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Exports of Merchandise CD

and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD, 2001.

1970 data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, DC:

1982 and 1983).
and Volkswagen build vehicles in South African plants for European markets; and BMW manufactures vehicles in South Africa

for the United States market (Wall Street Journal 2002). Also,

when foreign companies produce vehicles (e.g., Volkswagen,

Toyota, BMW, and Honda) in the United States for North American markets, demand is generated for freight and port services

as components and parts are transported to the United States

from multiple locations worldwide and the finished products are

sold throughout North America.

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 23 <

MODAL TRENDS IN U.S.

MERCHANDISE TRADE

Alarge amount of freight carried over the U.S. transportation

network is imported or bound for export. In 2001, over 1.6

billion short tons of international merchandise moved to and

from the United States, a 5 percent increase from 1997.15

Imports accounted for about 71 percent of this tonnage in 2001,

up from about 65 percent in 1997. The relative roles of transportation modes in carrying this large amount of freight vary by

value and weight16 (table 7). 

Water transportation carries more trade, both in terms of

tonnage and value, than any other mode (figure 6). Its share of

the weight of U.S. trade rose from 73 percent in 1997 to 78 percent in 2001, but its share of the value declined slightly from 40

percent to 38 percent. Water is less dominant in terms of value

because higher value-per-ton commodities are often moved by

air and truck, especially in U.S.-NAFTA trade. While air transportation accounted for nearly 28 percent of the value of total

U.S. trade in 2001, its share of the tonnage remained less than 1

percent. Trucks moved 21 percent of the value and 11 percent

of the weight. 

In terms of value, a far higher share of imports enter the

United States by water transportation than are exported by

ship—46 percent compared with 27 percent. By contrast, truck

and air moved a larger share of the value of exports than

imports. Trucks moved 26 percent of the value of exports and 18

percent of imports (table 7). In terms of weight, water accounted

for 79 percent of U.S. imports and 75 percent of U.S. exports.

Despite the decline in overall freight movements in 2001

compared with 2000 (see appendix table C-6, p. 121), the relative modal shares do not show a dramatic change. However,

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 25 <

15 During the same period, however, the value of merchandise trade grew by 20 percent (current

dollars). Due to the way official U.S. trade statistics have been collected and processed by U.S.

Customs and the U.S. Census Bureau, it is not possible to report an overall weight for all U.S.

international merchandise trade for all modes prior to 1997. To calculate the total tonnage for

all imports and exports, BTS estimated the U.S. export weight for truck, rail, pipeline, and

other and unknown modes based on value-to-weight ratios from the import data. These estimates were added to official export weight data for water and air and then combined with official import weight data for all modes.

16 Due to the way in which U.S. trade data are collected, the modal shares represent single

modes in use at U.S. ports of entry or exit even though more than one mode may be used in

transporting the goods from point of origin to destination.
> 26 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 7

Value and Weight of U.S. International Merchandise 

Trade by Mode of Transportation: 1997 and 2001

Total trade Exports Imports

Mode 1997 2001 1997 2001 1997 2001

VALUE Billions of current U.S. dollars

Water 626 718 225 199 401 520 

Air 433 519 220 251 213 267 

Truck 323 395 167 192 157 204 

Rail 70 93 19 23 51 69 

Pipeline 14 26 0.2 0.5 14 26 

Other, unknown, and miscellaneous 92 121 57 65 35 57 

Total, all modes 1,557 1,873 688 731 870 1,142 

Modal shares in percent

Water 40.2 38.4 32.7 27.2 46.1 45.5 

Air 27.8 27.7 32.0 34.4 24.5 23.4 

Truck 20.8 21.1 24.3 26.3 18.0 17.8 

Rail 4.5 4.9 2.7 3.2 5.9 6.1 

Pipeline 0.9 1.4 0.04 0.1 1.6 2.3 

Other, unknown, and miscellaneous 5.9 6.5 8.3 8.9 4.0 5.0 

Total, all modes 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

WEIGHT Millions of short tons1

Water 1,144 1,276 408 361 736 915 

Air 6 6 3 3 3 3 

Truck 176 180 92 89 85 92 

Rail 84 97 22 22 62 75 

Pipeline 75 79 3 4 72 75 

Other, unknown, and miscellaneous 76 4 27 2 49 2 

Total, all modes 1,561 1,643 554 481 1,007 1,162 

Modal shares in percent

Water 73.3 77.7 73.5 75.1 73.1 78.7 

Air 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 

Truck 11.3 11.0 16.6 18.5 8.4 7.9 

Rail 5.4 5.9 4.0 4.6 6.2 6.5 

Pipeline 4.8 4.8 0.5 0.8 7.2 6.5 

Other, unknown, and miscellaneous 4.9 0.2 4.9 0.4 4.8 0.2 

Total, all modes 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1 BTS estimated the export weight for truck, rail, pipeline, and other and unknown based on value-to-weight ratios from the

import data. This was necessary because export weights for surface modes are not currently reported. Weight for water and

air exports and imports is reported.

NOTES: Excludes imports valued at less than $1,250. Import value is based on U.S. general imports, customs value basis.

Excludes exports valued at less than $2,500. Export value is FAS (free alongside ship) and represents the value of exports at

the port of export, including the transaction price and inland freight, insurance, and other charges. Due to the way in which

U.S. trade data are collected, the modal shares represent single modes in use at U.S. ports of entry or exit even though more

than one mode may be used in transporting the goods from origin to destination.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, May 2002; based on: total, water, and air

data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Exports of Merchandise CD and U.S.

Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2001; truck, rail, pipeline, and other and unknown data—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, 1997 and 2001; and special tabulations.
air’s share of the total value declined noticeably from 30 percent

to 28 percent, in part, due to the closure of U.S. airspace for

several days following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Trucking maintained its share, while rail rose very slightly.

Water’s share rose slightly by value but remained stable by

weight (table 8). 

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME TRADE AND TRANSPORTATION

In 2001, merchandise trade valued at over $718 billion moved

between the United States and foreign seaports. Trade with

Canada and Mexico accounted for only 4 percent of the value

of this maritime trade, while trade with overseas countries17

represented the remaining 96 percent. In 2001, Japan was the

top U.S. maritime trading partner by value, followed by China

and Germany (table 9, p. 29). Like overall U.S. trade, maritime

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 27 <

17 Overseas countries are all countries except Canada and Mexico.

Water Air Truck Rail Pipeline Other and 

 unknown

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Value Weight

90

0.4 0.2

Percent

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, May 2002, based on: total, water, and air data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S.

Exports of Merchandise CD and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2001; truck, rail, pipeline, and other and unknown data—U.S.

Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,

Transborder Surface Freight Data, 2001; and special tabulations.

Figure 6

Modal Shares of U.S. International Merchandise 

Trade by Value and Weight: 2001 
trade is concentrated among a few large trading partners, with

the top five maritime partners accounting for 43 percent of the

value of this trade in 2001.

Over 1.6 billion tons of goods were traded between the

United States and other countries in 2001, and maritime transportation carried over three-quarters of the weight of these

goods. The top U.S. maritime trading partner by weight was

Mexico followed by Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. These three

countries were also among the leading crude oil suppliers to the

United States. Nigeria and the United Kingdom, which also

supply a large amount of crude oil to the United States, are

> 28 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 8

Modal Shares of U.S. International Merchandise 

Trade by Value and Weight: 2000 and 2001

(In percent)

Value Weight 

Mode 2000 2001 2000 2001

Total trade

Water 37.0 38.4 77.3 77.7

Air 29.7 27.7 0.4 0.4

Truck 21.5 21.1 11.5 11.0

Rail 4.7 4.9 5.7 5.9

Pipeline 1.2 1.4 4.9 4.8

Other and unknown 5.9 6.5 0.1 0.2

Total, all modes 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Imports to the United States

Water 44.4 45.5 78.1 78.7

Air 25.4 23.4 0.4 0.3

Truck 17.8 17.8 8.3 7.9

Rail 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.5

Pipeline 1.9 2.3 6.7 6.5

Other and unknown 4.7 5.0 0.1 0.2

Total, all modes 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Exports from the United States

Water 25.5 27.2 75.5 75.1

Air 36.4 34.4 0.6 0.6

Truck 27.2 26.3 18.8 18.5

Rail 3.0 3.2 4.1 4.6

Pipeline 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.8

Other and unknown 7.8 8.9 0.2 0.4

Total, all modes 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, May

2002; based on: total, water, and air data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census

Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Exports of Merchandise CD and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2000 and 2001; truck, rail, pipeline, and other and unknown

data—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, 2000 and 2001; and special tabulations.
among the top maritime partners by tonnage. The top five

maritime trade partners by weight accounted for more than

one-third of the tonnage of U.S. maritime trade.

The type of goods transported in U.S. maritime imports

and exports varies greatly, affecting the kinds of vessels and the

seaports used. The physical characteristics, value, and weight of

commodities are some of the factors that determine the use of

container, tanker, or bulk vessels. Among the top U.S. maritime

trading partners, the value per ton of merchandise ranged from

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 29 <

Table 9

Top 25 U.S. Maritime Trade Partners by Value and Weight: 2001

Ranked Million Ranked Million

by value Country dollars Percent by weight Country short tons Percent 

1 Japan 115,204 16.0 1 Mexico 122 9.5 

2 China 96,277 13.4 2 Venezuela 118 9.3 

3 Germany 42,067 5.9 3 Saudi Arabia 95 7.4 

4 South Korea 30,819 4.3 4 Canada 92 7.2 

5 United Kingdom 26,214 3.6 5 Japan 69 5.4 

6 Taiwan 25,160 3.5 6 China 53 4.1 

7 Mexico 20,148 2.8 7 Nigeria 50 3.9 

8 Venezuela 19,413 2.7 8 Iraq 43 3.3 

9 Brazil 17,157 2.4 9 Brazil 37 2.9 

10 Saudi Arabia 16,865 2.3 10 Colombia 37 2.9 

11 Italy 15,940 2.2 11 United Kingdom 31 2.4 

12 France 12,974 1.8 12 South Korea 29 2.3 

13 Thailand 12,631 1.8 13 Norway 22 1.7 

14 Netherlands 12,507 1.7 14 Italy 21 1.6 

15 Belgium 11,593 1.6 15 Netherlands 20 1.6 

16 Hong Kong1 11,153 1.6 16 Taiwan 20 1.5 

17 Indonesia 10,658 1.5 17 Angola 19 1.5 

18 Australia 10,466 1.5 18 Algeria 18 1.4 

19 Malaysia 10,361 1.4 19 Trinidad and Tobago 18 1.4 

20 Canada 9,180 1.3 20 Spain 16 1.3 

21 Nigeria 9,036 1.3 21 Kuwait 15 1.2 

22 Dominican Republic 7,268 1.0 22 Germany 15 1.2 

23 Singapore 7,043 1.0 23 Belgium 14 1.1 

24 India 7,007 1.0 24 Indonesia 14 1.1 

25 Spain 6,890 1.0 25 Russia 13 1.0 

All other All other

trading partners 154,418 21.5 trading partners 276 21.7 

Total, top Total, top 

25 countries 564,030 78.5 25 countries 999 78.3 

Total, all countries 718,448 100.0 Total, all countries 1,276 100.0 

1 Hong Kong has officially been a part of China since 1997. However, the United States continues to publish merchandise trade statistics

separately for Hong Kong.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, May 2002; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Merchandise of Exports and Imports CD, December 2001.
a high of $2,800 for trade with Germany to a low of $100 for

trade with Canada. Clearly, most U.S.-Canada maritime trade

involves low value-per-ton commodities (e.g., petroleum, agricultural, and lumber products), while higher value-per-ton goods

(e.g., automobiles and automotive parts) move by surface

modes. By contrast, most U.S.-Germany maritime trade involves

higher value merchandise (e.g., automobiles) that moves by

container vessels. 

In 2001, the top U.S. seaport for international merchandise trade by weight was Houston, handling over 130 million

short tons of commodities, mostly petroleum, valued at $44

billion (table 10). The leading port by value was Los Angeles,

which handled 46 million short tons of commodities, primarily

manufactured goods, valued at $104 billion. The rankings of

the leading ports by value and weight are evidence of the

specialization among U.S. seaports, with the U.S. Pacific and

Atlantic coast ports heavily involved in container trade, while

the U.S. Gulf Coast ports are mainly involved in dry bulk and

tanker trade. Houston handled mostly bulk commodities (e.g.,

grain and coal) and petroleum products valued at an average of

about $340 per ton, while Los Angeles handled primarily containerized commodities valued at nearly $2,300 per ton. 

Growth and Shift in Container Trade

One of the most important trends in maritime trade worldwide

in recent decades has been the growth in containerization and

the resulting increase in longer distance shipments. Over 18 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs)18 of merchandise moved in

and out of U.S. container ports in 2001, up 36 percent from 13

million in 1995 (table 11, p. 32). U.S. container ports handled

an average of 50,000 TEUs a day in 2001. 

In 2001, there were 5.6 million maritime container entries

into the United States, down 6 percent from nearly 6 million in

200019 (figure 7, p. 33). While the number of vessel containers

entering the United States had been declining even in the months

> 30 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

18 A TEU is the standard unit for counting containers of various lengths and describing the

capacity of container vessels.

19 These numbers are for individual containers, not TEUs. Because containers come in different

lengths (e.g., 20 foot, 40 foot, 48 foot, and 53 foot), these figures differ from the TEU figures,

which convert the tonnage of goods moved in the containers into TEUs.
before September 11, when compared with the same months in

2000, there were 19 percent fewer such containers in September

2001 than in September 2000. The declines continued in October,

November, and December 2001 compared with the corresponding months in 2000.

Three of the top five container ports in the United States

are on the West Coast (table 11). Between 1995 and 2001, the

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach grew the most in terms of

container traffic, reflecting increased trade with Pacific Rim

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 31 <

Table 10

Top 25 U.S. International Maritime Ports by Value and Weight: 2001

(Preliminary data)

Ranked Million Ranked Million

by value Port dollars Percent by weight Port short tons Percent 

1 Los Angeles, CA 104,193 14.5 1 Houston,TX 130 10.2 

2 Long Beach, CA 94,699 13.2 2 New York, NY/NJ 79 6.2 

3 New York, NY/NJ 85,918 12.0 3 New Orleans, LA 72 5.6 

4 Houston,TX 44,489 6.2 4 Gramercy, LA 61 4.8 

5 Charleston, SC 33,411 4.7 5 Corpus Christie,TX 54 4.2 

6 Seattle,WA 28,595 4.0 6 Morgan City, LA 53 4.1 

7 Oakland, CA 24,985 3.5 7 Los Angeles, CA 46 3.6 

8 Norfolk,VA 24,864 3.5 8 Beaumont,TX 45 3.6 

9 Baltimore, MD 20,820 2.9 9 Long Beach, CA 44 3.5 

10 Tacoma,WA 18,650 2.6 10 Philadelphia, PA 41 3.2 

11 Savannah, GA 17,158 2.4 11 Lake Charles, LA 34 2.7 

12 New Orleans, LA 16,976 2.4 12 Mobile, AL 28 2.2 

13 Miami, FL 16,600 2.3 13 Baltimore, MD 26 2.0 

14 Jacksonville, FL 10,807 1.5 14 Port Arthur,TX 25 2.0 

15 Portland, OR 10,713 1.5 15 Norfolk,VA 25 1.9 

16 Port Everglades, FL 10,283 1.4 16 Baton Rouge, LA 25 1.9 

17 Philadelphia, PA 9,971 1.4 17 Christiansted,VI 24 1.9 

18 Morgan City, LA 7,830 1.1 18 Freeport,TX 24 1.9 

19 Corpus Christie,TX 7,679 1.1 19 Pascagoula, MS 22 1.7 

20 Beaumont,TX 7,669 1.1 20 Texas City,TX 21 1.6 

21 Gramercy, LA 7,070 1.0 21 Wilmington, DE 18 1.4 

22 Boston, MA 6,143 0.9 22 Charleston, SC 18 1.4 

23 Christiansted,VI 5,799 0.8 23 Savannah, GA 17 1.3 

24 Wilmington, DE 5,684 0.8 24 Oakland, CA 16 1.3 

25 Port Hueneme, CA 4,822 0.7 25 Seattle,WA 15 1.2 

All other ports 92,618 12.9 All other ports 314 24.6 

Total, top Total, top 

25 ports 625,830 87.0 25 ports 962 75.1 

Total, waterborne Total, waterborne

trade 718,448 100.0 trade 1,276 100.0 

NOTE: Data do not include in-transits, shipments transiting U.S. ports but not part of U.S. official merchandise trade.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on special tabulations from U.S. Department of

Transportation, Maritime Administration, May 2002; and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, May

2002.
countries. Los Angeles and Savannah, Georgia, showed the

largest average annual growth rate. High growth rates for

Savannah, Miami, and Houston reflect the strong activity in

U.S. container trade with Latin American countries. 

The first use of containers for commercial intermodal sealand movements was in the United States in 1956 (between

Newark, New Jersey, and Houston). Since then, containers have

greatly affected the movement of U.S. international trade, port

operations, and the distribution of ports’ share of total maritime trade.20 In the 1970s, the distribution of commodities

> 32 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 11

Top 10 U.S. Maritime Container Ports: 1995–2001

(Thousands of TEUs)

Average 

Average annual

number of Change, growth

TEUs per 1995–2001 rate

Port 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 day (2001) (%) (%)

Los Angeles, CA 1,849 1,873 2,085 2,293 2,552 3,228 3,425 9,384 85.2 10.8

Long Beach, CA 2,137 2,357 2,673 2,852 3,048 3,204 3,199 8,765 49.7 7.0

New York, NY/NJ 1,537 1,533 1,738 1,884 2,027 2,200 2,332 6,388 51.7 7.2

Charleston, SC 758 801 955 1,035 1,170 1,246 1,156 3,166 52.5 7.3

Oakland, CA 919 803 843 902 915 989 960 2,630 4.5 0.7

Norfolk,VA 647 681 770 793 829 850 885 2,424 36.7 5.4

Seattle,WA 993 939 953 976 962 960 824 2,257 –17.0 –3.1

Savannah, GA 445 456 529 558 624 720 813 2,226 82.6 10.6

Houston,TX 489 538 609 657 714 733 778 2,132 59.1 8.0

Miami, FL 497 505 624 602 618 684 717 1,964 44.2 6.3

All other ports 3,057 4,308 3,777 3,005 3,106 3,124 2,993 8,200 –2.1 –0.4

Total, top 

10 ports 10,271 10,486 11,779 12,552 13,458 14,814 15,088 41,337 46.9 6.6

Top 10, % 

of total 77.1 70.9 75.7 80.7 81.2 82.6 83.4 

Total,

all ports1 13,328 14,794 15,556 15,556 16,564 17,938 18,081 49,537 35.7 5.2

1 Includes all container ports in the 50 U.S. states and Puerto Rico.

NOTE: TEUs = 20-foot equivalent units. One 20-foot container equals 1 TEU, while 1 40-foot container equals 2 TEUs. The data in this table

include only loaded containers engaged in U.S. international maritime activity. Data include U.S. imports, exports, and transshipments.

Transshipments neither originate nor are destined for the United States but pass through it from one foreign country to another. For

example, an automobile component shipped from Japan and destined for Mexico, may pass through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long

Beach before being trucked to Mexico. Therefore, the trade levels will be greater than those reported in U.S. international trade statistics,

which exclude transshipments. The data also exclude military shipments.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, May 2002; based on Journal of Commerce, Port Import/Export

Reporting Service (PIERS), 2001 PIERS data.

20 Containers were first used for commercial intermodal ocean-land service by the McLean

Trucking Company (now Sea-Land Service Inc.). The use of standard containers among multiple modes was revolutionary. Prior to this, containers or strong large-size boxes were used for

truck and rail transportation within the United States and Europe (Muller 1999).
entering the United States started to

shift, with West Coast ports surpassing

East Coast ports, a trend that continues today and affects transportation

activity within the United States. U.S.-

Asian Pacific trade was modest in the

1970s, and East Coast ports handled

the majority of international maritime

trade. As trade with Asia grew, the

East Coast ports’ share of the value of

trade declined while West Coast ports’

share increased. Gulf of Mexico ports

experienced a modest increase in their

relative share as trade with Latin

America grew.

Over half of U.S. containerized

merchandise trade, measured in TEUs,

passes through West Coast ports (table

12). Nearly 56 percent of containerized imports and 43 percent of the

exports passed through these ports in

2001. California ports alone handled

48 percent of U.S. container imports

and 32 percent of the container

exports. As West Coast ports handled many more containers for

import than export, those ports had a larger share of the oceanborne containerized trade deficit, in terms of export-import

balance, than other regional ports. Hence, West Coast ports

serve more as import gateways into the United States than

export gateways to the rest of the world. 

In contrast, East Coast ports handled more exports than

imports. East Coast ports handled 37 percent of U.S. containerized imports and 41 percent of the exports in 2001. The port of

New York-New Jersey handled 14 percent of the nation’s container imports and 12 percent of the exports.

The critical role of maritime ports to U.S. international

trade was seen in the fall of 2002. Operations at West Coast

ports shut down due to a labor dispute between shipping lines/

port operators and dockworkers negatively affecting the flow of

maritime goods passing through these ports to the rest of the

United States (box 2, p. 35). 

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 33 <

 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Thousands of containers

2000

2001

2000 total = 5,974

2001 total = 5,582

Figure 7

Maritime Container Entries into the 

United States: 2000 and 2001

NOTE: The above figures do not solely represent TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) but rather containers of various capacities.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, special tabulation, April 2002; based on U.S. Department of

Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Mission Support Services, Office of

Field Operations, Operations Management Database CD, December

2001.
Port Concentration

The distribution of maritime trade among U.S. port regions

shows a greater concentration of traffic in a small number of

ports, primarily because of the growth in container traffic and

the demand for larger, faster, and more specialized vessels.

Today, “Post-Panamax” super-freighter vessels21 are longer

than 2 football fields, can carry up to 6,500 TEUs, and can

cruise at speeds over 25 knots. More of these larger vessels are

calling at ports in the United States and around the world. Some

of the next generation of mega ships under construction today

could carry over 8,500 TEUs (Muller 1999).

To handle these newer vessels, ports have had to invest in

larger cranes, berths, storage yards, improved information technology systems, and additional dredging. The large investments

needed to accommodate these vessels have resulted in fewer port

> 34 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

21 These vessels are too large to pass through the Panama Canal.

Table 12

U.S. Containerized Exports and Imports by Coastal Port Regions: 2001

Coastal port TEUs Metric tons

regions Total Exports Imports Balance Total Exports Imports Balance

United 

States 18,081,155 6,812,808 11,268,347 –4,455,540 144,253,668 63,528,996 80,724,672 –17,195,676

Pacific Coast 9,303,551 2,952,246 6,351,304 –3,399,058 68,382,357 28,933,746 39,448,611 –10,514,864

Atlantic Coast 7,329,706 3,152,859 4,176,847 –1,023,987 61,891,151 27,561,870 34,329,281 –6,767,410

Gulf Coast 1,447,794 707,694 740,100 –32,407 13,979,592 7,033,325 6,946,267 87,058

Great Lakes 104 8 96 –88 568 55 514 –459

Coastal port TEUs (percent) Metric tons (percent)

regions Total Exports Imports Total Exports Imports 

United 

States 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Pacific Coast 51 43 56 47 46 49 

Atlantic Coast 41 46 37 43 43 43 

Gulf Coast 8 10 7 10 11 9 

Great Lakes <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

NOTES: TEUs = 20-foot equivalent units. One 20-foot container equals 1 TEU while 1 40-foot container equals 2 TEUs. The data in this table

include only loaded containers engaged in U.S. international maritime activity, including U.S. imports, exports, and transshipments. Transshipments are shipments neither originating nor destined for the United States but passing through it from one foreign country to

another. For example, an automobile component shipped from Japan and destined for Mexico, may pass through the Ports of Los Angeles

and Long Beach before being trucked to Mexico. Therefore, the trade levels will be greater than those reported in U.S. international trade

statistics, which exclude transshipments. The data also exclude military shipments. Pacific Coast includes ports in Alaska and Hawaii. One

metric ton equals 1.1 short tons.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, May 2002; based on Journal of Commerce, Port Import/Export

Reporting Service (PIERS), 2001 PIERS data.
calls or even no port calls by mega ships at certain ports

(USDOT 1999). A change in the pattern of port calls could lead

to changes in freight flows in different geographic regions of the

United States. For example, traffic in and out of ports able to

handle the mega ships could grow, thereby increasing the demand

for landside infrastructure facilities in adjacent local areas.

Along the same lines, more coastwise traffic could arise in some

areas, possibly leading to an expanded maritime hub-and-spoke

network, where cargo unloaded at a larger port is separated and

sent to smaller U.S. ports aboard smaller vessels.

While large investment needs are associated with mega

ships, their increased use is thought to have improved the

economics of containerization and brought some cost savings to

the maritime industry. Larger ships make some of these gains

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 35 <

Box 2

West Coast Ports Shutdown

West Coast ports in Washington,

Oregon, and California shut down

operations for 10 days from September 29 to October 8, 2002, due to an

unresolved labor dispute between the

Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), a

group representing shipping lines

and port operators, and members of

the International Longshore and

Warehouse Union (ILWU). The ports

reopened for business on October 9,

2002, after President George W. Bush

invoked the Taft-Hartley Act and a

federal judge ordered the ports

reopened for an 80-day period.1 Working with a federal mediator, both sides

reached a final agreement on a sixyear contract on November 24, 2002.

Both sides then ratified a new six-year

contract in January 2003.

Before the shutdown, PMA and

ILWU had been without a contract

since July 1, 2002. At issue was the

desire of the shipping companies and

port operators to introduce new computer technologies designed to

streamline the loading and unloading

of goods at the ports and the effects

of these technologies on union jobs.

Since West Coast ports handle nearly

half the value of U.S. maritime merchandise trade (over $300 billion in

2001), the shutdown had national

economic implications for the United

States. These ports move about $6 billion worth of goods per week and a

sizeable proportion of the cargo passing through West Coast ports is destined for states east of the Mississippi

River.

The lockout affected several sectors

of the U.S. economy, particularly farms,

automakers, and retailers. During the

lockout, several tons of perishable agricultural products could not be transported and auto plants and retailers

that rely heavily on just-in-time deliveries struggled with depleted inventories.The effects of the lockout also

extended beyond the United States to

Asian-Pacific countries, the predominant shippers to West Coast ports.

1 The Taft-Hartley Act allows the President of

United States to seek an injunction to end a

lockout and require work to resume, when he

determines this to be in the national interest.

The injunction provides both sides of a labor

dispute time to resolve their differences and

pursue a permanent solution.
and labor costs savings possible, since above a given ship size,

the number of crew needed to operate a vessel does not necessarily change, thereby lowering the operating cost per ton

(Campbell 1993). Also, faster turnaround time in ports (now

generally less than one day, and hours in some cases) leaves

more time for moving cargo and increases the volume of cargo

moved in a year.

Port Calls and Vessel Capacity

As container activity has become increasingly concentrated, so

too have vessel port calls and capacity. In 2000, the top five

container ports handled over half of the containership calls to

U.S. ports and nearly two-thirds of the cargo capacity22 of the

calling vessels (table 13). Vessels calling at U.S. ports were also,

on average, larger than those calling worldwide. The average

size (per call) of container vessels calling at U.S. ports was

nearly 38,000 deadweight tons (dwt) in 2000, up about 6

percent since 1998 (USDOT MARAD 2002a). In contrast, the

average size of container vessels calling at ports worldwide was

just 30,000 dwt. In 2000, three U.S. ports, San Francisco Bay

Area ports, Los Angeles-Long Beach, and New York-New Jersey,

ranked among the world’s top 10 container ports in 2000,

measured by average vessel size per call (table 14, p. 38). 

Major Challenges

Two of the major challenges facing U.S. seaports that handle

larger containerships are dredging and disposal of dredged

material and landside access issues. Channel dredging is a leading issue for U.S. ports, because channels and berths need

depths approaching 50 feet in order to accommodate the larger

container vessels. Beyond the engineering requirements, there is

also the environmental issue of storage of contaminated sediments. Once dredged, channels need continuing maintenance to

be kept passable, but this can be challenging since many ports

are located in or near environmentally sensitive areas such as

wetlands, estuaries, and associated fisheries. In addition to

> 36 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

22 Capacity equals the number of calls multiplied by the vessel deadweight tons.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 37 <

Table 13

Top 20 U.S. Port Calls by Vessel Type: 2000

(Capacity in thousands of deadweight tons)

Containerships Average vessel

(percentage of size per 

Ranked by Containership total vessels) call (dwt)

container Total Total All vessel Containercapacity Port calls capacity Calls Capacity Calls Capacity types ships

1 Los Angeles/

Long Beach, CA 5,326 242,951 2,955 124,281 55.5 51.2 45,616 42,058 

2 New York, NY/NJ 4,605 186,631 2,172 87,463 47.2 46.9 40,528 40,268 

3 San Francisco 

Bay area, CA1 3,575 163,071 1,936 82,958 54.2 50.9 45,614 42,850 

4 Charleston, SC 2,167 81,699 1,547 62,463 71.4 76.5 37,701 40,377 

5 Hampton Roads 

area,VA2 2,496 110,417 1,557 61,943 62.4 56.1 44,238 39,784 

6 Savannah, GA 1,769 62,629 739 31,506 41.8 50.3 35,404 42,633 

7 Seattle,WA 1,150 45,569 794 31,182 69.0 68.4 39,625 39,272 

8 Tacoma,WA 1,196 47,169 568 27,950 47.5 59.3 39,439 49,208 

9 Miami, FL 1,212 34,553 766 25,522 63.2 73.9 28,509 33,319 

10 Houston,TX 5,129 207,831 614 19,799 12.0 9.5 40,521 32,246 

11 Baltimore, MD 1,636 55,476 409 14,669 25.0 26.4 33,910 35,866 

12 San Juan, PR 1,344 27,449 610 11,490 45.4 41.9 20,423 18,836 

13 Philadelphia, PA 2,739 129,204 468 11,315 17.1 8.8 47,172 24,177 

14 New Orleans, LA 5,090 234,036 388 10,853 7.6 4.6 45,980 27,972 

15 Columbia River, OR3 2,163 77,436 262 10,025 12.1 12.9 35,800 38,263 

16 Honolulu, HI 676 26,900 339 8,987 50.1 33.4 39,793 26,510 

17 Jacksonville, FL 1,291 35,532 305 7,989 23.6 22.5 27,523 26,193 

18 Port Everglades, FL 814 27,834 211 5,890 25.9 21.2 34,194 27,915 

19 Freeport,TX 641 35,737 46 766 7.2 2.1 55,752 16,652 

20 Tampa, FL 779 23,628 6 127 0.8 0.5 30,331 21,167 

All other ports 14,157 874,089 709 20,441 5.0 2.3 61,743 28,831 

Total, top 20 

U.S. ports 45,798 1,855,752 16,692 637,178 36.4 34.3 40,520 38,173 

Top 20, % of total 76.4 68.0 95.9 96.9

Total, all U.S. ports 59,955 2,729,841 17,401 657,619 29.0 24.1 45,531 37,792 

1 Includes the ports of Oakland and San Francisco.

2 Includes, e.g., Norfolk and Newport News.

3 Includes, e.g., Vancouver, Portland, and Astoria.

KEY: dwt = deadweight tons.

NOTES: Data include oceangoing vessels of 1,000 gross tons and above. Capacity = dwt multiplied by calls and represents the vessel

capacity handled by a port. Port geography in this table is defined by Lloyd's Maritime Information Services and differs from that in

tables 10 and 11 where "U.S. ports" are based U.S. Customs designations.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration; based on Lloyd's Maritime Information Services, Vessel Movements,

available at http://www.marad.dot.gov/Marad_Statistics/Porcalls_us.htm, as of Apr. 24, 2002.
> 38 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 14

Top 25 World Port Calls by Container Vessels: 2000

Capacity Average vessel Rank by

Rank by (thousands size per call average

capacity Port Calls of dwt) (dwt) vessel size

1 Hong Kong 12,462 412,264 33,082 12

2 Singapore 11,286 354,686 31,427 15

3 Kaohsiung,Taiwan 5,808 199,284 34,312 9

4 Busan, South Korea 5,217 164,795 31,588 14

5 Los Angeles/

Long Beach, CA 2,955 124,281 42,058 4

6 Kobe, Japan 3,325 116,447 35,022 8

7 Rotterdam,

The Netherlands 2,528 110,192 43,589 1

8 Port Klang, Malaysia 3,950 109,883 27,818 20

9 Yokohama, Japan 3,298 103,399 31,352 16

10 Tokyo, Japan 2,987 102,198 34,214 10

11 Keelung,Taiwan 4,344 94,522 21,759 23

12 Nagoya, Japan 2,699 91,331 33,839 11

13 New York, NY/NJ 2,172 87,463 40,268 6

14 San Francisco, CA1 1,936 82,958 42,850 2

15 Le Havre, France 2,013 82,329 40,899 5

16 Antwerp, Belgium 2,111 76,312 36,150 7

17 Hamburg, Germany 1,745 74,067 42,445 3

18 Osaka, Japan 2,030 57,659 28,403 17

19 Laem Chabang,

Thailand 2,600 49,820 19,162 24

20 Shanghai, China 1,763 47,449 26,914 22

21 Santos, Brazil 1,547 42,749 27,633 21

22 Taichung,Taiwan 1,998 33,604 16,819 25

23 Durban, South Africa 1,043 29,088 27,889 19

24 Houston,TX 614 19,799 32,246 13

25 New Orleans, LA 388 10,853 27,972 18

All other ports 97,947 2,728,640 27,858 

Top 25 ports 82,819 2,677,433 32,329 

Top 25, % of total 45.8 49.5 

Total, all ports 180,766 5,406,073 29,906 

1 Includes the ports of San Francisco and Oakland.

KEY: dwt = deadweight tons.

NOTES: Original selection of ports was based on the total number of calls to that port by all vessel types. Of

this set of ports, rankings were then determined by the average container vessel size. Data include oceangoing vessels of 1,000 gross tons and above. Capacity = dwt multiplied by calls. Port geography in this table

is defined by Lloyd's Maritime Information Services and differs from that in tables 10 and 11 where "U.S.

ports" are based U.S. Customs designations.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration; based on Lloyd's Maritime Information Services, Vessel Movements, available at http://www.marad.dot.gov/Marad_Statistics/PortCalls_World.

htm, as of Mar. 28, 2002.
dredging, other port-related environmental concerns include

waste and pollution generated from facilities and ships,

congestion, noise, and other quality of life impacts on nearby

communities. 

Landside access issues affect ports and terminals of all

types and container ports in particular. For example, bottlenecks due to insufficient highway and rail connections from

ports and marine terminals to distribution centers could become

more of a concern if the current growth rate of international

trade continues with no marked access improvements. Major

landside bottlenecks include traffic congestion on the roads and

rails nearest the ports and terminals, at-grade rail crossings, and

rail access impediments such as bridge clearance and distance

from terminals. A Federal Highway Administration report on

the National Highway System Intermodal Freight Connectors

found that Interstate highway connectors going to the nation’s

seaports had more mileage with pavement deficiencies than

highway connectors to airports, in part due to the high priority

given to airport access (USDOT FHWA 2000). The report also

found that problems with inadequate turning radii and travel

lanes and heavy traffic were the most common causes of congestion on highway connectors to ports.

A major effort to improve landside access to two of the

nation’s busiest seaports is the Alameda Corridor freight rail

expressway in California, opened in April 2002 (USDOT OST

2002b). The Alameda Corridor, a $2.4 billion project funded by

private and public investments, connects the ports of Los Angeles

and Long Beach to the railyards near downtown Los Angeles

and the national railroad network.23 The project consolidates 90

miles of branch rail tracks into one 20-mile railroad expressway.

The project eliminated about 200 street-level railroad crossings,

thus allowing trains to travel more quickly and easing highway

traffic congestion. Several other objectives of the Alameda

Corridor project included the improvement of direct access to

terminals and docks, the reduction of cargo handling and dwell

time at the ports due to improved rail lines that decrease transit

times, and the reduction of air and noise pollution from idling

trains, trucks, and cars at highway rail crossings. 

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 39 <

23 The Alameda Corridor project took about 20 years to plan and 5 years to construct, and consists of bridges, underpasses, overpasses, and street improvements that separate freight rail, passenger rail, and street traffic (ACTA 2002). 
Some intermodal connector projects aimed at improving

landside access to ports include: 1) the FAST Corridor project

(Freight Action Strategy for Seattle-Tacoma-Everett) in Washington state to streamline the movement of freight through the

Puget Sound region of the state; 2) the Portway project in New

Jersey to improve truck access to Port Newark, Port Elizabeth,

and northern New Jersey; and 3) the Cross Harbor Freight

Movement project study in New York City, which is currently

evaluating alternatives to improve freight access to the New

York and northern New Jersey metropolitan area (USDOT

FHWA 2000). 

INTERNATIONAL AIR FREIGHT

Air cargo is transported by both all-cargo carriers and carriers

that also transport passengers. In 2001, U.S. airports handled

$519 billion of international merchandise trade for both types of

carriers, down from $593 billion in 2000 (table 15). Air transportation’s share of the value of total trade also declined slightly

from 30 percent to 28 percent, due in part to the September 11

terrorist attacks. Because the commodities moved by air tend to

be higher in value per ton (e.g., electronics, clothing, and highvalue perishable goods such as flowers) than those transported

by other modes, air freight’s share of U.S. trade by weight was

less than 1 percent (about 6 million short tons) in 2001.

Despite the decline in

2001, the value of international trade moved by air

transportation has grown

tremendously over the past

three decades, from $10

billion in 1970 to $519

billion in 2001, growing at

an average annual rate of

14 percent per year (in current dollars). Air cargo

grew at the fastest rate in

the 1970s, averaging over

20 percent per year (table

16). The period with the

slowest growth rate was

> 40 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 15

Value of U.S. Merchandise Trade by Air 

Transportation: 2000 and 2001

Total trade Exports Imports

Billions Billions Billions

of $ Percent of $ Percent of $ Percent 

2000

Total, all modes 1,997 100.0 780 100.0 1,217 100.0 

Air 593 29.7 284 36.4 309 25.4 

2001

Total, all modes 1,873 100.0 731 100.0 1,142 100.0 

Air 519 27.7 251 34.4 267 23.4 

Percentage change,

2000–2001 –12.5 –11.6 –13.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, May

2002; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign

Trade Division, U.S. Exports of Merchandise CD and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD,

December 2000 and 2001.
between 1980 and 1985, due in part

to the economic recession of the

early 1980s. Also, high aviation fuel

prices at the time dampened U.S.

international air cargo movements.

By the late 1990s, the growth rate

for U.S. international air cargo was

about half the rate in the 1970s.

Overall, during this period, imports

grew faster than exports, accounting

for the current air trade imbalance.

In 2001, the top U.S. air cargo

trading partner by value was Japan,

followed by the United Kingdom,

Germany, France, and Canada (table

17). Western European and Asian

Pacific countries dominate air cargo

trade to and from the United States,

although the United States has many

other air trade partner countries. In

2001, the top five air trading partners accounted for 38 percent of the

value of air trade, compared with 54

percent for the top five partners for

all U.S. merchandise trade. By virtue

of geography, air transportation is

more prevalent with overseas trade partners than with the

NAFTA countries. While air transportation accounted for

about 7 percent of the value of U.S. trade with Canada and

about 5 percent of trade with Mexico in 2001, it accounted for

87 percent of trade with Ireland, 56 percent with the United

Kingdom, and 35 percent with Japan. 

Among the top 25 U.S. air trade partners, the value per

ton of all merchandise (both imports and exports) ranged from

a high of over $280,000 for trade with Ireland to a low of

$41,000 for trade with Spain. For imports only, the value per

ton of merchandise from Ireland, which includes commodities

such as cashmere clothing and telecommunications equipment,

was valued at almost $500,000 per ton. 

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 41 <

Table 16

Value of U.S. Merchandise Trade by 

Air Transportation: 1970–2001

Total air trade Exports Imports

(Billions of current dollars)

1970 10 6 3

1975 24 15 9

1980 74 46 28

1985 104 52 51

1990 201 111 91

1995 355 181 174

2000 593 284 309

2001 519 251 267

Average annual growth rate in percent

1970–1975 20.5 20.0 21.2

1975–1980 25.2 24.8 25.8

1980–1985 6.9 2.6 12.9

1985–1990 14.2 16.1 12.1

1990–1995 12.0 10.4 13.9

1995–2000 10.8 9.4 12.1

1970–2001 14.3 13.2 15.7

2000–2001 –12.5 –11.6 –13.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, May 2002. Data for 2000 and 2001—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Exports of

Merchandise CD and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2000 and

2001. Data for other years—based on U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.

Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, DC:

Annual years).
In 2001, among the top 25 overall air trading partners, the

United States had a positive air trade balance (exports minus

imports) with 10 countries. U.S. trade with the Netherlands

showed the largest air trade surplus of about $7 billion, followed

by Canada and Hong Kong with $5 billion each. U.S. air trade

with Ireland showed the largest deficit of about $12 billion,

followed by Malaysia and China with $6 billion each.

> 42 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 17

Top 25 U.S. Merchandise Trade Partners for Air Transportation: 2001

(Ranked by trade value)

Value Value per ton

Rank in Total trade Imports Exports Total trade Imports Exports 

2001 Country (million $) (million $) (million $) (thousand $) (thousand $) (thousand $)

1 Japan 63,667 34,110 29,556 103.2 120.2 88.7 

2 United Kingdom 45,980 21,520 24,460 97.2 105.0 91.3 

3 Germany 35,733 17,839 17,894 79.0 67.1 95.9 

4 France 27,744 14,233 13,512 100.8 86.9 121.2 

5 Canada 24,999 9,836 15,163 76.4 128.4 60.6 

6 Taiwan 24,165 13,981 10,184 102.5 92.2 121.1 

7 South Korea 23,805 13,347 10,458 122.9 117.4 130.7 

8 Ireland 21,978 16,815 5,163 280.7 499.5 115.7 

9 Singapore 21,766 11,505 10,261 144.9 165.3 127.3 

10 Malaysia 20,217 13,249 6,967 170.6 163.6 185.7 

11 China 20,173 12,957 7,216 46.7 36.9 88.8 

12 Italy 15,131 9,461 5,670 68.2 59.8 88.9 

13 Switzerland 14,956 6,806 8,151 181.1 134.6 254.3 

14 Netherlands 14,339 3,683 10,656 70.8 35.2 108.6 

15 Israel 14,267 9,378 4,890 176.4 184.2 163.2 

16 Mexico 11,997 5,291 6,706 86.7 85.3 87.8 

17 Philippines 11,976 6,486 5,490 185.6 140.5 299.3 

18 Hong Kong1 11,477 3,198 8,279 83.5 54.9 104.7 

19 Brazil 10,061 2,784 7,278 58.9 33.9 82.1 

20 Belgium 9,834 4,920 4,914 118.9 194.2 85.7 

21 Thailand 7,150 3,933 3,217 95.2 72.7 153.3 

22 India 5,867 4,065 1,803 68.4 64.9 77.7 

23 Australia 5,797 1,499 4,298 74.0 66.8 76.9 

24 Sweden 5,348 3,195 2,152 79.8 70.5 99.1 

25 Spain 3,072 1,103 1,969 41.2 28.7 54.4 

Total, top 25 air

trading partners 471,500 245,192 226,307 95.9 92.3 100.2 

Total, all countries 518,602 267,107 251,494 84.1 77.1 93.0 

Total, top 25 air

partners as % 

of all countries 90.9 91.8 90.0 

1 Hong Kong has officially been a part of China since 1997. However, the United States continues to publish merchandise trade statistics

separately for Hong Kong.

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, May 2002; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Exports of Merchandise CD and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2001.
Top Air Freight Gateways

In 2001, the leading U.S. airport for international merchandise

trade by value was New York’s John F. Kennedy (JFK) International Airport (table 18). JFK handled 23 percent of the value

($117 billion) of U.S. air trade moving into and out of the United

States. 

Two of the top five U.S. air cargo airports by value of trade

are located on the West Coast: Los Angeles ($64 billion) and San

Francisco24 ($62 billion). These 2001 levels represent declines

from previous years, as the Asian economic crisis of the late

1990s, along with the general economic slowdown and the

effects of September 11, affected air cargo handled by both of

these airports.25

Overall, the United States imports more than it exports by

air, but there is much variation among airports. At Miami

International Airport, the value of exports exceeded imports by

$8 billion, reflecting trade with Latin America. At the opposite

extreme, imports were $16 billion more than exports at New

York’s JFK airport26 (figure 8, p. 45).

In tonnage terms, Anchorage handled the most international air cargo, nearly 2 million short tons (23 percent) of the total

air cargo weight in 200027 (table 19, p. 46). Miami International

Airport and New York’s JFK followed with over 1 million short

tons each. Between 1990 and 2000, the weight of U.S. international air cargo grew an average of 7 percent per year, reaching

over 8 million short tons in 2000. During this period, Memphis

International Airport grew the most as Federal Express expanded

its hub operations there. With Federal Express moving freight

from locations throughout the country to its Memphis hub before

final shipment to foreign locations worldwide, Memphis moved

up the tonnage ranking for international cargo handled from

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 43 <

24 San Francisco includes the San Francisco International Airport and other smaller regional airports.

25 In 1997, Los Angeles handled $69 billion worth of international air cargo and San Francisco

handled $75 billion.

26 JFK was followed by Ancorage, AK, and airports in Chicago, IL.

27 These airport gateway figures, from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ Office of Airline

Information, reflect carrier data reported by both U.S. and foreign carriers. Data also include

transshipments. Therefore, these data are not directly comparable to shipper-based merchandise

trade data for international air activity. Detailed air cargo weight data by airports were not

available for 2001 at the time this report was prepared.
> 44 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 18

Top 25 U.S. Air Gateways for U.S. International 

Merchandise Trade by Value: 2001

(Millions of dollars)

Rank by Total Exports minus

total U.S. ports trade Exports Imports imports

1 JFK Internatl. Airport, NY 116,581 50,079 66,502 –16,422

2 Los Angeles Internatl. Airport, CA 63,882 34,030 29,853 4,177

3 San Francisco Internatl.

Airport, CA 61,953 32,320 29,633 2,687

4 Chicago, IL 44,916 19,918 24,998 –5,080

5 New Orleans, LA 27,353 13,810 13,544 266

6 Miami Internatl. Airport, FL 22,565 15,403 7,162 8,241

7 Anchorage, AK 21,874 5,109 16,765 –11,657

8 Cleveland, OH 19,679 9,213 10,467 –1,254

9 Dallas/Fort Worth,TX 18,797 8,836 9,961 –1,126

10 Atlanta, GA 15,848 7,562 8,286 –724

11 Newark, NJ 9,414 3,245 6,170 –2,925

12 Boston Logan Internatl. Airport, MA 9,216 5,664 3,552 2,112

13 Seattle-Tacoma 

Internatl. Airport,WA 8,849 3,546 5,303 –1,757

14 Philadelphia Internatl. Airport, PA 8,799 4,945 3,854 1,091

15 San Juan Internatl. Airport, PR 7,779 3,686 4,093 –407

16 Houston Intercontinental Airport,TX 7,690 4,824 2,866 1,958

17 Washington, DC 5,985 2,926 3,059 –134

18 Indianapolis, IN 3,387 3,256 131 3,124

19 Memphis,TN 3,375 2,059 1,315 744

20 Oakland, CA 2,960 2,805 155 2,650

21 Cincinnati-Lawrenceburg, OH 2,787 1,124 1,662 –538

22 Detroit, MI 2,623 1,263 1,360 –97

23 Honolulu Internatl. Airport, HI 2,282 255 2,027 –1,772

24 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 2,159 1,384 775 609

25 Philadelphia, PA 2,071 152 1,919 –1,767

All other airports 25,778 14,082 11,696 2,386

Total, top 25 airports 492,823 237,412 255,411 –17,999

Total, top 25 airports as 

% of all airports 95.0 94.4 95.6 

Total, all airports 518,602 251,494 267,107 –15,613

NOTE: Data for all airports are based on U.S. Customs port classifications and include a low level (generally less

than 2%–3% of the total value) of small user-fee airports located in the same region. Air gateways not identified by airport name (e.g., Chicago, IL, and others) include major airports in that geographic area in addition to

small regional airports. In addition, due to U.S. Census Bureau confidentiality regulations, data for courier operations are included in the airport totals for JFK International Airport, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Cleveland,

Chicago, Miami, and Anchorage.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S.

Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, special tabulations, May 2002.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 45 <

Miami International Airport, FL

Los Angeles International Airport, CA

Indianapolis, IN

San Francisco International Airport, CA

Oakland, CA

Boston Logan Airport, MA

Houston Intercontinental Airport, TX

Philadelphia International Airport, PA

Memphis, TN

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

New Orleans, LA

Detroit, MI

Washington, DC

San Juan International Airport, PR

 Cincinnati-Lawrenceburg, OH 

Atlanta, GA

Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

Cleveland, OH

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, WA

Philadelphia, PA

Honolulu International Airport, HI

Newark, NJ

Chicago, IL

Anchorage, AK

JFK International Airport, NY

–20,000 –15,000 –10,000 –5,000 0 5,000 10,000

Air gateways where 

exports exceeded 

imports in 2001

Air gateways where 

imports exceeded 

exports in 2001

–16,422

–11,657

–5,080

–2,925

–1,772

–1,767

–1,757

–1,254

–1,126

–724

–538

–407

–134

–97

266

609

744

1,091

1,958

2,112

2,650

2,687

3,124

4,177

8,241

Millions of dollars

Figure 8

U.S. International Air Merchandise Trade, Exports Minus Imports: 2001

NOTE: Data for all airports are based on U.S. Customs classifications and include a low level (generally less than 2%–3% of the total value) of small

user-fee airports located in the same region. Air gateways not identified by airport name (e.g., Chicago, IL, and others) include major airport(s) in

that geographic area in addition to small regional airports. In addition, due to U.S. Census Bureau confidentiality regulations, data for courier

operations are included in the airport totals for JFK International Airport, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, and Anchorage.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census

Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, special tabulations, May 2002.
48th position in 1990 to 9th position in 2000. Other U.S. international airports emerged as world leaders in air cargo, particularly Philadelphia, which grew by 21 percent per year, and

Fairbanks, Alaska, which grew by 20 percent per year.28

U.S. international air cargo originating from and destined

for U.S. gateway airports are transported along major air routes.

In 2000, 5 of the top 10 gateway pairs by weight included

Anchorage.29 Anchorage-Tokyo ranked first in bidirectional

international air cargo, handling over 500,000 short tons of

freight (table 20). Regional specialization also characterizes

> 46 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 19

Top 20 U.S. Gateways for International Freight by 

Weight: 1990, 1995, and 2000

(Short tons)

Average annual

Rank in Rank in growth rate,

1990 2000 U.S. airport 1990 1995 2000 1990–2000

1 1 Anchorage, AK 908,543 1,068,558 1,967,370 8.0 

3 2 Miami, FL 742,000 1,326,403 1,250,494 5.4 

2 3 New York JFK, NY 896,547 972,369 1,020,932 1.3 

4 4 Los Angeles LAX, CA 347,722 513,046 641,501 6.3 

5 5 Chicago O'Hare, IL 271,455 408,680 556,048 7.4 

6 6 San Francisco SFO, CA 185,349 296,292 366,372 7.1 

11 7 Newark, NJ 74,627 173,238 353,066 16.8 

9 8 Atlanta Hartsfield, GA 85,709 150,085 249,742 11.3 

48 9 Memphis,TN1 14 93,623 198,630 160.1 

17 10 Fairbanks, AK 27,351 130,107 175,186 20.4 

7 11 Honolulu, HI 158,691 134,844 154,037 –0.3

16 12 Washington Dulles,VA 36,536 88,332 140,975 14.5 

12 13 Dallas-Fort Worth,TX 69,020 69,485 133,518 6.8 

19 14 Philadelphia, PA 18,041 48,804 124,317 21.3 

10 15 Houston Intercontinental,TX 82,144 90,755 121,121 4.0 

13 16 Seattle,WA 61,052 72,449 116,763 6.7 

8 17 Boston, MA 97,968 86,562 112,446 1.4 

18 18 Detroit, MI 22,409 61,650 85,605 14.3 

15 19 Guam Island 36,892 39,659 69,238 6.5 

27 20 Huntsville/Decatur, AL 6,167 8,019 64,253 26.4 

1 The extreme change in tonnage handled reflects the expansion of the Federal Express hub in Memphis.

NOTE: These data are based on nonstop bidirectional air trade by U.S. and foreign carriers by weight between

the United States and other countries and, as such, will differ from U.S. Census Bureau international air freight

weight data. For additional information, see notes for table 20, p. 47.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of Airline Information

data, May 2002.

28 Between 1990 and 2000, air cargo passing through other major air cargo hubs also grew: DHL

through Cincinnati, OH, by 670 percent, and UPS through Louisville, KY, by 3,040 percent.

29 Similar data are not available for value of the cargo.
airport pairs and major U.S. air gateways. All five gateway pairs

involving Anchorage were in Asian Pacific countries: Japan (two

gateways), South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. The top

gateway pairs with West Coast airports, San Francisco and Los

Angeles, were also with Asian Pacific airports. Miami International Airport’s top gateway pairs were with Latin American

airports in Colombia, Argentina, Costa Rica, and Chile. New

York’s JFK and Chicago O’Hare were the major gateways to

European airports, including those in Belgium, the United

Kingdom, Germany, and France.

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 47 <

Table 20

Top 20 Airport Pairs for U.S. International Air Freight

by Weight: 1990, 1995, and 2000

(Thousands of short tons) 

Average annual

Rank in growth rate,

2000 U.S. airport Foreign airport 1990 1995 2000 1990–2000

1 Anchorage Tokyo, Japan 616 466 523 –1.6

2 Anchorage Seoul, South Korea 54 189 471 24.2

3 Anchorage Taipei,Taiwan 55 165 404 22.0

4 Anchorage Osaka, Japan U 38 211 U

5 Miami Bogota, Colombia 141 257 157 1.1

6 Anchorage Hong Kong 5 47 137 39.8

7 New York JFK Brussels, Belgium 64 80 126 7.0

8 New York JFK London Heathrow 81 109 126 4.5

9 New York JFK Frankfurt, Germany 86 91 104 1.9

10 San Francisco SFO Tokyo, Japan 99 113 103 0.4

11 Los Angeles LAX Seoul, South Korea 76 71 100 2.8

12 Chicago O'Hare Frankfurt, Germany 51 59 93 6.1

13 Los Angeles LAX Tokyo, Japan 65 64 79 2.0

14 San Francisco SFO Seoul, South Korea 3 40 78 38.7

15 Chicago O'Hare London Heathrow 0.3 36 77 74.3

16 Miami Buenos Aires, Argentina 14 28 76 18.1

17 Los Angeles LAX London Heathrow 20 40 68 13.0

18 New York JFK Paris De Gaulle 57 43 67 1.5

19 Miami San Jose, Costa Rica 53 79 67 2.3

20 Miami Santiago, Chile 20 60 66 12.8

KEY: U = unavailable.

NOTE: This table shows carrier data reflecting nonstop bidirectional air trade by U.S. and foreign carriers by weight

between the United States and other countries and, as such, will differ from U.S. Census Bureau shipper-based merchandise trade statistics. Data for airports in this table also reflect actual U.S. airports, while data in tables 15, 16, 17,

18, and figure 9 reflect U.S. Customs ports at which air freight activity was reported. Sometimes these Customs ports

correspond to the actual airport (e.g., JFK), while in other cases the U.S. Customs port refers to a broader administrative

area (e.g., Chicago, which includes O'Hare, Midway, and smaller regional airports).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of Airline Information data, May

2002.
U.S. International Air Cargo Revenues and Capacity 

Air cargo is an increasingly important source of revenue for the

air transportation services industry, and the financial performance of U.S. air carriers influences their competitiveness in

international markets. Between 1980 and 2001, freight operating revenues for U.S. international air cargo, moved by both the

all-cargo and passenger carrier sectors of the industry, more

than quadrupled from $1 billion to over $6 billion (in current

dollars).30 U.S. international freight operating revenues grew at

a faster average annual rate (9.5 percent per year) than U.S.

domestic freight operating revenues, which grew at 8.4 percent

per year. During this period, growth in U.S. international air

cargo revenues closely mirrored the increases in overall U.S. air

freight revenue ton-miles, a measure of the utilization of air

freight service31 (figure 9). However, in 2001, while international revenue ton-miles by U.S.

carriers declined, international air

cargo operating revenues by U.S.

carriers held steady, due in part to

changes made immediately after the

September 11 attacks.

Available revenue ton-miles (the

level of useable freight capacity) and

unused ton-miles (the difference

between available ton-miles and revenue ton-miles used) are two other

measures indicating the utilization of

air freight services. The availability of

excess cargo capacity enables shippers

to quickly arrange transportation of

small quantities of goods to meet

market demands, while maintaining

low inventories. Between 1980 and

2001, the U.S. international available

air ton-miles grew rapidly as the

industry added capacity by acquiring

new aircraft. International revenue

> 48 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

30 Based on special tabulations from BTS Office of Airline Information data, May 2002. By

comparison, U.S. international passenger service operating revenues grew from over $5 billion

to over $24 billion.

31 A revenue ton-mile is equal to one ton carried one mile and measures use of freight services.

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2001

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Index: 1980 = 100

Freight revenue

ton-miles

Freight operating revenues

Figure 9

U.S. International Air Operating Revenues 

and Revenue Ton-Miles: 1980–2001

NOTE: A revenue ton-mile is equal to one ton carried one mile and

measures utilization of air freight services. Data reflect U.S. carriers

only.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, Office of Airline Information data, May 2002.
ton-miles by U.S. carriers grew at a

slower rate than the available capacity

and the gap between used and

available ton-miles widened32 (figure

10). Also during this period, U.S. international air cargo load factors (the

ratio of used to available ton-miles)

declined from 48 percent in 1980 to 44

percent in 2001. 

The air cargo industry continually modifies its services to take into

account new methods of goods manufacturing and distribution. A heightened challenge is cargo security. As

suppliers and manufacturers integrate

new production processes worldwide,

the need to provide door-to-door

security for merchandise could affect

choices about business inventory and

supply chain costs and influence future

air cargo growth. 

NORTH AMERICAN TRADE AND

TRANSPORTATION

The North American Free Trade Agreement, which entered into force on

January 1, 1994, aims to reduce trade barriers and liberalize

trade policies among the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

As NAFTA reduced some of the obstacles to the movement of

freight across the borders (including restrictions on transportation services), trade among the three countries soared. Between

1994 and 2001, the value of U.S.-NAFTA trade increased 79

percent from $343 billion to $614 billion (in current dollars),

growing at an average annual rate of 9 percent, faster than the

rate for U.S. merchandise trade with all other countries (table

21). The growth of U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico highlights the importance of north-south transportation corridors,

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 49 <

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2001

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Billions of ton-miles

Available ton-miles

Unused ton-miles

Revenue ton-miles

Figure 10

U.S. International Air Cargo Availability and Use

(Freight revenue ton-miles by 

U.S. air carriers: 1980–2001)

NOTE: A revenue ton-mile is equal to 1 ton that is carried 1 mile and

measures utilization of air freight services. For those planes that carry

both freight and passengers, available freight ton-miles are calculated

by subtracting available seat-miles times 0.1 from total available tonmiles. The data include both transborder and foreign flights by U.S.

carriers, but do not include any flights by foreign carriers. The drop in

2001 reflects the impact of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on

aviation, including several days in which commercial air operations

were suspended.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, Office of Airline Information, Air Carrier Traffic Statistics

(Washington, DC: May 2002).

32 Changes in the level of spare capacity might be an indicator of the timely availability of air

services. For example, a shipper with a sudden need for air service will be more likely to obtain

a better flight when spare capacity is higher. Space limitations affect not only the timeliness but

also the availability of air freight services (USDOT BTS 2002b).
the role of key land gateways, and the emergence of dominant

flows (e.g., between Detroit, Michigan, and Laredo, Texas),

which will continue to alter the pattern of freight movement

within the United States. 

Once the NAFTA provisions are fully implemented and

freight operators licensed in one country are allowed broader

access in another, freight services and operations will change

(box 3). Differences in arrangements for transporting freight

across the three countries could affect the movement and flow

of this traffic on the transportation networks of the United

States. It also will increase vehicle inspection activity at U.S.

borders and heighten the need for improved security for the

millions of containers and trailers that enter the United States

from Canada and Mexico. 

U.S.-NAFTA: Overall Trade

In 2001, merchandise trade with Canada and Mexico

represented one-third of the value of all U.S. international trade

or $614 billion, with Canada accounting for about 20 percent

and Mexico about 13 percent. Surface modes transported the

> 50 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 21

Value of U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada and Mexico Compared 

with U.S. Trade with All Other Countries: 1994–2001

(Billions of current U.S. dollars)

Total U.S. U.S. land Ratio of 

Total U.S. trade with trade with U.S. NAFTA trade

international NAFTA NAFTA to all U.S. trade

trade partners partners (percent)

1994 1,176 343 312 29.2

1995 1,328 380 338 28.6

1996 1,420 421 377 29.7

1997 1,557 475 426 30.5

1998 1,594 503 452 31.5

1999 1,718 559 501 32.5

2000 1,997 653 576 32.7

2001 1,873 614 547 32.8

Percentage 

change, 1994–2001 59.3 78.9 75.6

Annual growth rate 6.9 8.7 8.4

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, special tabulation,

May 2002; based on total trade, air, and water data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census

Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, FT920 U.S. Merchandise Trade 2000 to 2001 (Washington, DC:

2000–2001); all land modes—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,

Transborder Surface Freight Data, as of January 2002.
majority of the value of U.S.-NAFTA trade, over 89 percent in

2001, nearly the same proportion as in 1994.33 Maritime trade

accounted for 5 percent while air freight held a 6 percent share. 

U.S. surface trade with Canada and Mexico fell in 2001

for the first time since the inception of NAFTA in 1994, with the

greatest decline occurring after September 11 (table 21). Surface

trade was lower for most of 2001, showing a 1.5 percent drop

between January and August, compared with the same period

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 51 <

Box 3

Current Status of NAFTA Motor Carrier Provisions

In November 2002, President George W. Bush took

actions aimed at implementing the trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA).1 Under NAFTA, Mexican motor carriers

were to gain access to U.S. border states by December 1995 and access to the rest of the United States

by January 1, 2000.2 However, the United States

delayed implementation of these provisions for

safety reasons. The fiscal year 2002 Transportation

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, signed

into law on December 18, 2001, established 22

requirements that must be satisfied before the U.S.

Department of Transportation (USDOT) could certify

that the NAFTA trucking provisions can be implemented without undue safety risks to the American

public. To implement this law, the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the

USDOT, the agency charged with overseeing and

implementing trucking safety in the United States,

established a detailed application process for Mexican carriers seeking to operate in the United States,

as well as a comprehensive safety-monitoring program that met each of the 22 requirements.

President Bush’s November 2002 action modified

the existing moratorium on granting operating

authority to Mexican motor carriers for transporting

international freight to and from the U.S. interior.

Mexican motor carriers must first submit applications to FMCSA. FMCSA will review the applications,

conduct safety audits, and then grant provisional

authority to qualified carriers to operate beyond the

designated commercial border zone.3 These carriers

will receive a USDOT license number distinguishing

them from U.S. and Canadian trucks and from Mexican trucks authorized to operate only in the commercial border zone.

To obtain this provisional authority, Mexican carriers must submit proof of U.S. insurance, pass a safety

audit, and its vehicles must pass safety inspections

performed by either U.S. or Mexican government

officials. Mexican vehicles that pass the safety

inspection will receive Commercial Vehicle Safety

Alliance (CVSA) decals certifying that they have met

safety standards. These decals must be renewed

every three months. The carriers will be subject to an

additional 18 months of intensive safety

monitoring.4

1 NAFTA entered into force Jan. 1, 1994.

2 Canadian carriers can provide service anywhere in the

United States provided they comply with U.S. regulations and

are transporting international cargo. U.S. carriers’ access to

Canada mirrors Canadian carriers’ access to the United States.

With implementation of the NAFTA provisions, U.S. carriers are

supposed to receive reciprocal access rights in Mexico.

3 Commercial zones along the U.S. southern border generally

extend 3 to 20 miles past the corporate limits of cities, depending on population. FMCSA also registers Mexican carriers for

operating authority in these zones. Even with the implementation of the NAFTA trucking provisions, FMCSA expects that

most carriers from Mexico will be certified for operating only in

the commercial border zones.

4 FMCSA issued regulations governing Mexican carrier operations on March 19, 2002.

(Box 3 continued on next page)

33 Surface trade includes merchandise moved by truck, rail, pipeline, and other modes. It

excludes trade moved by water and air.
in 2000, and a decline of 11.6 percent between September and

December 2001. Surface exports declined more steeply (7 percent) than imports (3 percent) for the year.

Despite the drop seen between 2000 and 2001, the value

of U.S.-NAFTA surface trade grew between 1997 and 2001,

with an increase of 29 percent from $426 billion to $547 billion. However, surface exports grew more slowly than surface

imports during this 5-year period, 18 percent compared with 37

percent (table 22). 

U.S.-NAFTA Trade: Modal View

Nearly two-thirds of the value of overall U.S.-NAFTA merchandise trade in 2001 was moved by trucks, similar to their share in

1997. By value, trucking was followed by rail with about 15

percent, then air, water, and pipeline (table 23, p. 54). From a

tonnage perspective, waterborne modes moved the majority of

> 52 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Mexican carriers operating beyond the commercial border zone will only be allowed to enter the

United States at border crossings where certified

safety inspectors are on duty. As with U.S. carriers,

they are required to be part of a program that

includes random drug and alcohol testing and be in

compliance with federal hours-of-service requirements for commercial drivers. Mexican carriers that

receive and maintain a satisfactory safety rating

after a compliance review will be given permanent

operating authority at the end of their 18-month

provisional authority.

Mexican carriers that receive operating authority

as a result of this process will be permitted to deliver

and back-haul international cargo to and from the

United States. The change in the moratorium affects

only international cargo between the United States

and Mexico. A reciprocal prohibition on the provision of point-to-point service within the United

States and Mexico remains in place.

As of early January 2003, FMCSA had received

over 180 applications from Mexican carriers requesting authority to operate in the United States beyond

the commercial zone. The agency is providing educational and technical assistance to Mexican carriers

and has held free seminars for Mexican carriers to

acquaint them with the new rules governing application for operating authority.

In January 2003, a federal appeals court judge

ordered the government to study the potential

environmental effects prior to implementing the

March 19, 2002 regulations. For additional information on Mexican and Canadian truck and bus operations in the United States, visit FMCSA’s website at

www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

SOURCES

New York Times Online. 2003. Court Blocks Plan To Open U.S.

Highways to Mexican Trucks. Available at http://www.

nytimes.com. January 16.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration. 2002.North American Free Trade Agreement Fact

Sheet. Washington, DC. March 14. Also available at http// www.

fmcsa.dot.gov/rulesregs/Mexican/NAFTA_Fact_Sheet.htm.

_____. 2002.U.S.Transportation Department Implements NAFTA

Provisions for Mexican Trucks, Buses. Press release. November 27.

Also available at http://www. fmcsa.dot.gov/contactus/press/

2002/112702.htm.

_____. 2002.DOT Sets Safety Requirements for Mexican Trucks,

Buses in United States. Press release. March 14. Also available at

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/contactus/ press/2002/031402.htm.

_____. 2002. Revision of Regulations and Application Form for

Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers To Operate in United States

Municipalities and Commercial Zones on the United StatesMexico Border. 49 CFR Parts 368 and 387 [Docket No. FMCSA98-3297]. March 19. Also available at http// www.fmcsa.dot.

gov/rulesregs/mexican/Parts_368_and_387.htm.

(Box 3 continued)
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 53 <

Table 22

Value of U.S. Merchandise Trade with NAFTA Partners by Mode: 1997–2001

(Billions of dollars)

Percentage Percentage Average annual 

change, change, growth rate,

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2000–2001 1997–2001 1997–2001

Total U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico

Truck 323 350 385 429 395 –7.8 22.3 5.2 

Rail 70 68 78 94 93 –1.7 32.6 7.3 

Air 28 30 34 45 37 –17.7 33.3 7.5 

Water 22 21 23 33 29 –10.1 35.4 7.9 

Pipeline 14 11 12 24 26 12.0 87.0 16.9 

Other1 19 23 25 29 33 12.4 75.6 15.1 

Total trade 475 503 559 653 614 –6.1 29.1 6.6 

Subtotal, land 426 452 501 576 547 –4.9 28.5 6.5 

Land, % of total 89.6 89.9 89.7 88.1 89.2 

U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico

Truck 167 175 190 212 192 –9.6 15.1 3.6 

Rail 19 18 17 23 23 –0.3 23.6 5.4 

Air 17 19 21 27 22 –18.7 25.4 5.8 

Water 6 7 7 9 9 –5.0 48.0 10.3 

Pipeline 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 1 11.7 107.9 20.1 

Other1 12 14 15 16 19 18.3 53.8 11.4 

Total exports 222 233 251 288 265 –8.0 19.7 4.6 

Subtotal, land 198 208 223 252 235 –6.9 18.4 4.3 

Land, % of total 89.5 89.2 88.7 87.5 88.4 

U.S. imports from Canada and Mexico

Truck 157 175 195 216 204 –6.0 30.0 6.8 

Rail 51 49 61 71 69 –2.1 36.0 8.0 

Air 10 11 13 18 15 –16.2 46.7 10.1 

Water 16 14 16 23 21 –12.1 30.6 6.9 

Pipeline 14 11 12 23 26 –12.0 86.6 16.9 

Other1 6 9 10 13 14 5.4 116.7 21.3 

Total imports 254 270 308 365 348 –4.6 37.2 8.2 

Subtotal, land 228 244 279 324 313 –3.4 37.3 8.2 

Land, % of total 89.7 90.5 90.5 88.7 89.8 

1 Other includes "flyaway aircraft" (i.e., aircraft moving from the manufacturer to a customer and not carrying any freight), vessels moving

under their own power, pedestrians carrying freight, and miscellaneous.

NOTE: Shipments that neither originate nor terminate in the United States (i.e., in-transit or in-bond shipments) are not included here,

although they use the U.S. transportation system. These shipments are usually part of Mexico-Canada trade and simply pass through the

United States. Merchandise trade data exclude export shipments valued at less than $2,500 and import shipments valued at less than

$1,250. Individual modal totals may not sum to exact export or import totals due to rounding.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, special tabulation, May 2002; based on total trade, air,

and water data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, FT920 U.S. Merchandise Trade 2000 to 2001

(Washington, DC: 2000–2001); and all land modes—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder

Surface Freight Data, as of January 2002.
U.S.-NAFTA trade in 2001 (figure 11). The relatively higher tonnage share for waterborne modes is due to the trade in bulk

commodities, particularly petroleum products in the Gulf of

Mexico. 

The September 11 terrorist attacks caused immediate

drops in U.S.-NAFTA activity, particularly for the truck and air

sectors. Trade by truck fell over 15 percent in September 2001,

compared with 2000, and continued drops over the remainder

of 2001 resulted in the first annual decline in U.S. truck trade

since NAFTA’s inception. Of

all the modes, air freight

experienced the steepest fall

in 2001—nearly 18 percent—

due largely to the immediate

impact of September 11 on

the North American aviation

services and system. Although

the overall value of rail trade

fell slightly in 2001, it was less

dramatically affected than

other modes, due partly to the

fact that immediately after

September 11, railroads continued moving freight across

borders because the industry

already had an effective cargo

preclearance system in place

for major shippers engaged in

NAFTA trade. 

Despite many of the

modal declines seen in 2001

U.S.-NAFTA trade, there has

been relative stability in

modal shares between 1997

and 2001. However, some

modes have grown at a more

rapid pace during the fiveyear period. For example,

although pipeline accounted

for a relatively small percentage of the value of U.S.-

> 54 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 23

U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada and Mexico 

by Mode: 2000 and 2001

(In percent)

Value Weight 

Mode 2000 2001 2000R 2001

Truck 65.6 64.4 32.8 31.5 

Rail 14.4 15.1 16.3 17.0 

Pipeline 3.6 4.3 13.8 13.9 

Air 6.9 6.0 0.2 0.1 

Water 5.0 4.8 36.9 37.4 

Other and unknown 4.5 5.4 0.1 0.2 

NAFTA 

trade, total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Truck 63.5 61.7 36.4 35.3 

Rail 15.4 15.8 20.8 21.6 

Pipeline 5.7 6.9 19.1 19.4 

Air 7.8 6.6 0.2 0.1 

Water 2.2 2.4 23.6 23.5 

Other and unknown 5.3 6.7 0.1 0.2 

U.S. trade with 

Canada, total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Truck 69.1 68.9 24.7 23.3 

Rail 12.7 13.9 6.1 6.9 

Pipeline 0.1 0.1 2.0 1.8 

Air 5.4 5.2 0.1 0.1 

Water 9.5 8.6 67.0 67.7 

Other and unknown 3.1 3.2 0.2 0.2 

U.S. trade with 

Mexico, total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

KEY: R = revised.

NOTE: Due to data revisions, 2000 modal shares for overall NAFTA trade differ from

previously published data.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, special tabulation, May 2002; based on total trade, air, and water data—U.S. Department

of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, FT920 U.S. Merchandise Trade

2000 to 2001 (Washington, DC: 2000–2001); and all land modes—U.S. Department of

Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data,

as of January 2002.
NAFTA trade in 2001 (about 4 percent), it grew at a faster rate

than any other mode—an average annual rate of 17 percent

between 1997 and 2001—due largely to greater petroleum

product imports to the United States (table 22).

In addition to overall U.S.-NAFTA modal trends, there

are some notable modal differences between U.S.-Canada and

U.S.-Mexico trade. Although trucks carry over 60 percent of

the value of U.S. trade with both Canada and Mexico, it is possible that when greater cross-border access for commercial

trucking carriers is implemented between the United States and

Mexico, trucking’s share of the value of U.S.-Mexico trade

could increase further. 

Rail plays a critical role in particular corridors and for

certain commodities in U.S.-NAFTA trade. Rail trade with

Canada is greater than with Mexico, especially for U.S. imports.

Although smaller proportionately, U.S.-Mexican rail trade has

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 55 <

Truck Rail Pipeline Air Water Other and 

unknown

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Value, 2000 Value, 2001 Weight, 2000 Weight, 2001

Percent

0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2

Figure 11

Modal Share of U.S. NAFTA-Partner Merchandise 

Trade by Value and Weight: 2000 and 2001

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, special tabulation,

May 2002; based on total trade, air, and water data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census

Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, FT920 U.S. Merchandise Trade 2000 to 2001 (Washington, DC:

2000–2001); all land modes—U.S. Department of Transportation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics,

Transborder Surface Freight Data, as of January 2002.
grown since 1997, both by value and weight, allowing rail to

capture higher modal shares. This could increase further if there

are notable efficiencies arising from Mexico’s rail privatization

(begun in the 1990s) and the resulting development of rail

alliances by U.S., Mexican, and Canadian carriers.34

Overall, U.S.-NAFTA waterborne trade plays a critical

role particularly for trade in bulk commodities in the Great

Lakes and Gulf of Mexico. In 2001, waterborne trade accounted

for the majority of both U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico trade by

weight. However, waterborne trade plays a relatively greater

role, both by weight and value, in U.S.-Mexico trade primarily

due to large volumes of petroleum-related products.

NAFTA Trade and U.S. States

Key freight access and infrastructure issues in the United States

are influenced by the distribution of NAFTA trade among U.S.

states. Concern exists about future shifts in freight flows within

the United States as NAFTA trade grows. While existing highway, rail, and water links allow all U.S. states to trade with

Canada and Mexico, U.S. trade with Canada is heavily concentrated in the industrialized northeast and midwest and the states

of California, Washington, and Texas. U.S. trade with Mexico

is even more concentrated geographically with a few southern

border states, although Mexican trade with Michigan, source of

much automotive trade, is quite large. The transportation networks of these states could be especially affected by growth in

NAFTA trade. 

Several factors affect the distribution of NAFTA trade

among U.S. states, including the location of dominant border

ports, the size of a state’s population and its economy, and its

manufacturing activities (figure 12). In 2001, Michigan, Texas,

California, New York, and Ohio accounted for 51 percent of the

value of NAFTA surface trade. Michigan, Texas, and California

alone, all of which are large in terms of economy, population,

and manufacturing activities, and are close to either Canada or

Mexico, accounted for 40 percent of the value of NAFTA trade.

> 56 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

34 U.S. freight railroads, including Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific, won concession

rights for some of the privatized rail lines in northeast and northwest Mexico. They have partnered with other Mexican and Canadian rail companies to improve service offerings, infrastructure investment, and operating efficiencies on lines in Mexico and have linked such lines

to others in the United States and Canada (KCS 2002).
As with trade levels, U.S. inbound truck crossings are heavily

concentrated in a few states. Just four states (Michigan, Texas,

New York, and California) handled over three-quarters (or 8.4

million) of the inbound truck crossings in 2001. 

Overall surface trade with Canada and Mexico declined

in 2001 compared with 2000, although trade with a few states

grew (figure 13). Among the top five states for U.S.-NAFTA

surface trade, New York had the largest decline in the value of

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 57 <

ME

NH

VT

MA

RI CT

NJ

DE

DC

NY

TN

NC

VA WV

PA

SC

OH

MN

IA

MO

AR

L A

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

AL MS

FL

T X

NM

AZ

AK

CO

UT

NV

C A

OR

WA

ID

MT

WY

HI

WI

MI

IN

GA

IL

KY

MD

$ 100,000

$ 20,000

$ 10,000

$ 5,000

U.S.-Canada trade

U.S.-Mexico trade

Value of Canadian and

Mexican trade by state

(Millions)

Figure 12

Value of North American Merchandise Trade by U.S. State—All Surface Modes: 2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, as of January 2002.
trade, nearly 12 percent, followed by Texas with 8 percent.

Other border states, such as Vermont, experienced even steeper

declines (27 percent). 

The majority of U.S.-

NAFTA trade by value is trucked

across national and state boundaries. Because of their gateway

role, border states carefully

monitor trade activity by this

mode, both by value and number

of crossings. Many states experienced declines in 2001 truck

crossings—Texas, Washington,

and Michigan all saw drops of

over 5 percent from 2000 levels.

Other border states experienced

lesser drops, while crossings in

Alaska and North Dakota rose. 

Land Ports and Border

Crossings

Although there are over 75 land

ports along the U.S.-Canadian

border and over 25 along the

U.S.-Mexican border, the freight

traffic at the border is heavily concentrated at a few major gateway

ports. Such concentration affects

traffic and congestion at the border, as well as the growth of major

trade corridors. In 2001, the top

land ports for U.S.-NAFTA surface trade by value were Detroit,

Laredo, and Buffalo-Niagara Falls

(table 24). Together, these three

ports accounted for over 35 percent of the value of all U.S.-

> 58 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Alaska

Utah

Nevada

Kansas

Nebraska

Washington

Arkansas

North Dakota

New Hampshire

South Dakota

West Virginia

Maryland

Iowa

Louisiana

Maine

Connecticut

Florida

California

Mississippi

Alabama

Idaho

Michigan

Rhode Island

Ohio

Colorado

Wisconsin

Illinois

Tennessee

District of Columbia

Georgia

Massachusetts

New Jersey

Texas

Virginia

South Carolina

Missouri

Indiana

Wyoming

Pennsylvania

Kentucky

New Mexico

New York

Oregon

Delaware

Minnesota

Montana

North Carolina

Arizona

Hawaii

Oklahoma

Vermont

–30 –20 –10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

States' trade with Canada 

and Mexico fell in 2001 

compared with 2000

Decline in NAFTA trade

States' trade with Canada 

and Mexico grew in 2001

compared with 2000 

Growth in NAFTA Trade

NOTE: U.S. state surface trade value equals imports to the U.S. destination state,

plus exports from the U.S. state of origin. The destination state reflects the state

of the importer of record, which may not always represent the final physical

destination of shipments. The U.S. state of origin typically reflects the state

where the goods were grown, manufactured, or otherwise produced. In some

instances, it may not reflect the actual state of physical origin. Shipments for

Hawaii are intermodal and are included in this dataset because a portion of the

shipment moves by a land mode from either its origin or final destination.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, as of January 2002.

Figure 13

Percentage Change in the Value of U.S. NAFTA-Partner

Land Trade by State: 2000–2001
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 59 <

Table 24

Top 10 U.S. Land Ports by Value of U.S.-NAFTA 

Surface Trade: 2000 and 2001

(Value in millions of current U.S. dollars)

All surface modes Truck Rail

Rank in % % %

2001 U.S. port 2000 2001 change 2000 2001 change 2000 2001 change

U.S.-North 

American trade 575,713 547,312 –4.9 428,700 395,425 –7.8 94,198 92,617 –1.7

1 Detroit, MI 94,442 91,982 –2.6 85,468 79,762 –6.7 8,598 11,909 38.5

2 Laredo,TX 83,674 79,607 –4.9 60,047 55,298 –7.9 23,465 24,179 3.0

3 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 70,132 60,478 –13.9 54,659 47,196 –13.7 14,473 10,497 –27.5

4 Port Huron, MI 59,704 55,648 –6.8 32,770 29,955 –8.6 24,645 22,914 –7.0

5 El Paso,TX 39,376 37,931 –3.7 36,008 34,697 –3.6 1,433 1,575 9.9

6 Otay Mesa, CA 18,773 19,401 –3.3 18,760 19,385 3.3 0 0 NA

7 Champlain-Rouses Pt., NY 17,260 16,163 –6.4 15,326 14,271 –6.9 1,041 1,098 5.5

8 Nogales, AZ 13,631 12,509 –8.2 11,046 9,964 –9.8 2,576 2,543 –1.3

9 Hidalgo,TX 12,594 12,423 –1.4 12,444 12,211 –1.9 0 0 NA

10 Blaine,WA 12,303 11,687 –5.0 10,692 9,914 –7.3 1,536 1,724 12.3

Top 10 as % of total 73.3 72.7 78.7 79.1 82.6 82.5

U.S.-Canada trade 365,118 346,515 –5.1 257,642 234,824 –8.9 62,646 60,171 –4.0

1 Detroit, MI 94,347 91,906 –2.6 85,375 79,687 –6.7 8,597 11,908 38.5

2 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 70,004 60,341 –13.8 54,531 47,059 –13.7 14,473 10,497 –27.5

3 Port Huron, MI 59,622 55,539 –6.8 32,689 29,846 –8.7 24,644 22,914 –7.0

4 Champlain-Rouses Pt., NY 17,237 16,137 –6.4 15,303 14,246 –6.9 1,041 1,098 5.5

5 Blaine,WA 12,303 11,687 –5.0 10,692 9,914 –7.3 1,536 1,724 12.3

6 Alexandria Bay, NY 11,987 10,621 –11.4 11,981 10,615 –11.4 0 0 NA

7 Pembina, ND 10,577 8,886 –16.0 9,661 8,252 –14.6 180 107 –40.7

8 Sweetgrass, MT 7,773 8,269 6.4 6,446 6,888 6.9 470 564 19.9

9 Portal, ND 6,596 6,799 3.1 4,376 4,426 1.2 2,193 2,341 6.8

10 Eastport, ID 2,711 6,513 140.3 1,580 1,222 –22.6 907 819 –9.7

Top 10 as % of total 80.3 79.9 90.3 90.3 86.3 86.4

U.S.-Mexico trade 210,595 200,797 –4.7 171,058 160,600 –6.1 31,552 32,446 2.8

1 Laredo,TX 83,674 79,607 –4.9 60,047 55,298 –7.9 23,465 24,179 3.0

2 El Paso,TX 39,376 37,931 –3.7 36,008 34,697 –3.6 1,433 1,575 9.9

3 Otay Mesa, CA 18,773 19,401 3.3 18,760 19,385 3.3 0 0 NA

4 Nogales, AZ 13,631 12,509 –8.2 11,046 9,964 –9.8 2,576 2,543 –1.3

5 Hidalgo,TX 12,594 12,423 –1.4 12,444 12,211 –1.9 0 0 NA

6 Brownsville-Cameron,TX 12,108 10,911 –9.9 11,307 10,139 –10.3 746 735 –1.5

7 Calexico East, CA 8,320 7,348 –11.7 8,238 7,207 –12.5 81 140 72.4

8 Eagle Pass,TX 7,285 6,739 –7.5 4,135 3,599 –13.0 3,140 3,129 –0.3

9 Del Rio,TX 2,387 2,375 –0.5 2,387 2,375 –0.5 0 0 NA

10 San Luis, AZ 1,226 1,007 –17.8 1,226 994 –18.9 0 0 NA

Top 10 as % of total 94.7 94.7 96.8 97.1 99.7 99.6

KEY: NA = not applicable.

NOTE: Truck and rail will not sum to total land trade by port, because not all land modes are included here. Other land modes include

pipeline, mail, unknown, and miscellaneous. Ports are ranked by totals for all surface trade.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, as of January 2002.
NAFTA trade in 2001 and 46 percent of U.S.-NAFTA surface

trade.

Many of the top U.S.-NAFTA ports are national and

regional trade gateways, while others serve local markets. For

example, only about 20 percent of the value of shipments passing through Buffalo-Niagara Falls originate or terminate in New

York. A similar figure is seen for Laredo. For Detroit, the biggest

U.S.-Canadian border port, 70 percent of the value of shipments

start or end outside of Michigan. In contrast, over 90 percent of

the shipments passing through Otay Mesa, the largest California

port, originate or end up in California. 

The top U.S.-NAFTA land gateways handle thousands of

truck crossings each day. In 2001, there were almost 11.1

million commercial truck crossings into the United States from

Canada and Mexico, translating to 30,000 daily truck

crossings.35 This was up 44 percent from 1994, but down 4.3

percent from 2000. The majority of these crossings occurred on

the U.S.-Canadian border (61 percent), although the growth

rate in truck crossings, as with trade, has been more rapid on

the U.S.-Mexican border (table 25). As with trade levels, truck

crossings are concentrated among a few ports. In 2001, the top

three ports (Detroit, Laredo, and Buffalo-Niagara Falls)

handled nearly 40 percent of all truck crossings (table 26). 

Although trucking accounts for the majority of U.S.-

NAFTA trade at the major land ports, several ports serve as

important U.S.-NAFTA rail gateways, carrying long-haul freight

to origins and destinations in several states. Over half of the

value of U.S.-NAFTA rail trade passes through just two gateways, Laredo and Port Huron, Michigan, and these two ports,

along with Eagle Pass, Texas, have seen explosive growth in the

value of rail cargo since 1994, in part due to rail privatization in

Mexico and new North American rail alliances. In the 1990s,

rail lines, such as Kansas City Southern, focused on acquisitions,

joint ventures, and strategic marketing alliances with other rail

lines to form what has become known as the NAFTA Railway

(KCS 2002). These rail alliances provide service from the central

United States into Mexico and Canada. In conjunction with

> 60 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

35 Data for vehicle and equipment crossings (truck and rail) are collected by the U.S. Customs

Service and are only available for inbound crossings into the United States. In addition, the

crossing numbers do not represent the number of unique vehicles. For example, one truck may

cross the border multiple times in one day. 
other large rail lines, such as Groupo Transportacion Ferrovia

Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. (TFM), the Texas Mexican Railway, and

Canadian National, shipments can move easily with a single rate

throughout North America. Growth in rail cargo has also been

accompanied by increases in crossings of trains, as well as full

and empty containers. In 2001, over 40,000 trains carrying

about 2.4 million containers entered the United States from

Canada and Mexico, equaling approximately 112 trains and

6,500 daily container entries (table 26). 

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 61 <

Table 25

Top 20 NAFTA Border Truck Crossings into the United States: 1994, 2000, and 2001

(Thousands of crossings)

Average

Percentage annual

Rank in 1994 2001 change, growth rate,

2001 U.S. port 1994 2000 2001 % % 1994–2001 1994–2001

1 Detroit, MI 1,155 1,769 1,642 15.0 14.8 42.1 5.1

2 Laredo,TX 668 1,493 1,404 8.7 12.7 110.2 11.2

3 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 887 1,198 1,124 11.5 10.1 26.7 3.4

4 Port Huron, MI 609 839 829 7.9 7.5 36.1 4.5

5 Otay Mesa/San Ysidro, CA 440 688 708 5.7 6.4 61.1 7.1

6 El Paso,TX 574 720 661 7.4 6.0 15.1 2.0

7 Blaine,WA 324 517 472 4.2 4.3 45.6 5.5

8 Champlain-Rouses Pt., NY 273 391 382 3.5 3.4 40.1 4.9

9 Hidalgo,TX 165 374 368 2.1 3.3 123.4 12.2

10 Alexandria Bay, NY 190 278 277 2.5 2.5 45.8 5.5

11 Calexico East/Calexico, CA U 279 257 U 2.3 U U

12 Brownsville,TX 267 299 252 3.5 2.3 –5.9 –0.9

13 Nogales, AZ 192 255 249 2.5 2.2 29.9 3.8

14 Pembina, ND 127 214 220 1.6 2.0 72.7 8.1

15 Calais, ME 112 154 144 1.5 1.3 28.2 3.6

16 Derby Line,VT 81 139 141 1.1 1.3 74.1 8.2

17 Sweetgrass, MT 90 146 140 1.2 1.3 56.6 6.6

18 Jackman, ME 99 128 139 1.3 1.3 40.3 5.0

19 Sumas,WA 84 123 134 1.1 1.2 59.0 6.8

20 Houlton, ME 82 133 126 1.1 1.1 54.0 6.4

Subtotal, top 

20 ports 6,419 10,138 9,668 83.2 87.2 50.6 6.0

Total, all ports 7,719 11,574 11,082 100.0 100.0 43.6 5.3

Total, from Mexico 2,763 4,526 4,305 35.8 38.8 55.8 6.5

Total, from Canada 4,956 7,048 6,777 64.2 61.2 36.7 4.6

KEY: U = unavailable.

NOTE: Data represent the number of truck crossings, not the number of unique vehicles, and include both loaded and unloaded

trucks. Data for the port of Calexico are typically reported as a combined total with Calexico East.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, March 2002; based on data from U.S. Customs Service, Mission Support Services, Office of Field Operations, Operations Management CD, 2001.
Trade flows and vehicle and equipment crossings at key

land gateways have fluctuated since the inception of NAFTA,

generally characterized by a steady rise through 2000, followed

by modest downturns in 2001, due to economic slowdowns

throughout North America, the September 11 terrorist attacks

on the United States, and the accompanying fall in trade

between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. During the

1990s, traffic and flows at these gateways were influenced by

notable differences in the geography and direction of trade

flows, as U.S. trade expanded more rapidly with Mexico than

Canada and import flows from Canada and Mexico grew more

quickly than U.S.-NAFTA exports. In addition, key gateways

are affected by the mix of commodities passing through these

ports as well as changes in carrier efficiencies. For example,

> 62 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 26

Top 5 U.S. Land Ports for North American Merchandise 

Trade by Truck and Rail: 2001

(With crossing and entry detail)

TRUCK

Annual truck Value Annual Truck

Rank in trade value per day incoming truck crossings

2001 U.S. port (millions of $) (millions of $) crossings per day

U.S.-North American trade 395,425 1,083 11,081,868 30,361

1 Detroit, MI 79,762 219 1,642,042 4,499

2 Laredo,TX 55,298 152 1,403,914 3,846

3 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 47,196 129 1,123,971 3,079

4 El Paso,TX 34,697 95 660,583 1,810

5 Port Huron, MI 29,955 82 828,802 2,271

RAIL

Annual rail Value Annual Rail

Rank in trade value per day incoming rail container

2001 U.S. port (millions of $) (millions of $) containers entries per day

U.S.-North American trade 92,617 254 2,361,997 6,471

1 Laredo,TX 24,179 66 273,935 751

2 Port Huron, MI 22,914 63 449,299 1231

3 Detroit, MI 11,909 33 304,591 834

4 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 10,497 29 150,525 412

5 International Falls-Ranier, MN 4,012 11 205,430 563

NOTE: Rail containers represent the number of container entries, not the number of unique containers. Truck data represent the

number of truck crossings, not the number of unique vehicles, and include both loaded and unloaded trucks. Port rank is based on

trade value for 2001. Truck and rail value data include both import and export trade.

SOURCES: Truck crossings and rail containers—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, June 2002;

based on data from U.S. Customs Service, Mission Support Services, Office of Field Operations, Operations Management CD, 2001.

Truck and rail trade value—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight

Data, as of June 2002.
changes in commodity mix and other factors help to explain

why growth in the value of truck import shipments mirrors that

of incoming truck crossings between 1994 and 2001 (figure 14). 

Despite the overall rise in trade levels for U.S.-NAFTA

land gateways during the 1990s, notable changes were seen in

2001. Surface trade levels at most of the major U.S.-NAFTA

gateways fell between 2000 and 2001, with Buffalo-Niagara

Falls experiencing the steepest decline (13.9 percent) of the top

10 land ports. Together the top three U.S.-NAFTA ports

(Detroit, Laredo, and Buffalo-Niagara Falls) saw surface trade

values fall 6.5 percent over 2000 levels. Of the top gateways, on

the U.S.-Mexican border, Otay Mesa, California, was the only

U.S. land port that saw a rise in trade in 2001 (3.3 percent).

This rise was outpaced by a small U.S.-Canadian port, Eastport,

Idaho, which experienced a 140 percent increase in 2001 because

of the opening of a new pipeline and a resulting $4 billion

increase in pipeline imports (USDOT BTS 2002a). 

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 63 <

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 Millions of crossings

Total incoming

From Canada

From Mexico

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 Index , 1994 = 100

Import value

Incoming truck crossings

Number of Incoming Truck Crossings

Index of Truck Import Values

 vs. Incoming Crossings

Figure 14

U.S.-NAFTA Imports by Truck : 1994–2001

NOTE: Data represent the number of truck crossings, not the number of unique vehicles, and include both loaded and unloaded trucks.

SOURCES: Truck crossings—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, special tabulation, April 2002; based

on U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Mission Support Services, Office of Field Operations, Operations Management Database CD. Truck import value—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, as

of June 2002.
MULTIMODAL VIEW: TOP GATEWAYS

Water, air, and land modes36 and their associated services and

infrastructures are all used to transport goods in U.S. international trade. Whether goods are exported or imported, substantial domestic transportation activity is needed to move goods to

and from U.S. air and land gateways and seaports. Often, several

modes of transportation are involved. Figure 15 shows the

nation’s top ports of entry and exit for U.S. international trade

shipments by value in 2001. In 2001, the top five gateways represented air, water, and land modes. The leading gateway overall

in 2001 was New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport

with $117 billion of air cargo. The maritime ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the land gateway of Detroit, and the maritime port of New York-New Jersey followed JFK. 

These ports handled both exports and imports, with some

serving primarily as gateways for imports into the United States,

while others were predominately gateways for exports from the

United States to destinations around the world (table 27, p. 66).

Among the top 10 gateways, only the land port of Detroit, Los

Angeles International Airport, and San Francisco International

Airport handled more exports than imports.

Continuing growth in U.S.-Asian Pacific trade, further

integration of North American manufacturing, variations in

commodity mix, and many other factors will continue to affect

the top gateways as well as the movements of international

trade shipments to, from, and within the United States. Additionally, these gateways could be affected and their relative roles

may shift as the United States embraces new freight security

measures to protect against the use of freight conveyances for

terrorist acts.

> 64 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

36 Land modes here include truck, rail, and pipeline. Although many international trade shipments involve multiple modes of transportation, it is not possible to report on intermodal or

multimodal activity due to the way in which U.S. international trade statistics are collected.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 65 <

$100

$ 50

$ 25

Value of freight 

entering and exiting

gateways (billion $)

Air

Exports

Imports

Surface

Water

Port of 

Seattle

Port of 

Oakland

San Francisco

International Airport

Los Angeles 

International Airport

Port of 

Los Angeles

Port of 

Long Beach

Ports of Otay Mesa/

San Ysidro

Port of El Paso

Port of 

Laredo

Dallas-Fort Worth

Area Airports

Port of Houston

New Orleans 

Area Airports Miami

International 

Airport

Port of Charleston

Port of Norfolk

Port of Baltimore

JFK

International

Airport

Port of 

New York

and NJ

 Port of BuffaloNiagara Falls

Cleveland

Area Airports

Port of

Port Huron

Port of

Detroit

Chicago 

Area Airports

Anchorage International

Airport

Port of 

Tacoma

NOTES: See table C-17 on page 134 for the data. All data—Trade 

levels reflect the mode of transportation as a shipment enters or

exits a border port. Flows through individual ports are based on

reported data collected from U.S. trade documents. Trade does not

include low-value shipments (in general, these are imports valued 

at less than $1,250 and exports that are valued at less than $2,500).

Air—Data for all air gateways include a low level (generally less than

2%–3% of the total value) of small user-fee airports located in the

same region. Air gateways not identified by airport name (e.g.,

Chicago) include major airports in that geographic area as well as

small regional airports. In addition, due to U.S. Census Bureau confidentiality regulations, data for courier operations are included in

the airport totals for JFK International Airport, New Orleans, Los

Angeles, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, and Anchorage. Water—Data

are preliminary.

SOURCES: Air—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau,

Foreign Trade Division, special tabulation, May 2002. Water—U.S.

Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of

Statistical and Economic Analysis, personal communication, May

2002. Land—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, 2002.

Figure 15

Top 25 U.S. International Freight Gateways by Shipment Value: 2001
> 66 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 27

Top 10 U.S. International Freight Gateways by Shipment Value: 2001

(Billions of current U.S. dollars)

Export as Balance of trade

Rank in Total U.S. % of (exports minus

2001 U.S. port Mode trade Exports Imports total imports)

Total, all airports 519 251 267 48.5 –16

Total, all maritime ports 718 199 520 27.3 –327

Total, all land ports 547 235 313 42.9 –78

1 JFK Int. Airport Air 117 50 67 43.0 –16

2 Los Angeles, CA Water 104 17 87 16.7 –69

3 Long Beach, CA Water 95 17 78 17.7 –61

4 Detroit, MI Land 92 49 43 53.5 6

5 New York/New Jersey Water 86 23 63 26.4 –41

6 Laredo,TX Land 80 35 45 43.6 –10

7 Los Angeles Int. Airport Air 64 34 30 53.3 4

8 San Francisco Int. Airport Air 62 32 30 52.2 3

9 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Land 60 29 31 48.6 –2

10 Port Huron, MI Land 56 17 38 31.0 –21

NOTE: All data—Trade levels reflect the mode of transportation as a shipment enters or exits a U.S. Customs port. Flows through individual ports are based on reported data collected from U.S. trade documents. Trade does not include low-value shipments or intransit shipments. Air—Data for all airports are based on U.S. port classifications and include a low level (generally less than 2%–3% of the total

value) of small user-fee airports located in the same region. In addition, due to U.S. Census Bureau confidentiality regulations, data for

courier operations are included in the airport totals for JFK and Los Angeles International Airports. Water—Data are preliminary.

SOURCES: Air—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, special tabulation, May 2002. Water—U.S.

Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis, personal communication, May 2002.

Land—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, as of May 2002.
TRENDS IN MAJOR COMMODITIES

The commodity mix of U.S. international merchandise trade

has changed appreciably during the past two decades and

continues to shift in response to changes in U.S. consumer preferences and global economic integration. Since 1980, manufactured

goods’ share of U.S. international merchandise trade has

increased,37 influencing the growth in containerization and the

demand for intermodal transportation. Manufactured goods’ portion of the value of U.S. international merchandise trade jumped

from 62 percent in 1980 to 85 percent in 200138 (figure 16).

Meanwhile, natural resources

and raw materials’ share of the

value of U.S. merchandise trade

declined, even though the United

States continues to produce, export

and import, and consume vast

quantities of such products. Between

1980 and 2001, agricultural goods’

share of the value of trade fell from

13 percent to 5 percent. Mineral

fuels’ (oil and petroleum products)

share declined from 19 percent to 7

percent, in part due to relative

declines in oil prices. While the commodity mix changed, the volume of

U.S. trade in manufactured and

other goods and the transportation

required to carry it grew, affecting

the shipment tonnage carried by all

the freight modes.

Just five commodities, valued

at about $1 trillion, accounted for

over half (54 percent) of the value

of U.S merchandise trade in 2001, and these five commodities

have remained fairly stable since 1990.39 Table 28 shows the top

20 traded commodities and their relative annual growth rates

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 67 <

1980 1990 2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 

90

Percentage of value

Manufactured goods

Mineral fuels

Agricultural goods

Other goods

1985 1995

Figure 16

U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

by Commodity Type: 1980–2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Economic Analysis, Balance of Payments data, available at http://www.ita.

doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/aggregate/H01T03.html, as of June 2002.

37 Merchandise trade encompasses all trade. Manufactured goods are one type of commodity

group and are a subset of overall merchandise trade.

38 It is not possible to determine these shares by weight, because data on the weight of U.S.

exports by land modes are not collected.

39 Based on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule-2 (HTS2) commodity classification code.
> 68 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 28

U.S. Total Merchandise Trade by 2-Digit Commodity Code: 1990, 1995, and 2001

(Billions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank in Rank in Commodity Annual growth

1990 2001 code Commodity description 1990 1995 2001 rate, %

1 1 84 Nuclear reactors, boilers,

machinery, and parts1 141 236 306 7.3

3 2 85 Electrical machinery, 103 206 277 9.4

equipment, and parts

2 3 87 Vehicles other than railway 107 155 218 6.7

4 4 27 Mineral fuels, oils, and waxes 77 70 136 5.3

6 5 90 Measuring and testing instruments 31 50 79 8.9

5 6 88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 37 32 66 5.4

7 7 98 Special classification provisions 25 36 60 8.2

8 8 29 Organic chemicals 20 32 51 9.1

10 9 39 Plastics 18 32 46 8.8

9 10 71 Pearls, stones, metals, and 18 26 41 7.6

imitation jewelry 

11 11 62 Not knitted or crocheted apparel 16 26 34 7.3

19 12 61 Knitted or crocheted apparel 9 17 31 11.4

21 13 94 Furniture, lamps, and 9 15 29 11.7

prefabricated buildings

36 14 30 Pharmaceutical products 4 9 28 18.8

12 15 48 Paper and paperboard 14 22 26 6.0

16 16 95 Toys, games, and sports 10 16 24 7.9

equipment

17 17 73 Articles of iron or steel 10 15 22 7.4

15 18 44 Wood and articles 12 17 20 5.1

18 19 64 Footwear 10 13 16 4.3

22 20 40 Rubber and articles 8 13 16 6.4

All other commodities 209 290 346 4.7

Top 20 commodities 680 1,037 1,527 7.6

Top 20, percentage of all commodities 76.5 78.2 81.6

Total, all commodities 889 1,327 1,873 7.0

Imports

2 1 84 Nuclear reactors, boilers,

machinery, and parts1 67 123 161 8.4

1 2 87 Vehicles other than railway 75 102 159 7.1

4 3 85 Electrical machinery, equipment, and parts 58 114 155 9.3

3 4 27 Mineral fuels, oils, and waxes 65 59 123 6.0

7 5 98 Special classification provisions 12 18 35 10.2

Exports

1 1 84 Nuclear reactors, boilers,

machinery, and parts1 75 113 145 6.2

2 2 85 Electrical machinery, equipment, and parts 45 92 123 9.5

3 3 87 Vehicles other than railway 32 52 59 5.6

4 4 88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 31 26 45 3.5

5 5 90 Measuring and testing instruments 18 27 44 8.8

1 The majority of trade under commodity code 84 is computer-related machinery and parts. Machinery for nuclear reactors and parts is a

very small portion of trade under commodity code 84.

NOTE: Commodity code is the 2-digit harmonized schedule (HS) for internationally traded goods.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.

Treasury, and U.S. International Trade Commission, http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/REPORT.asp, as of April 2002.
since 1990. Only measuring and testing instruments (i.e., optical,

photographic, precision, and parts) entered the top five during

the 1990s, pushing aircraft, spacecraft, and parts down into the

sixth slot in the process. Other than this category, the top commodities for exports and imports were similar during this period.

However, aircraft, spacecraft, and parts are among the leading

exports.

Between 1990 and 2001, the value of all the major traded

commodities grew at average annual rates of 4 percent to 19

percent. Higher value goods grew more rapidly than lower

value goods, most notably pharmaceutical products and

furniture, furnishings, and lighting products (commodity code

94), which moved from outside the top 20 in 1990 to the 14th

and 13th positions, respectively, in 2001. The strong growth in

U.S. trade of pharmaceuticals and furniture is indicative of a

general increase in the U.S. trade of high-value commodities.

The growth in trade of high-value commodities in turn has

contributed to the rise in air transportation’s share of U.S. international trade value, since it is generally more cost-effective to

transport smaller, higher value, and lower weight goods by air.

Another notable change in the commodity mix was a drop in

the ranking for cereal grain and iron and steel. In 1990, cereal

grain and iron and steel were ranked 13th and 14th, respectively.

By contrast in 2001, iron and steel was ranked 21st and cereal

grain, 28th. Such changes in commodity mix could affect the volume of bulk cargo handled by U.S. ports. 

The commodity mix of U.S.-NAFTA surface trade is

somewhat different from that of U.S. international trade overall

due to transborder shipments of the automotive industry and

trade in raw and semi-processed materials. Motor vehicles, parts,

and accessories (commodity code 87) were the leading commodity

for U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico, followed by electrical

machinery and equipment (table 29). An overwhelming proportion of these commodities moved by surface modes. In 2001,

motor vehicles, parts, and accessories were transported mostly by

truck ($60 billion) and rail ($55 billion). The movement of commodities in this category by rail accounted for 59 percent of all

U.S.-NAFTA rail trade. Raw and semi-processed commodities

(e.g., paper products, wood products, and articles of iron and

steel, aluminum, and rubber) are more important components in

U.S.-NAFTA trade than they are in overall U.S. international

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 69 <
trade. The reverse is true for finished and processed goods (e.g.,

optical, photographic, and precision instruments; chemicals;

and pharmaceutical products), which factor more highly into

total U.S. international trade than in U.S.-NAFTA trade. 

> 70 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 29

Top 15 Commodities in U.S. Merchandise Trade with NAFTA Partners 

by All Modes Compared with Total U.S. Trade: 2001

(Millions of current U.S. dollars)

Total U.S. Total U.S.

Rank in Comm. trade NAFTA trade Land trade with NAFTA partners

20011 code Commodity description (all modes) (all modes) Total Truck Rail Other2

1 87 Vehicles other than railway 218,091 118,231 115,893 59,858 54,696 1,339 

2 85 Electrical machinery, 277,152 89,369 76,924 73,140 885 2,899

equipment, and parts

3 84 Nuclear reactors, boilers, 306,392 82,279 70,598 64,230 4,435 1,933

machinery, and parts

4 27 Mineral fuels, oils, and waxes 135,881 51,551 34,216 2,339 1,467 30,410

5 98 Special classification provisions 59,824 25,126 22,216 15,897 383 5,936

6 39 Plastics 45,984 21,554 21,271 17,297 3,509 465

7 48 Paper and paperboard 25,905 16,719 16,101 11,749 4,103 249

8 90 Measuring and testing 79,098 16,141 12,814 12,171 184 460

instruments

9 94 Furniture, lamps, and 29,337 12,684 12,517 12,091 75 351

prefabricated buildings

10 44 Wood and articles 20,245 12,559 12,190 7,350 4,682 158

11 73 Articles of iron or steel 22,212 10,315 10,056 8,995 557 503

12 88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 65,804 9,464 7,572 2,017 35 5,520 

13 76 Aluminum and articles 13,455 7,962 7,807 5,847 1,893 67

14 40 Rubber and articles 15,988 6,889 6,806 6,098 422 286

15 62 Not knitted or crocheted apparel 34,281 6,554 5,969 5,900 8 60

All other commodities 523,338 126,238 114,362 90,446 15,282 8,634

Total, top 15 commodities 1,349,647 487,398 432,950 304,979 77,335 50,636

Top 15 as a % of 72.1 79.4 79.1 77.1 83.5 85.4

all commodities

Total, all commodities 1,872,985 613,635 547,312 395,425 92,617 59,270

Transportation-related goods 289,863 130,545 125,817 63,336 55,591 6,889

87 Vehicles other than railway 218,091 118,231 115,893 59,858 54,696 1,339

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 65,804 9,464 7,572 2,017 35 5,520

86 Railway locomotives and parts 2,863 1,744 1,729 854 857 18

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 3,105 1,106 622 607 2 13

Transportation-related goods 

as a % of all commodities 15.5 21.3 23.0 16.0 60.0 11.6

1 Commodity ranking is based on total U.S.-NAFTA trade.

2 Includes pipeline and miscellaneous such as "flyaway aircraft" (i.e., aircraft moving under its own power from manufacturer to a customer and not carrying freight).

NOTE: Land trade includes truck, rail, pipeline, and miscellaneous and unknown. Commodity code is based on the 2-digit harmonized

schedule (HS) for internationally traded goods.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, 2001; and U.S. International Trade Commission, available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts, as of April 2002.
During the past decade, changes in the demand for and

supply of particular commodities affected both the geographic

pattern of U.S. trade and our top trading partners. For example,

in 1990, Japan was the leading U.S. trade partner for commodity

code 84 (primarily machinery and mechanical appliances), the

most traded commodity group by value. By 2001, Canada had

become the top U.S. trading partner for this commodity group,

while Japan dropped to second. A similar switch occurred with

electrical machinery and equipment (commodity code 85). In

1990, Japan was the leading trade partner with $23 billion,

followed by Canada and Mexico. By 2001, Mexico had taken

the lead with $58 billion, followed by Japan and Canada with

$31 billion each (USITC 2002). For mineral fuels (commodity

code 27), Canada has maintained its top position during the last

decade, but trade with other countries for this commodity has

shifted. For example, Venezuela passed Saudi Arabia to the

second position in 2001. Such changes affect the volume of

crude petroleum and related products handled by U.S. East

Coast and Gulf Coast ports. A change also occurred in trade in

motor vehicles and parts and optical and precision instruments

(commodity code 90). For both of these catagories of goods,

Mexico passed Germany to move into the third position, behind

Canada and Japan. Such changes in trade or leading commodities affect transportation modes, services options, and system

requirements.

TRADE IN TRANSPORTATION-RELATED GOODS

In 2001, the U.S. traded $290 billion worth of transportationrelated commodities (e.g., cars, trains, and airplanes) with its

partners, nearly twice the value of these commodities traded in

1990.40 Despite this overall increase, the share of transportationrelated goods relative to all U.S. traded commodities fell slightly

from 16.5 percent in 1990 to 15.5 percent in 2001 (table 30).

While motor vehicles and parts constitute by far the largest share

of U.S. international trade in transportation-related goods, trade

in aircraft, spacecraft, and parts was valued at $66 billion in

2001 (figure 17, p. 73).

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 71 <

40 This includes merchandise trade only. Transportation-related services are discussed in the

next section.
As is the case with overall international trade, the United

States had a merchandise trade deficit in transportation-related

exports and imports, totaling $76 billion in 2001. The deficit

arose from the over $100 billion U.S. trade deficit for automotive vehicles and parts, which represented the second-largest

deficit of total traded commodities and accounted for nearly

one-quarter of the total U.S. merchandise trade deficit of $411

> 72 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 30 

U.S. Trade in Transportation-Related Goods by 

Commodity: 1990, 2000, and 2001

(Millions of current U.S. dollars)

Comm.

code Description 1990 2000 2001

Overall (exports plus imports)

87 Vehicles other than railway 106,939 225,782 218,091

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 36,953 59,143 65,804

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 1,629 2,292 3,105

86 Railway locomotives and parts 1,223 3,240 2,863

Total, transportation-related goods 146,744 290,456 289,863

Transportation goods share of total (%) 16.5 14.5 15.5

Total, all commodities 889,004 1,997,306 1,872,985

Imports

87 Vehicles other than railway 74,685 163,854 159,341

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 6,385 18,167 21,098

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 330 1,178 1,206

86 Railway locomotives and parts 701 1,828 1,357

Total, transportation-related goods 82,101 185,027 183,003

Transportation goods share of total (%) 16.6 15.2 16.0

Total, all commodities 496,028 1,216,888 1,141,959

Exports

87 Vehicles other than railway 32,254 61,928 58,750 

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 30,567 40,976 44,705 

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 1,299 1,114 1,899 

86 Railway locomotives and parts 522 1,412 1,506 

Total, transportation-related goods 64,642 105,429 106,860

Transportation goods share of total (%) 16.4 13.5 14.6 

Total, all commodities 392,976 780,419 731,026

Balance (exports minus imports)

87 Vehicles other than railway –42,431 –101,927 –100,592

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 24,182 22,809 23,607

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 969 –65 693

86 Railway locomotives and parts –179 –416 149

Balance, transportation-related goods –17,459 –79,598 –76,143

Balance, total trade for all commodities –103,053 –436,469 –410,933

NOTE: Commodity code is the 2-digit harmonized schedule for internationally traded goods. Commodity detail

data are not available in inflation-adjusted terms.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from U.S.

Department of Commerce, U.S. International Trade Commission,available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, as of

August 2002.
billion41 (figure 18). Over

one-third of the automotive

vehicles and parts deficit

involved U.S. trade with

Japan, while about one-fifth

was with Canada.

In contrast, the United

States had trade surpluses in

2001 in other transportationrelated commodities. The $24

billion surplus in aircraft,

spacecraft, and parts trade

was the single highest surplus

of any commodity in U.S.

international trade (figure 18)

and was due to surpluses

with several trading partners,

particularly the United Kingdom. The only deficits for

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 73 <

Figure 17

Value of Transportation-Related U.S. Merchandise Trade 

for Selected Categories: 1990–2001

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2001

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Millions of current $

Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts

Vehicles other 

than railway

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2001

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Millions of current $

Ships, boats, and 

floating structures

Railway locomotives 

and parts

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. International Trade Commission,

available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts, as of December 2002.

41 Mineral fuels, oils, and waxes, including crude oil and petroleum products, had

the largest trade deficit of $110 billion in

2001.

Figure 18

Balance of Trade for Transportation-Related 

Merchandise Goods: 1990–2001

–120

–100

–80

–60

–40

–20

0

20

40

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts

Vehicles other than railway

Billions of current $

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based

on data from U.S. International Trade Commission, available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/

scripts, as of December 2002.
aircraft products were with France and Canada, both countries

that have large aviation manufacturing sectors (see appendix

table C-18, p. 136). The U.S. international trade surplus for

ships, boats, and floating structures was $693 million and for

railway locomotives and parts it was $149 million in 2001. The

trade surplus for railway locomotives and parts was in sharp

contrast to the $416 million deficit in 2000 and was the first

surplus since 1990. The 2001 surplus can largely be attributed to

the United States supplying railcars and parts to Canada, the

largest U.S. trade partner for railway products. The U.S. trade

surplus in railway locomotives and parts was $257 million with

Canada alone. 

> 74 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TRADE 

I

n addition to international trade in merchandise, the United

States exports (sells) and imports (buys) a variety of services,

including freight transportation and port services42 (box 4). In

2001, total U.S. services trade accounted for about 21 percent of

U.S. overall international trade, a slight decline from 23 percent

in 1990. Between 1990 and 2001, merchandise trade’s share

averaged about 78 percent (figure 19). While overall services

trade accounted for about one-fifth of U.S. international trade,

services maintained the largest share of U.S. gross domestic

product for many years. 

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 75 <

Box 4

Components of International Services Trade

Defining services trade is a complex issue, tied to

how governments calculate their balance of payments. International services trade, as reported by

the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis' current account, includes private

and public transactions. Public or government

transactions mainly cover operations of the U.S.

military and embassies abroad (e.g., transporting

supplies from the United States to a military base 

in a foreign country). Because these public sector

transactions are not considered to reflect U.S. service industries' competitiveness and may introduce

fluctuations from events such as peacekeeping

missions, this report discusses only private sector

services trade.

Services are traded internationally through two

primary channels. The first channel involves sales of

services by residents of one country to residents of

another country. These sales—cross-border trade—

include both trade within multinational companies

(intrafirm trade) and trade between unaffiliated

parties. Services trade is recorded for both countries: as exports for the seller's country and as

imports for the buyer's country. The second channel

of delivery is sales through foreign affiliates of

multinational companies. From the U.S. perspective,

these are sales to foreigners by foreign affiliates of

U.S. companies. For example, if a Japanese citizen

buys a car in Japan that is produced by a General

Motors affiliate in Thailand, this sale will not be

considered a U.S. international transaction, because

it is a transaction between foreigners. Cross-border

and affiliates trade have different effects on the U.S.

economy. For example, U.S. cross-border exports

have a greater beneficial effect than equivalent

sales through foreign affiliates, because the income

from this trade accrues to U.S.-supplied labor and

capital. This report only discusses cross-border

services trade.

Cross-border services trade is classified into five

broad categories: travel, passenger fares, other

transportation (i.e., freight transportation and port

services), royalties and license fees, and other private services. (See box source for coverage and

definitions of the categories.) This report focuses

on freight transportation and port services because

they directly relate to the movement of merchandise. The freight and port services category covers

freight charges and receipts for transportation of

goods by ocean, air, land (truck, rail, and pipeline),

and inland water carriers to and from the United

States and between two foreign points. It also

includes the value of goods (e.g., fuel) and services

purchased by foreign carriers in U.S. ports and vice

versa. Travel and passenger fares are discussed in a

BTS companion report, U.S. International Travel and

Transportation Trends.

SOURCE

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

Survey of Current Business, November 2001.

42 In this report, transportation services include freight services provided by transportation carriers as well as by port facilities (e.g., airports, seaports, and terminals). The other transportation services—travel and passenger fares—are not discussed here. BTS discusses them in a

companion report, U.S. International Travel and Transportation Trends. 
Trade in freight and port services generates substantial

revenues for U.S. businesses in terms of receipts to U.S. carriers

and ports. These services also result in payments by U.S.

companies to foreign freight carriers and ports. Exports of

freight transportation services occur when a U.S. carrier receives

payments from a foreign company or individual for transporting

merchandise. Imports of freight transportation services occur

when a U.S. company or individual pays a foreign carrier for

transporting merchandise. Similarly, U.S. exports of port

services occur when foreign carriers purchase services and

goods (e.g., fuel) at U.S. airports and seaports. U.S. imports of

> 76 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Figure 19

Overall U.S. International Trade in Merchandise 

and Services by Sector: 1990–2001

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Merchandise Services

Percent

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Balance of Payments data, available at

http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/aggregate/H01t01.html, as of June 2002.
port services occur when a U.S. carrier purchases services and

goods at ports in foreign countries43 (USDOC BEA 2001).

The freight transportation and port services sectors comprise many industries, including carriers, ports and terminals,

and logistics providers, among other businesses (figure 20).

These industries interact to manage the product supply chain

and transport internationally traded goods. Because of the

widespread use of just-in-time (JIT) inventory management,

manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other firms involved

in international trade often rely on a combination of carriers and

logistics providers (e.g., freight forwarders, arrangers, and consolidators) to transport goods globally from multiple suppliers.44

For example, Hewlett-Packard uses a complex logistics and

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 77 <

43 Note that the value of port services reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis also

includes services procured by foreign passenger carriers at U.S. ports and by U.S. passenger carriers at foreign ports.

44 JIT involves keeping materials on hand for only a few days or sometimes only a few hours of

operation. In JIT inventory management, materials are delivered as needed in the manufacturing process and final products are shipped to distributors, wholesalers, and retailers as they are

demanded by customers.

Figure 20

Components of a Trade Flow Between Shipper and Consignee

(forwarders, consolidators, 

supply chain management, etc.)

Logistics provider

Outside 

supplier

Affiliate 

supplier

Shipper/manufacturer 

(true origin)

Distributor/ 

wholesaler

Consignee

(true destination)

Retailer/ 

consumer

Ports and terminals

(airports, seaports, intermodal

yards, warehouses, etc.)

For-hire carrier

(trucking, railroads, airlines, shipping

lines, pipelines, courier, etc.)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, August 2002.
transportation management system to supply inkjet printers to

its North American market from suppliers in Vancouver,

Washington, and Singapore (Armbruster 2001). Many American companies, such as Caterpillar Inc., Ford Motor Company,

Frito-Lay, and Campbell Soup, use both in-house and thirdparty transportation service providers to manage the inflow of

raw materials and outflow of finished products by multiple

transportation modes on a time-definite basis (PR Newswire

2001 and Logistics Management Distribution Report 2000).

Since JIT puts a premium on transportation system reliability

and speed, the performance of freight carriers and ports directly

influences the competitiveness of U.S. businesses engaged in

international trade.

In 2001, U.S. trade in freight transportation and port

services was $67 billion, down 6 percent from $72 billion in

2000 (figure 21). This annual decline was only the second since

> 78 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Figure 21

U.S. Trade in Services: 2000 and 2001

Travel Freight Passenger fares

 transportation 

and port services

Royalties and 

 license fees

Other private 

 services1

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2000 2001

Millions of $

1 Includes finance, insurance, telecommunications, education, business and professional services,

and others.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. International Transactions Data,

available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/international/bp_web/list.cfm?anon=381, as of January

2003.
1986, the first year for which the Bureau of Economic Analysis

(BEA) reported consistent data on services trade.45 Of the $67

billion, 56 percent was for freight services and the remainder

was for port services.46 The 2001 declines were in both exports

(receipts) and imports (payments), mostly due to the lower

volume of air traffic immediately after September 11.

Despite the decline in 2001, U.S. international freight and

port services trade grew between 1986 and 2001 as the volume

of merchandise transported internationally increased. During

this period, U.S. total trade (receipts plus payments) for these

services doubled from $33 billion to $67 billion, growing at an

average annual rate of 4.8 percent. U.S. exports (receipts) grew

at a 4.1 percent annual rate, whereas imports (payments) grew

5.3 percent per year, mirroring trends in goods trade. Figure 22

shows that while U.S. international freight and port services

trade increased, its relative share of the U.S. total private sector

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 79 <

45 There was a 5 percent decline in 1992, following the U.S. economic recession of 1991. 

46 Includes services for both freight and passenger operations at ports. BEA’s international

transactions current account does not split out receipts for goods and services purchased at U.S.

ports by foreign carriers into revenues for freight and for passenger services. For example, when

a foreign air carrier buys fuel and services at a U.S. airport, that air carrier could use the purchased goods and services for both its passenger and freight operations.

Figure 22

U.S. International Freight and Port Services Trade 

and Share of Total Services: 1986–2001

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2001

Billions of current $ Percent

5

10

15

20

25

Freight and port services share 

of total services trade

(receipts and payments)

0

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2000

Freight and port services trade

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. International Transactions Data, available at http://

www.bea.doc.gov/bea/international/bp_web/list.cfm?anon=381, as of January 2003.
services trade declined from 23

percent in 1986 to about 15

percent in 2001. This occurred

because other services’ share,

particularly telecommunications

and Internet-related services,

increased much faster in the

1990s.

In 2001, the U.S. experienced a surplus in overall services

trade, contrasting with the deficit

for merchandise trade. At the

same time, however, a nearly $14

billion deficit was seen in freight

services while port services

showed a $3 billion surplus, leading to an overall deficit of $11 billion for freight and port services

combined (figure 23 and appendix table C-20, p. 138). The 2001

freight services deficit continued a

trend seen since 1986, the first

year for which data are available.

As the amount of U.S. merchandise imports increased, so too

did the payments to foreign carriers transporting many of these

goods. In contrast, during the same 15-year period, the United

States maintained a surplus in port services as foreign carriers that

transported increasing amounts of U.S. import cargo also purchased increasing amounts of services from U.S. ports.

The United States engages in services trade with numerous

countries worldwide. Many of these countries are also the top

merchandise trading partners of the United States. Overall in

2001, Japan was the top U.S. services trade partner in freight

transportation and port services combined, with over $9 billion,

about 40 percent of this for receipts to U.S. carriers and ports

and 60 percent in payments to Japanese carriers and ports47 (see

appendix table C-21, p. 139). Japan was followed by Canada

and the United Kingdom. 

> 80 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Figure 23

Balance of Trade for U.S. International Freight 

and Port Services: 1986–2001 

(Receipts minus payments)

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2001 –14

–12

–10

–8

–6

–4

–2

0

2

4

6

Billions of current $

Port services

Total (freight + ports)

Freight services

Surplus

Deficit

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic

Analysis, U.S. International Transactions Data, available at http://www.bea.

doc.gov/bea/international/bp_web/list.cfm?anon=381, as of January 2003.

47 Although the receipts and payments cover transshipments, it is not possible to disaggregate

available data in order to separate out revenues from transshipped goods.
In 2001, U.S. exports (receipts) of freight and port services

were $28 billion, with Japan accounting for almost 12 percent of

this activity. For freight services exports alone, Canada was the

leading U.S. trade partner, primarily because of the $1.6 billion

paid to U.S. carriers for transporting goods to Canada by

surface modes. Japan was second, with two times more paid to

U.S. air carriers than U.S. ocean carriers. In contrast, for port

services exports, Japan was the leading U.S. trade partner with

$2 billion in activity; 62 percent of this was for the use of U.S.

maritime port services.

Japan was also the leading U.S. trade partner for imports

(payments) of freight and port services, accounting for 14 percent of the $39 billion total in 2001. For freight services imports

alone, Japan also was the largest U.S. partner followed by

Canada with $2.5 billion, where over 90 percent of these payments were to Canadian trucking and rail companies. Japan

also led U.S. port service imports (or payments to Japanese air

and maritime ports) with $2.1 billion, followed by the United

Kingdom with $1.6 billion (appendix table C-21, p. 139).

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TRADE BY MODE

In 2001, declines in overall freight and port services trade were

experienced by all the modes, but air cargo services were affected

the most. 

• Air freight services declined by about 11 percent (from $11

billion to $9 billion) reflecting a drop in air cargo transported. 

• Ocean freight services decreased about 5 percent (from $25

billion to $24 billion) due to declines in maritime trade volume and maritime rates for all ocean services (liner, tanker,

and bulk). In particular, weak demand for bulk items, such

as coal, iron ore, and grain, was responsible for this drop. 

• Surface freight services fell by 7 percent (from $5.1 billion

to $4.7 billion) as some modal shifts and rate changes

occurred in the aftermath of September 11.

• Overall port services (primarily airport and seaport)

decreased nearly 6 percent to $30 billion, mainly because of

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 81 <
sizeable declines in air carrier activity following September

11. Part of this decline was also due to lower jet fuel prices

in 2001 (USDOC BEA 2002b). 

Prior to the 2001 overall declines, there had been some

notable modal changes in freight and port services trade since

1986.48 U.S. air carriers now export the majority of U.S. freight

services (i.e., receive the most receipts), having overtaken ocean

carriers in 199749 (figure 24). Increases in air cargo revenues

helped U.S. airlines offset relatively higher fuel prices during

most of this period. Since 1986, exports by U.S. surface freight

carriers for transporting goods to Canada and Mexico by truck

and rail also rose, with most of the revenues representing

services to Canada (USDOC BEA 2001). U.S. imports (payments

for freight services to foreign carriers) rose between 1986 and

2000, reflecting the strong growth in the volume of merchandise

imports and higher freight rates during this period, particularly

for liner vessel freight imports from Asia and tanker freight rates

for most regions.

For port services, the gap between U.S. exports of maritime port and airport services narrowed between 1986 and

2000, with U.S. airports providing more exports (receipts) in

1998 before maritime port services once again increased. Airport

and seaport receipts rose as increases in both the volume of

goods and passengers resulted in greater port expenditures by

foreign air carriers and maritime vessels. U.S. payments for port

services also went up for airport services between 1986 and

2000, as a result of growth in air cargo and passenger activity

(USDOC BEA 2001). Payments for airport services far exceed

those for either surface or ocean modes.

> 82 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

48 1986 is the first year for which detailed services trade data are available from BEA.

49 In 1997, U.S. air freight receipts were $4.6 billion while ocean carrier receipts were $4.5 

billion.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 83 <

Figure 24

Receipts and Payments for U.S. International Freight and Port Services Trade: 1986–2000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Billions of current $

Ocean ports

Airports

Other ports

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

0

4

8

12

16

20

Billions of current $

Ocean carriers

Air carriers

Other carriers

Receipts for Exports of Port Services

Payments for Imports of Freight Services

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Billions of current $

Receipts for Exports of Freight Services

Ocean carriers

Air carriers Other carriers

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

0

4

8

12

16

20

Billions of current $

Payments for Imports of Port Services

Airports

Ocean ports

Other ports

0 0

NOTE: Other carriers include truck, rail, and pipeline. Other ports include land ports for truck and rail, and payments for imports of these

port services were generally less than $100 million for the time period.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Accounts Data, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/di/1001serv/intlserv.htm, as of June

2002.

FACTORS OF CHANGE AND CONTINUITY

Changes in trade patterns as well as direct investment

between nations have deepened trading relationships with several countries and the United States. Alterations in trade patterns, in turn, affect the choices of transportation modes used in

this country. For the exports of several countries, the United

States is a leading destination. This is also the case, to a lesser

extent, for imports (table 31). In 2000, 64 percent of all Canadian imports originated in the United States, up slightly from 62

percent in 1991. The United States was the destination for 87

percent of all Canadian exports, up from 76 percent in 1991.

Much of the trade between the United States and Canada is due

to the integration of North American automotive production.

The remainder of the trade is either raw or semi-processed materials (e.g., lumber and petroleum products) from Canada and the

exchange of other manufactured products facilitated by strong

bilateral relations and the proximity of the two countries. 

During the same period, Mexico received 74 percent of its

imports from the United States. In 2000, 89 percent of all Mexican merchandise exports were destined for the United States,

up from 80 percent in 1991. Today, a notable share of the trade

with Mexico is in automotive products and electronics that are

exported to Mexico for assembly in maquiladora factories50

and re-imported into the United States as finished products.

Between 1997 and 2000, U.S. trade with Asian Pacific

countries grew, although, those countries’ imports from and

exports to the United States represent a smaller share of their

total trade than our North American neighbors. For example,

although China ranked fourth as a major U.S. trading partner in

2000, its imports from the United States accounted for only 9

percent of total Chinese imports, down from 13 percent in 1991.

However, the United States was the destination for 21 percent of

all Chinese exports, up from 9 percent in 1991. As U.S. exports

to Asian countries grow, containerized cargo transiting West

Coast ports is likely to increase, creating more demands for

efficient intermodal services.

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 85 <

50 Maquiladoras are manufacturing plants primarily concentrated on the northern Mexican

border that specialize in assembling goods from imported components for re-export to the

United States. In 2000, there were about 3,600 maquiladora manufacturing plants operating in

Mexico.
> 86 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 31

U.S. Share of Top 25 Trading Partners' Total Merchandise 

Imports and Exports: 1991, 1995, and 2000

(In percent)

Rank in U.S. share of partner’s imports U.S. share of partner’s exports 

2001 Country 1991 1995 2000 1991 1995 2000

1 Canada 62.3 66.7 64.4 75.8 80.4 87.4

2 Mexico 73.9 74.5 73.5 79.5 83.6 88.7

3 Japan 22.7 22.6 19.1 29.3 27.5 30.2

4 China 12.5 12.2 9.4 8.6 16.6 20.9

5 Germany 6.6 7.1 8.6 6.2 7.5 10.3

6 United Kingdom 11.6 12.2 12.3 10.9 12.2 15.8

7 Korea 23.1 22.5 19.7 25.7 19.4 22

8 Taiwan U U 18.0 U U 23.5

9 France 9.5 7.5 7.4 6.2 5.8 8.7

10 Italy 5.6 4.8 5.3 6.9 7.3 10.4

11 Singapore 15.8 15.1 15.1 19.7 18.3 17.3

12 Malaysia 15.3 16.3 16.6 16.9 20.8 20.5

13 Brazil 23.2 21.2 23.1 20.2 18.9 23.8

14 Netherlands 7.8 8.9 10.2 3.9 3.6 4.4

15 Ireland 15 17.9 16.3 8.7 8.4 17

16 Hong Kong 7.6 7.7 6.8 22.7 21.8 23.3

17 Belgium1 4.8 5.4 7.5 3.8 3.6 5.9

18 Venezuela 47.8 42.6 36 53.5 50.5 50.8

19 Thailand 10.5 11.5 11.7 21.1 17.6 22.5

20 Israel 19.3 18.7 18.1 29.7 29.9 36.8

21 Switzerland 7.3 6.4 10.2 8.3 8.7 13.1

22 Saudi Arabia 20.2 21.4 20.7 22.8 17 17.3

23 Philippines 20.2 18.5 19.7 35.7 35.8 29.9

24 Australia 24.4 21.9 20.0 10.0 6.3 9.9

25 India 9.7 9.7 8.2 16.4 17.4 22.7

1 1995 data for Belgium include Luxembourg; 2000 data do not.

KEY: U = unavailable.

NOTE: U.S. share equals a nation's imports from or exports to the United States as a proportion of its imports or

exports from the world. The top 25 trading partners are based on the total merchandise trade with the United

States in 2001. However, 2001 data for U.S. share of countries' total trade is unavailable.

SOURCE: U.S Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. Foreign Trade Highlights, Table 44: U.S. Shares of

Other Nations' Imports 1991–2000, available at http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/aggregate/

h01t44.html, as of May 2002.
A major factor influencing U.S. trading relations with our

partners is the outflow of U.S. direct investment abroad (USDIA)

to businesses around the world and the inflow of foreign direct

investment in the United States (FDIUS) from businesses located

abroad.51 Trends in both USDIA and FDIUS are important

because investment by businesses could complement the flow of

merchandise trade and affect transportation services carriers,

such as shipping lines and airlines. Growth in USDIA and FDIUS

also can result in increased intra-industry and intra-firm trade,

as branch plants or supply chains are established by multinational companies.

In 2000, USDIA and FDIUS with all trading partners were

nearly equal at $ 1.2 trillion, with a relatively small balance of

$6 billion (table 32). Although almost identical in total value,

the outflow and inflow of investments grew at different rates.

Between 1997 and 2000, outgoing total USDIA grew by an

average rate of 13 percent per year, while incoming investments

rose at 22 percent per year. The top two partners for USDIA

and FDIUS have not changed in many years. The United Kingdom remained the top country for both inflows and outflows of

investments, accounting for about 19 percent in each case.

Canada was the second leading destination for USDIA while

Mexico ranked 10th. 

In 2000, USDIA was slightly greater than FDIUS. In

general, the United States invested relatively more in Latin

American countries than they invested in the United States,

resulting in a positive balance of investment with these countries. By contrast, European countries invested more in the

United States than did the United States in Europe, resulting in

a negative balance of investment with Europe (table 33). Since

1997, while the positive balance with the United Kingdom

declined, the negative balance with Japan grew as Japanese

businesses invested more in the United States.

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 87 <

51 BEA defines USDIA as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one U.S. person of

10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated foreign business enterprise or the

equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise. FDIUS is the reverse. The

annual investment position data for USDIA represents the value of U.S. parent companies’

equity in and net outstanding loans to their foreign affiliates, while that for FDIUS represents

the value of foreign parent companies’ equity in and net outstanding loans to their U.S. affiliates. The major direct investment items include capital flows (equity, intercompany debt, and

reinvested earnings), income, royalties and license fees, and other services transactions. 
> 88 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 32 

Top 10 Countries for U.S. Direct Investment Abroad and Foreign

Direct Investment in the United States: 1997–2000 

(Billions of current U.S. dollars)

Rank in Percentage

2000 Country 1997 1998 1999 2000 in 2000

U.S. direct investment abroad

1 United Kingdom 154 183 212 233 18.8 

2 Canada 97 98 111 126 10.2 

3 Netherlands 69 90 106 116 9.3 

4 Japan 34 41 49 56 4.5 

5 Switzerland 31 38 49 55 4.4 

6 Bermuda 38 42 47 54 4.3 

7 Germany 41 48 51 54 4.3 

8 France 37 42 40 39 3.1 

9 Brazil 36 37 34 36 2.9 

10 Mexico 24 27 32 35 2.8 

Total, all countries 871 1,001 1,131 1,245 100.0 

Europe 425 518 588 649 52.1 

Latin America and other 

Western Hemisphere 181 197 221 239 19.2 

Asia and Pacific 145 160 182 200 16.0 

Foreign direct investment in the U.S.

1 United Kingdom 129 137 167 230 18.5 

2 Japan 125 134 153 163 13.2 

3 Netherlands 85 92 126 152 12.3 

4 Germany 69 93 112 123 9.9 

5 France 50 60 82 119 9.6 

6 Canada 65 73 77 101 8.1 

7 Luxembourg 12 27 57 83 6.7 

8 Switzerland 38 48 54 82 6.6 

9 Sweden 11 17 21 27 2.2 

10 Ireland 10 12 16 23 1.9 

Total, all countries 682 778 966 1,239 100.0 

Europe 429 519 670 891 71.9 

Asia and Pacific 146 154 175 194 15.7 

Latin America and other 

Western Hemisphere 34 28 38 43 3.4 

NOTE: The Bureau of Economic Analysis defines U.S. direct investment abroad as the ownership or

control, directly or indirectly, by 1 U.S. person of 10% or more of the voting securities of an incorporated foreign business enterprise or the equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business

enterprise.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, International Accounts Data,

"U.S. Direct Investments Abroad" and "Foreign Direct Investment in the United States," available at

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/di, as of May 2002.
UNDERLYING FORCES

Growth and changes in the U.S. population and economy. Two

fundamental forces affecting U.S. international trade are

growth and other demographic changes in the U.S. population,

as well as structural changes in industrial manufacturing and

distribution patterns. Over the past few decades, as the nation’s

population and income grew, merchandise trade and freight

movements rose greatly. Shifts in age and geographic distribution, immigration, and participation in the workforce have

combined to affect consumer tastes for foreign products, thus

increasing the demand for traded goods and transportation

services. If the U.S. population continues to grow at past rates

and some of the observed shifts in geographic concentration

persist, demand for transportation services can be expected to

increase, affecting both local freight movements as well as

longer distance flows.

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 89 <

Table 33

Balance of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad and Foreign 

Direct Investment in the United States: 1997–2000

(Billions of current U.S. dollars)

Country 1997 1998 1999 2000

Japan –91 –93 –104 –108

France –14 –18 –42 –80

Germany –28 –46 –61 –69

Netherlands –16 –2 –20 –37

Switzerland –7 –10 –5 –27

United Kingdom 25 46 45 4

Canada 31 26 35 26

Mexico 21 25 31 33

Brazil 35 37 34 35

Bermuda 34 38 35 39

Total, all countries 189 222 165 6

Europe –4 0 –82 –242

Latin America and other 

Western Hemisphere 147 169 183 197

Asia and Pacific –1 6 7 6

NOTE: The Bureau of Economic Analysis defines U.S. direct investment abroad as

the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by 1 U.S. person of 10% or more

of the voting securities of an incorporated foreign business enterprise or the

equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics;

based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

International Accounts Data, "U.S. Direct Investments Abroad" and "Foreign

Direct Investment in the United States," available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/

bea/di, as of May 2002.
Similarly as the U.S. economy expanded, public and private

investments in the development of the nation’s transportation

infrastructure (roads, rails, waterways, and airports) helped

facilitate U.S. merchandise trade. Increases in GDP made greater

investment in transportation infrastructure possible and enabled

industries to locate in more places while still specializing in

goods for which they have a comparative advantage.52 Public

investment in the development of the nation’s freight transportation system allowed regions within the United States the

flexibility to engage in a diverse range of economic activities.

While the U.S. transportation system expanded, the structural

composition of U.S. GDP shifted toward more services and the

nation’s reliance on imports for manufactured goods increased.

It is possible that these changes could continue to influence the

volume of U.S. international trade and affect goods movement

within the United States for many years to come.

Internationalization of the U.S. and world economies.

Although societies have traded with each other for millennia, the

pace and scale of integration of the world’s economy during the

past five decades may well be unparalleled in history (Dicken

1998). Today, the world economy continues to change in

dramatic ways. Due in part to lower transportation costs,

geographic distance no longer protects industries from international competition as much as it once may have. The global

nature of much of manufacturing makes it difficult to determine

if a computer is “American,” a car “Japanese,” or a television

“Mexican.” When component parts of manufactured goods are

produced in multiple countries and brought together for assembly, determining the country of origin for trade purposes is a

complex matter and this affects trade balances. Many expect

globalization to continue to shape world economic activities,

influence where and how goods are produced and distributed,

and ultimately affect the transportation of goods into and out of

the United States. Even if growth in the volume of freight moved

were to taper off, ongoing changes in business logistics, outsourcing, and just-in-time inventory systems that characterize

global production could increase the demand for more frequent

and smaller shipments.

> 90 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

52 Comparative advantage in trade among regions arises as trading partners seek to take advantage of differences in the costs of producing different goods and services (Krugman 1991). 
Advances in transportation and telecommunications

technology. Transportation and telecommunications technologies have contributed to the rapid growth of international trade

and helped to overcome the resistance of space and time. They

have allowed the unparalleled mobility of goods and people.

Although air and containerized cargo improved merchandise trade dramatically, earlier transportation innovations in

physical infrastructure, such as suspension bridges, tunnels,

railroads, the U.S. Interstate Highway System, modern airports,

and marine terminals, were also critical (figure 25). Advances in

both vehicles and infrastructure increased speed, reliability, and

safety while reducing transportation costs and the time it takes

to travel from one place to another.

For telecommunications, improvements in voice, text, and

data technologies have allowed fundamental changes in services

trade, including transportation services. Component parts of

cars or aircraft might be designed in the United States; then the

designs could be emailed to Japan, Taiwan, and Brazil for

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 91 <

Figure 25

Advances in Transportation Technology and the Shrinking of “Real” Distance

1500–1840 1850–1930 1950s 1960s–present

Best average speed for Steam locomotives Propeller Large jet aircraft

horse-drawn coaches averaged 65 mph and aircraft able to fly

and sailing ships was steamships averaged able to fly 500–700 mph

10 mph 36 mph 300–400 mph

Infrastructure Trunk canals Railroads Highways Emergence of

innovation Turnpike roads Ocean shipping Airports/airlines telecommunications

Vehicle Horse-powered Steam engines Aircraft Jet engines

innovation coaches Steamships Automobiles Containerships

Railroad equipment Combustion Megaships

Steel ships engines Post-Panamax ships

Trucks

Tractors

SOURCE: Adapted from P. Dicken, Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy (New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 1998).
production; and the finished goods transported to the United

States. Improvements in information technologies make it easier

to seamlessly coordinate transportation operations across physically distributed transportation networks, facilitate intermodal

and multimodal movements of international trade, enhance

transportation solutions for freight shippers, and allow significant gains in transmitting preclearance cargo and crew information for security operations.

Changes in the international transportation market. During

the past three decades, the U.S. government took several initiatives to reduce economic regulation of domestic transportation

services. The deregulation legislation included the Airline

Deregulation Act of 1978 for commercial aviation, the Motor

Carrier Act of 1980 for interstate trucking, the Staggers Rail

Act of 1980 for railroads, and the Shipping Act of 1984 and

Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 for ocean carriers. In most

cases, the legislation spurred industry restructuring, increased

productivity, and allowed U.S. transportation services providers

to better compete in international freight markets (USDOT 

BTS 2000). In addition, changes in international regulatory

structures, such as for trucking under the NAFTA motor carrier

access provisions and for aviation under the “Open Skies”

agreements, will continue to affect U.S. international freight

movements (see box 3). 

In the aviation industry, two forces influenced the changes

in international regulatory structures: the reality of globalized

markets and the need to better incorporate issues such as safety

and environmental concerns in bilateral agreements (Lyle

1995). One effect of the internationalization of economies and

markets is that air transportation services, whether passenger or

cargo, can no longer be isolated within national borders.

Alliances between airlines are key to maintaining international

competitiveness. At the same time, nations have sought to

expand the focus on safety. The existing regulatory system has

> 92 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends
evolved from one with tight national restrictions to one that

allows for bilateral “Open Skies” or the ability of air carriers to

provide passenger and cargo services to and from other

countries without restrictions.53 As of October 2002, the United

States had concluded Open Skies agreements with 59

countries,54 but had yet to enter into one with the top three U.S.

transportation services trade partners: Japan, Canada, and the

United Kingdom.55

Reduction of trade barriers and liberalization of national

economies. Since 1970, U.S. international trade more than

quadrupled and expanded globally, in part because of substantial reductions in trade barriers resulting from changes in policy.

Reduction in trade barriers was accompanied by the formation

of regional economic groupings such as NAFTA, the European

Union, and the MERCOSUR56 in Latin America. As trade

barriers were reduced, the relationships between national

governments and businesses changed, creating economic conditions that enhanced access to global markets and resources.

Significant changes that could affect the economic deregulation

of international transportation services, multilateral Open Skies

agreements, privatization of infrastructure, and general agreements among World Trade Organization member nations could

further facilitate trade interactions.

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 93 <

53 The United States signed the first Open Skies agreement with the Netherlands in 1992 and

more recently, with Jamaica in October 2002. The agreements facilitate scheduling of connecting flights, greater capacity in specific markets, and potentially lower prices and rates due to

increased flight options.

54 The United States and Uganda initialed the 57th agreement that, when formally concluded,

will eliminate all restrictions on air services between the two nations (USDOT OST 2002a).

55 The United States and Japan agreed on “all-cargo liberalization” in 1996. The United States

and Canada renewed their air bilateral agreement (not an Open Skies agreement) in 1995.

56 The MERCOSUR customs union was formed in 1995 between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay,

and Uruguay.

CONCLUSION: FREIGHT GROWTH 

AND CONCERNS

As U.S. international merchandise trade continues to grow,

domestic transportation issues, including port access and

cargo security, will need to be evaluated on a continuing basis.

Landside access to U.S. ports, congestion on highways around

major gateways, delays at border crossings, and environmental

and community concerns may continue to affect the efficient

movement of merchandise from, to, and within the United

States. While the nation derives enormous benefits from international merchandise trade, increased freight traffic resulting

from growth in trade could generate negative effects including

air quality, noise, traffic, and safety issues, particularly for

communities adjacent to major freight gateways and corridors.

Also, as international trade continues its expected growth, the

demand for improved intermodal access to U.S. ports will rise,

particularly at containerized ports in urban areas. Issues and

concerns include the condition of local roads for accessing ports,

at-grade rail crossings, rail drayage time and costs, dredging and

channel depths, and availability of truck-only lanes for access to

ports. 

Improved cargo security will also remain a daunting challenge as government and industry work together for solutions

that will prevent terrorist attacks while maintaining an efficient

flow of goods. Policy- and decisionmakers face several questions

as they implement freight transportation security measures. For

example, how will the new and evolving security requirements

affect U.S. carriers and business supply chain management?

What short-term impacts will industry adjustment to just-in-time

and inventory management strategies have on freight volumes

and flows? To what extent will industry be willing to provide the

government with cargo and crew information far in advance to

enhance security in this new environment? How will these

measures affect demand and planning of transportation services?

While the answers to these questions remain uncertain, they are

likely to have major implications for U.S. international freight

transportation in the short and long term.

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 95 <

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 97 <

REFERENCES

Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA). 2002. Alameda Corridor Project Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.acta.org, as of August

2002.

Armbruster, W. 2001. We Can Do That. Traffic World. October 1. 

Bordo, M., B. Eichengreen, and D. Irwin. 1999. Is Globalization Today

Really Different Than Globalization a Hundred Years Ago? National

Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Working Paper Series. 

Campbell, S. 1993. Increasing Trade, Declining Port Cities: Port Containerization and the Regional Diffusion of Economic Benefits. Trading Industries: Trading Regions. H. Noponen, J. Graham, and A.R. Markusen

(eds.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy. New

York, NY: The Guilford Press.

International Monetary Fund (IMF). 1990–2001, annual editions. Balance

of Payments Statistics Yearbook, Parts 2 and 3. Washington, DC.

Kansas City Southern (KCS). 2002. The NAFTA Railway. Available at

http://www.kcsi.com/cor_p.html, as of Dec. 10, 2002.

Krugman, P.R. 1991. Geography and Trade. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press.

Logistics Management Distribution Report. 2000. Campbell's Recipe for

Savings. March 31.

Lyle, C. 1995. The Future of International Transport Regulation. Journal of

Air Transport Management 2(1). 

Muller, G. 1999. Intermodal Freight Transportation, 4th ed. Washington,

DC: Eno Transportation Foundation.

PR Newswire. 2001. Ford Motor Company and Caterpillar Form Logistics

Alliance to Speed Parts Delivery. November 30. Available at

http:www.prnewswire.com, as of January 2003.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Bureau of Economic Analysis

(BEA). 2001. Survey of Current Business. November.

_______. 2002a. National Income and Products Accounts. Available at

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of March.

_______. 2002b. Survey of Current Business. April.

_______. 2003. U.S. International Transactions Data, Table 3: Private 

Services Transactions. Available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ 

international/bp_web, as of January.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation

Statistics (BTS). 2000. The Changing Face of Transportation. Washington, DC.

_______. 2002a. Transborder Surface Freight Data. As of January.

_______. 2002b. Transportation Indicators Report. Mobility Section. Availability and Use of Domestic Flights: Air Freight. Available at http://www.

bts.gov/transtu/indicators, as of June 2002. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT): Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, Maritime Administration, and U.S. Coast Guard. 1999. Maritime Trade and Transportation 1999. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors: A Report to

Congress. Washington, DC. December.

_______. 2002. Technology To Enhance Freight Transportation Security

and Productivity. Freight Transportation Security and Productivity.

Washington, DC. April.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Maritime Administration

(MARAD). 2002a. Vessel Calls at U.S. Ports 2000. Washington, DC.

January.

_______. 2002b. Intermodal Access to U.S. Ports: Report on Survey Findings. Washington, DC. August.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Office of the Secretary

(OST). 2002a. United States, Uganda Reach Open-Skies Agreement.

Available at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot05502.htm, as of June 2002.

_______. 2002b. Alameda Corridor Grand Opening: Remarks by Secretary

of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta. Available at http://www.dot.gov/

affairs/041202sp.htm, as of August 2002.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Mission Support

Services, Office of Field Operations. 2002. Operations Management

Database CD. Special tabulation. April.

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). 2002. Interactive Tariff and

Trade Dataweb. Available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, as of August

2002.

Wall Street Journal. 2002. Two-Way Street: Auto Makers Get Even More

Mileage from Third World. 211(22):1. July 31.

World Trade Organization (WTO). 2002. Leading Exporters and Importers

in World Merchandise Trade, 2000. International Trade Statistics 2001.

Available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2001_e/setion1/

i05.xls, as of June 11, 2002.

> 98 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends
Appendices

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 101 <

Appendix A

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY AND

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Balancing security and international trade requirements has

become a major concern of decisionmakers and private industry

since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Immediately

following the attacks, tightened security necessarily slowed traffic

at U.S. borders, seaports, and airports. Trade flows at key transportation gateways and corridors were affected. Many private

sector businesses relying on just-in-time delivery of traded goods

were impacted. For example, U.S. automakers temporarily halted

production at some facilities when delivery delays from Canada

and Mexico disrupted their supply-chain system of maintaining

low inventories (Wall Street Journal 2001).

The attacks highlighted how major transportation disruptions could affect manufacturers and the broader U.S. economy.

During 2002, trade and freight activity levels started to recover.

However, enhancing security and safety without hindering the

efficient and cost-effective movement of goods and people into

and out of the United States is still a challenge. Government and

industry are now seeking to build on existing efforts and to

develop new approaches to transportation and cargo security. A

key component of this effort will be expanded information on

crews and traded goods, such as the provision of advance and

near real-time data.

Initial Responses to September 11, 2001

Immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks, the many

agencies with security missions implemented new and stricter

procedures at U.S. ports and borders.1 Increased scrutiny of

cargo and people entering and exiting the United States was a

1 Multiple federal agencies have responsibilities for U.S. border control and security. These

include the following agencies, which will be consolidated under the new Department of Homeland Security: 1) the U.S. Customs Service, which checks cargo, vehicles, and passenger baggage

at all U.S. ports of entry; 2) the U.S. Coast Guard, which polices seaports, coastlines, and waterways; 3) the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which is responsible for checking immigration documents at U.S. points of entry; and 4) the Transportation Security Administration,

created in November 2001, which is in charge of security for all modes of transportation.
top focus. The U.S. Customs Service implemented intensive antiterrorism operations under its highest alert level, particularly,

providing a greater level of examination of cargo, conveyances,

and passengers entering the United States. To support these

efforts, additional personnel were deployed across the country

and at major ports of entry. Customs also temporarily transferred about 100 inspectors from the southwestern border to the

northern border (U.S Department of the Treasury 2001).

Complementing Customs’ focus on cargo security, the U.S.

Coast Guard focused on port and vessel security. The Coast

Guard called up over 2,200 reservists to help patrol over 360

seaports and reoriented a majority of its resources to security, a

focus that will remain high2 (USDOT USCG 2001a). Coast

Guard sea marshals began boarding vessels more frequently, and

Port Security Units were deployed at four critical domestic ports

to augment security forces. To improve information and risk

analyses of vessels entering the United States, the Coast Guard

started to require a 96-hour advance notice of vessel arrivals

rather than just 24 hours, as well as crew and passenger lists in

advance (USDOT USCG 2001b). 

Air freight security was also an immediate focus. To better

ensure the security of air cargo movements, the Federal Aviation

Administration issued Emergency Amendment EA 109-01-01A,

or the “known shipper” rule, on October 8, 2001. Under the

new rule, the freight forwarder must verify the legitimacy of the

shipper unless it had done business with the shipper prior to

September 1, 1999, and had booked at least 24 shipments with

them (BDP 2001). 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with

security responsibility for all modes of transportation, was

created through the Aviation and Transportation Security Act

(Public Law 107-71), which President George W. Bush signed

into law on November 19, 2001. Much of TSA’s initial focus

was on air security, particularly for passenger travel, as multiple

deadlines were established in the Act for passenger and checked

baggage screening. In addition, the Act established new provisions for air cargo, including the screening of all cargo that is

not from a known shipper and the development of systems by

> 102 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

2 In addition to homeland security focusing on ports and vessels, the U.S. Coast Guard also has

missions in other areas, including maritime safety and mobility, national defense, and protection of natural resources.
integrated express carriers (e.g., Federal Express or United

Parcel Service) for some level of screening and inspection of

cargo that is transported in all-cargo aircraft. TSA also began

working on enhanced cargo security initiatives for all modes of

transportation.

On November 25, 2002, President George W. Bush signed

into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002, creating a cabinetlevel Department of Homeland Security that would integrate

the government’s border and security responsibilities.3 The new

department, which came into being in January 2003, will fully

or partially consolidate components of the following agencies:

the Coast Guard, TSA, Secret Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Border Patrol, U.S. Customs Service, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, among others. The main missions of the new

department are border and transportation security; emergency

preparedness and response; chemical, biological, radiological,

and nuclear countermeasures; and information analysis and

infrastructure protection. One of the goals of the new department

is to consolidate, coordinate, and share otherwise fragmented

information, in order to better target and respond to any potential terrorist threats.

Longer Term Transportation Security Initiatives

While the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States

elicited immediate responses by the U.S. government, they also

underscored the need for multifaceted strategies and initiatives in

transportation security. In the area of cargo security, many of

these are long-term efforts that will build on activities that were

already underway prior to September 11. Others are new

approaches. All will require government resources and partnerships with industry. Some of these efforts will focus on one piece

of the security picture while others have broader objectives

covering cargo, conveyance, and crew security. Underlying all of

the initiatives, however, is the recognition that enhancements and

new measures are needed to improve cargo and conveyance “visibility” (i.e., availability of information), equipment and infrastructure monitoring, and crew and staff access to secure areas. 

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 103 <

3 These responsibilities and missions are currently distributed across multiple agencies in several

departments, including the Departments of Justice, Transportation, Agriculture, and Treasury,

among others.
Cargo and Conveyance Visibility. Improving the visibility

of cargo and conveyances is a critical component of improved

transportation security. Visibility refers to secure access to

information on goods, equipment, conveyances, and crews

throughout an entire supply chain (e.g., for imports into the

United States, having information about a shipment from the

point of origin in a foreign country; through its loading and

transport via a vessel, plane, truck, or train; to the U.S. port of

entry and unlading; and finally to the U.S. point of destination).

To achieve this objective, information would be required well

before the foreign vessel and its goods have access to the U.S.

domestic transportation system.

Several current security initiatives aim to improve cargo

and conveyance visibility. Two major U.S. Customs Service

programs are the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and the

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). These

two programs are private-public partnerships designed to secure

goods from their origin at a foreign manufacturing facility

through transit, until the goods arrive at U.S. ports. 

The aim of the CSI plan is to establish strict screening

standards at designated foreign ports for U.S.-bound shipments.

Launched by the U.S. Customs Service in January 2002, one of

the CSI goals is to provide U.S. authorities with more information on low-risk, prescreened cargo. One element in achieving

this will be the deployment of U.S. Customs personnel at key

foreign seaports to identify and prescreen U.S.-bound cargo

before it is shipped to the United States.4 Another CSI element is

to provide advance cargo information for Customs’ risk analysis.

To support this ability, Customs issued new regulations on

October 30, 2002, requiring sea carriers to provide cargo manifests 24 hours prior to the loading of the cargo in foreign ports

for shipment to the United States5 (U.S. Department of the

Treasury 2002c).

> 104 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

4 On September 25, 2002, the Customs agencies of the United States and Japan signed a declaration of principle to participate in the CSI (U.S. Department of the Treasury 2002b). As of

October 2002, the United States already had CSI declarations with Canada, the Netherlands,

Belgium, Germany, France, Singapore, and Hong Kong. U.S. Customs is currently in discussions with several other nations.

5 The new regulation applies to sea carriers only. Vessels carrying bulk cargo are exempt. In

January 2003, Customs began holding public meetings with the trade community to discuss

options for advance manifest filings for truck, rail, and air modes.
Under the C-TPAT, manufacturers, shippers, and carriers

that implement secure practices can apply to U.S. Customs for

fast-track cargo processing. The C-TPAT is a certification

process for importers to use for their supply chains. Once the

supply chain is certified, a company’s low-risk cargo could move

through U.S. Customs more easily6 (U.S Department of the

Treasury 2002a).

Both the CSI and C-TPAT programs underscore the need

for accurate and near real-time information on internationally

traded goods in order to secure a supply chain. For example,

with real-time information gathered on an inbound container,

including shipper, owner, origin, destination, transshipment

points, carrier performance history, weight, value, commodity,

and insurance, security staff will be better able to preselect

shipments for physical inspection before the cargo arrives at a

U.S. port. If the network from shipper to consignee is secure

and Customs receives information about the inbound cargo far

in advance, then less time could be spent inspecting these shipments and more time could be focused on higher risk freight. 

An initiative on the U.S.-Canadian border, Free and Secure

Trade (FAST), is also intended to improve cargo and conveyance visibility to security officials so that low-risk goods

transported by truck can move efficiently between the United

States and Canada. FAST is part of the Smart Border initiative

between Canada and the United States begun in December

2001. Under the FAST program, motor carriers, importers, and

truck drivers in both countries register with their governments

and provide advance notice of the goods they intend to transport. Once Customs agents in each country have determined the

safety of each shipment, the trucks can cross the border in

special lanes, thereby reducing delay times at the major land

ports (White House 2002).

Equipment and Infrastructure Monitoring. A key component of many security initiatives is enhanced equipment and

infrastructure monitoring. Since a great deal of U.S. international trade is transported in containers, much attention is

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 105 <

6 As of July 9, 2002, more than 230 importers had agreed to participate in the program, and by

August 26, 2002, the U.S. Customs Service had begun accepting applications for C-TPAT certification. Applications are currently accepted from importers, brokers, freight forwarders, and

nonvessel-operating common carriers. In January 2003, U.S. Customs began to expand 

C-TPAT to include port authorities, terminal and warehouse operators, and manufacturers.
> 106 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

focused on the implementation of electronic, real-time tracking

of containers and the creation of tamper-resistant seals. In addition, the deployment of sensors to detect potentially toxic

and/or explosive cargo is another focus. A challenge is to

develop technologies that are not cost prohibitive for shippers

and carriers, while maintaining equipment security. Another

objective in this area is to further develop and implement technologies to facilitate improved security during the container

loading process. For example, a range of new software is available with the potential to aid in the development of a secure

loading plan or to check the hazardous materials compatibility

of various cargoes.

One initiative focused on equipment and cargo monitoring

is Operation Safe Commerce (OSC), a partnership between

multiple federal agencies and the private sector. Its purpose is to

explore commercially viable options that support cargo management systems that keep pace with expanding trade while

protecting international shipments from a variety of threats.

One of the objectives of the project is to develop procedures,

practices, and technologies that help secure and monitor containers and cargo from point of origin to final destination. In

August 2002, a pilot test of phase one of OSC was conducted

with a focus on container tracking and effective security seals.

Subsequent phases of the project are under development,

including implementation of a supply chain grant program for

the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Seattle, Tacoma, and

New York-New Jersey. The focus of the grant program is to

develop approaches and technologies that will demonstrate a

secure supply chain for international trade transactions. Persons

and entities representing components of the international trade

supply chain submit grant proposals and seek funding through

these ports under the OSC program (USDOT TSA 2002).

Crew and Staff Access. A major component of new security

enhancement plans is limiting access to cargo and conveyances

to qualified and authorized personnel. This includes the development of standards for personnel for all system participants

ranging from customs officials to crewmembers and third-party

forwarders, both in the United States and abroad. Information

and data would again play a central role, facilitating detailed

background checks and providing officials with data points for

risk analyses. Once staff members and crew are screened, their
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 107 <

access to sensitive cargo could be further controlled through

identification technologies such as biometric retinal and iris

scans, hand geometry, facial recognition, voice recognition, or

dynamic signatures.

TSA is implementing a new Ports Security Grants Program

to finance security enhancements at major seaports in the United

States. The bulk of the over $90 million in grants will go to 77

seaports for increasing operational security, including facility

access control and crew security. The grants also cover the development of security assessments and mitigation strategies for port

and terminal security (USDOT OST 2002).

Future Security and Trade Flows

Balancing security requirements with the need for efficient and

effective international freight flows will be a continuing challenge for the country as a whole and for the U.S. transportation

system. The United States shares a 5,525-mile border with

Canada, a 1,989-mile border with Mexico, and has 95,000 miles

of open shoreline and navigable waterways. The task of fully

Cargo Security Initiatives

Security focus Proposed enhancement measures

Cargo and conveyance 

visibility - Tag cargo with trackable, electronic seals at loading points 

- Businesses create and implement processes to secure the supply chain 

- Foreign and U.S. officials screen U.S.-bound containers at select foreign 

ports

- Provide U.S.officials with access to a multiagency information and 

intelligence database to identify low- and high-risk entries

- Exchange trade data among countries for national security purposes

Equipment and infrastructure 

monitoring - Implement electronic, real-time tracking of containers and vessels to 

determine which demand further attention 

- Install sensors to detect potentially toxic and/or explosive cargo

Crew and staff access - Make historical data on shippers, passengers, and crew available to 

authorities through databases

- Deploy advance passenger and crew screening systems

- Use biometric identifiers to grant access to precleared, low-risk individuals

- Use smart seals that provide electronic notification to indicate and deter 

cargo tampering
> 108 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

securing this physical boundary is compounded by the millions

of people, hundreds of thousands of vehicles, aircraft, and

vessels, and millions of containers carrying freight that enter the

United States annually. 

The U.S. domestic transportation network is changing in

response to these evolving security and trade requirements. The

exact implications of these changes for freight are, as yet,

unknown. For example, if delivery times are delayed, will globally sourced companies rely more on domestic suppliers? Will

companies begin to hold more inventories, thereby affecting the

demand for transportation services? It is clear that initiatives

focused on improved technology and information will be essential in this new trade and security environment. However, the

exact balance between the flow of international goods and

necessary security requirements will continue to evolve and new

strategies seeking to improve this balance will continue to be

sought. 

References

BDP International. 2001. BDP Advisory: FAA Issues New Guidelines for

Known Shippers. Available at http://www.bdpint.com/news_events/ad_

air33.html, as of October 2001.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Office of the Secretary

(OST). 2002. U.S. Department of Transportation Establishes Port

Security Grants for Critical National Seaports. Available at http://

www.dot.gov/affairs/061702sp.htm, as of Sept. 16, 2002.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Transportation Security

Administration (TSA), Maritime and Land Security. 2002. Personal

communication. October.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).

2001a. Media Advisory: New Reporting Requirements for Ships Entering, Leaving U.S. Available at http://www.uscg.mil/news/Headquarters/

Reporting_requirements.htm, as of Sept. 16, 2002.

_____. 2001b. Statement by USCG Commandant on Port and Maritime

Security, December 2001. Available at http://www.uscg.mil/overview/

article_statementloy.htm, as of Sept. 6, 2002.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service. 2001. Testimony 

of Commissioner Robert C. Bonner. Northern Border Security: Hearing

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, October 3. Available at http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/news/news.htm, as of Oct. 28,

2002.

_____. 2002a. Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT).

Available at http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/enforcem/tpat_fact.htm, 

as of Aug. 12, 2002. 

_____. 2002b. Japan Joins Container Security Initiative. Available at http://

www.customs.treas.gov/hot-new/pressrel/2002/0926-00.htm, as of Oct.

24, 2002.

_____. 2002c. U.S. Customs Publishes Final Regulations To Require

Advance Shipping Information. Available at http://www.customs.

treas.gov/hot-new/pressrel/2002/1030-00.htm, as of Oct. 30, 2002.

Wall Street Journal. 2001. As Security Worries Intensify, Companies See

Efficiencies Erode. Sept. 24, 2001. p. 1.

White House. 2002. United States-Canada Free and Secure Trade Program:

The Fast Program, September 2002. Available at http://www.whitehouse.

gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020909-3.html, as of Oct. 24, 2002.

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 109 <

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 111 <

Appendix B

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND TRANSPORTATION:

DATA ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

International trade and transportation data are important to

government and private sectors alike. These data are used for

many purposes, including security analyses, trade corridor

studies, transportation infrastructure planning, and marketing

and logistics plans, to cite a few. 

In the United States, multiple agencies are involved in the

collection, processing, and dissemination of international trade

and transportation data. No one dataset provides all information requirements needed by the transportation community and

multiple sources were used for this report. The integration of

these different data sources helps provide a more complete picture of U.S. international trade and transportation flows and

trends. Several challenges arise when using multiple data

sources, including variations in accuracy, reliability, time series,

and data field definitions. 

Merchandise Trade Statistics

The transportation community relies on merchandise trade statistics to perform a wide variety of multimodal transportation

and trade data analyses. U.S. merchandise trade statistics are

processed and released by the U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign

Trade Division. Census-based merchandise trade data are

captured as a result of international trade filing requirements of

the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury, and primarily

reflect information filed by shippers or their representatives

rather than carriers. The U.S. Customs Service collects these

documents at the port of entry or exit unless the information is

filed electronically using the Automated Broker Interface (ABI)

on imports or the Automated Export System (AES) on exports. 

The Census Bureau releases overall merchandise trade and

transportation statistics that include data elements on value, commodity, weight, country of origin and destination, U.S. port, and

so forth. Other agencies obtain special extractions and tabulations
from the Census Bureau, and then perform additional quality

assurance reviews and analyses for their own purposes and to

meet the needs of their own customers. These include: North

American land trade data (released to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and disseminated as the Transborder Surface Freight Data); U.S. international maritime trade data

(released to the Maritime Administration and the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers and disseminated in multiple formats); U.S.

transportation-related goods data and overall trade data

(released to the Bureau of Economic Analysis and disseminated

in multiple formats, including balance of payments information). 

Several challenges exist with Census-based merchandise

trade statistics. Specifically, the absence of actual shipping weight

measurements for surface exports is a critical problem in U.S.

international trade data. Weight data are currently only collected

for imports, due to the reporting requirements of the Census

Bureau and the U.S. Customs Service.

Another key issue is acquiring reliable data on the

domestic origin and destination of international trade. Origindestination data may not always be reported correctly for a

number of reasons. For example, Census requires the reporting

of the state of origin for U.S. export shipments, which is

supposed to be the physical location of origin for the export

shipments. Reporting errors can occur, as intermediaries (e.g.,

freight forwarders or logistics providers) often complete the

documentation for a particular shipment, and may not know the

physical flow and geography of the goods. These intermediaries

sometimes list their headquarters location as the point of origin

or specify the location of the port of exit, which is not always

where the goods began their journey. This occurs most frequently

for data covering exports of farm products, minerals, and other

bulk commodities. 

Another key data gap in Census-based merchandise trade

statistics is the lack of intermodal data. Internationally traded

goods are commonly transported by more than one mode from

origin to final destination. In merchandise trade statistics, the

export mode of transportation is defined as the mode used

when the U.S. international border is crossed. On the import

side, the mode of transportation is defined as the last mode used

when the freight was transported to the U.S. port of clearance

or entry. Because of these reporting requirements, merchandise

> 112 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 113 <

trade statistics do not distinguish goods moved by intermodal

combinations.

Yet another challenge with Census-based merchandise

trade statistics is the accuracy of port statistics and the inability

to identify the actual port or physical infrastructure of entry or

exit. In some cases, the reported port is the customs district and

port of duty filing, not the physical location of the port of entry

or exit as defined in the regulation requirements. Electronic filing has increased the number of administrative port filings, thus

reducing the ability to accurately ascertain where goods are

physically entering and exiting the United States 

Other Trade and Transportation Sources

Special studies, as well as other carrier-based sources, supplement Census-based merchandise trade statistics. These include:

the BTS Office of Airline Information (OAI), the Journal of

Commerce’s Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), and

others. OAI air freight data is based on regulatory filing requirements for market and financial data from U.S. and foreign

carriers operating in the United States. The PIERS database provides maritime trade statistics, based on information collected

from vessel manifests, for maritime cargo entering and exiting

the United States. Each of these sources, as with Census-based

trade statistics, has its own gaps and limitations, and must be

adequately assessed when linking multiple sources for analysis.

New Initiatives in International Trade and

Transportation Data

Despite these limitations, strides are being made to improve

future trade and transportation data. The U.S. Customs Service,

in partnership with other federal agencies, is currently working

to modernize its entire data-collection system through the development of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).

This will replace the Automated Commercial System (ACS),

which is comprised of the ABI and AES. Once in place, the new

ACE system should increase functionality, streamline processes,

and generate significant government and trade benefits. The

goal of the ACE is to reduce processing loads, lower operating

expenses, and focus efforts on risk analysis. 
In conjunction with the ACE, the International Trade Data

System (ITDS)—a federal information technology initiative led

by the U.S. Customs Service—seeks to provide an integrated,

governmentwide system for the electronic collection, use, and

dissemination of both shipper- and carrier-based international

trade and transportation data. An expected benefit will be more

timely data availability. Federal operational and statistical

agencies may have near real-time access to filings, which could

shorten the overall time it takes to release reports and data. In

addition, the ITDS will provide a broader set of more accurate

data elements, because information will now be filed electronically by both shippers and carriers and then linked by a unique

shipment identifier.

> 114 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends
Appendix C

STATISTICAL TABLES

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 115 <

Table C-1

Value and Tonnage of U.S. Freight 

Shipments: 1997 and 2001

1997 20011

Value Tons Value Tons

(billion $) (millions) (billion $) (millions)

Domestic 6,742 12,925 8,265 14,603 

Exports 688 554 731 481 

Imports 870 1,007 1,142 1,162 

Total 8,300 14,486 10,138 16,246 

Shares Percent Percent 

Domestic 81.2 89.2 81.5 89.9 

Exports 8.3 3.8 7.2 3.0 

Imports 10.5 7.0 11.3 7.2 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

1 2001 value and weight for exports and imports are official U.S. trade

statistics. The value for 2001 domestic shipments is a projection from the

1997 Commodity Flow Suvey (CFS) data, based on the annual average

growth rate of current U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) (5.2%) between

1997 and 2001. The tonnage for 2001 domestic shipments is a projection

from 1997 CFS data, based on the annual average growth rate of domestic

freight movements (3.4%) between 1993–1997, adjusted for the variation

in GDP growth rate between 1993–1997 (5.8%) and 1997–2001 (5.2%).

The 2001 projections are subject to uncertainties, because they assume

freight grew at an annual rate similar to GDP. Also, because the CFS is a

survey, the data are subject to sampling and nonsampling errors.

NOTES: The 1997 domestic figures are estimates based on the CFS minus

export shipments. CFS data published in other BTS publications include

exports.

SOURCES: Domestic data—U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT ),

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), 1997 Commodity Flow Survey

data. Export and import data—USDOT BTS, Transborder Surface Freight

Data; and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign

Trade Division, U.S. Exports and Imports of Merchandise CD, December 1997

and 2001.
> 116 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-2

U.S. International Merchandise Trade and Real 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP): 1990–2001

(Billions of chained 1996 dollars)

Annual Annual

Real Total change in change in

GDP trade GDP (%) trade (%)

1990 6,708 891 1.8 5.3

1991 6,676 919 –0.5 3.1

1992 6,880 994 3.0 8.1

1993 7,063 1,062 2.7 6.9

1994 7,348 1,186 4.0 11.7

1995 7,544 1,308 2.7 10.3

1996 7,813 1,427 3.6 9.1

1997 8,160 1,631 4.4 14.3

1998 8,509 1,754 4.3 7.5

1999 8,857 1,911 4.1 8.9

2000 9,224 2,152 4.1 12.6

2001 9,334 2,068 1.2 –3.9

Percentage 

change,

1990–2001 39.1 132.1 

Average 

annual 

growth rate 3.0 8.0 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Accounts, available at

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of August 2002.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 117 <

Table C-3

U.S. International Merchandise Trade and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) : 1970–2001

Current dollars Indexed Chained 1996 Indexed

(billions) 1970 = 100 dollars (billions) 1987 = 100

Total merch. Total merch. Real Real total Real Real total

GDP trade1 GDP trade GDP merch. trade GDP merch. trade

1970 1,040 85 100 100 3,578 U 59 U

1971 1,129 92 109 108 3,698 U 60 U

1972 1,240 109 119 127 3,898 U 64 U

1973 1,386 146 133 171 4,123 U 67 U

1974 1,501 206 144 241 4,099 U 67 U

1975 1,635 209 157 244 4,084 U 67 U

1976 1,824 242 175 284 4,312 U 71 U

1977 2,031 276 195 324 4,512 U 74 U

1978 2,296 323 221 378 4,761 U 78 U

1979 2,566 397 247 465 4,912 U 80 U

1980 2,796 474 269 556 4,901 U 80 U

1981 3,131 507 301 594 5,021 U 82 U

1982 3,259 466 313 545 4,919 U 80 U

1983 3,535 480 340 562 5,132 U 84 U

1984 3,933 562 378 658 5,505 U 90 U

1985 4,213 566 405 662 5,717 U 94 U

1986 4,453 596 428 698 5,912 U 97 U

1987 4,743 672 456 787 6,113 717 100 100

1988 5,108 778 491 911 6,368 787 104 110

1989 5,489 856 528 1,003 6,592 847 108 118

1990 5,803 907 558 1,061 6,708 891 110 124

1991 5,986 927 576 1,086 6,676 919 109 128

1992 6,319 994 608 1,163 6,880 994 113 139

1993 6,642 1,053 639 1,232 7,063 1,062 116 148

1994 7,054 1,186 678 1,389 7,348 1,186 120 165

1995 7,401 1,341 712 1,571 7,544 1,308 123 182

1996 7,813 1,427 751 1,671 7,813 1,427 128 199

1997 8,318 1,574 800 1,843 8,160 1,631 133 227

1998 8,782 1,611 845 1,887 8,509 1,754 139 245

1999 9,269 1,745 891 2,044 8,857 1,911 145 266

2000 9,873 2,031 950 2,378 9,224 2,152 151 300

2001 10,208 1,910 982 2,236 9,334 2,068 153 288

1 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data for overall U.S. trade in current dollars will differ from figures reported by the U.S. Census

Bureau, due to BEA adjustments in the data.

NOTE: U = data are unavailable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Account, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of August

2002.
> 118 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-4

U.S. Merchandise Trade and Production of Tradable Goods

in Gross Domestic Product (GDP): 1970–2000

(Billions of dollars)

GDP by sector1 Merchandise trade Trade as share of GDP (percent)

Total Total Merch.

Total merch. merch. Merch. exports as

Agriculture, production Merch. Merch. goods trade as exports as % of

Total forestry, & Manufac- of tradable goods goods (imports & % of % of goods

Year GDP fishing Mining turing goods exports imports exports) GDP GDP production

Current $

1970 1,040 30 19 250 299 45 41 85 8 4 15

1971 1,129 32 19 263 314 46 47 92 8 4 15

1972 1,240 37 20 290 348 52 57 109 9 4 15

1973 1,386 55 24 322 401 74 72 146 11 5 18

1974 1,501 53 37 337 427 101 105 206 14 7 24

1975 1,635 55 43 355 452 110 99 209 13 7 24

1976 1,824 54 48 406 507 118 125 242 13 6 23

1977 2,031 54 54 463 571 124 153 276 14 6 22

1978 2,296 63 62 518 642 145 177 323 14 6 23

1979 2,566 75 71 571 717 184 213 397 15 7 26

1980 2,796 67 113 587 767 226 249 474 17 8 29

1981 3,131 81 153 652 886 239 268 507 16 8 27

1982 3,259 77 150 651 878 215 251 466 14 7 24

1983 3,535 63 129 693 885 207 273 480 14 6 23

1984 3,933 84 136 783 1,002 226 336 562 14 6 23

1985 4,213 85 135 804 1,024 222 343 566 13 5 22

1986 4,453 82 88 829 1,000 226 370 596 13 5 23

1987 4,742 89 92 889 1,070 258 415 672 14 5 24

1988 5,108 89 99 980 1,168 326 452 778 15 6 28

1989 5,489 102 97 1,018 1,217 372 485 856 16 7 31

1990 5,803 108 112 1,041 1,261 399 508 907 16 7 32

1991 5,986 103 97 1,044 1,243 426 501 927 15 7 34

1992 6,319 112 88 1,082 1,281 449 545 994 16 7 35

1993 6,642 108 88 1,131 1,328 460 593 1,053 16 7 35

1994 7,054 118 90 1,223 1,432 510 677 1,186 17 7 36

1995 7,401 110 96 1,289 1,495 584 758 1,341 18 8 39

1996 7,813 130 113 1,316 1,560 618 808 1,427 18 8 40

1997 8,318 130 119 1,380 1,629 689 885 1,574 19 8 42

1998 8,782 128 100 1,431 1,660 681 930 1,611 18 8 41

1999 9,269 127 103 1,497 1,727 698 1,047 1,745 19 8 40

2000 9,873 136 127 1,567 1,829 786 1,245 2,031 21 8 43

1 Industry groups based on 1987 Standard Industrial Classification. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data for overall U.S. trade in current

dollars will differ from figures reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, due to BEA adjustments in the data.

(Table C-4 continued on next page)
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 119 <

GDP by sector1 Merchandise trade Trade as share of GDP (percent)

Total Total Merch.

Total merch. merch. Merch. exports as

Agriculture, production Merch. Merch. goods trade as exports as % of

Total forestry, & Manufac- of tradable goods goods (imports & % of % of goods

Year GDP fishing Mining turing goods exports imports exports) GDP GDP production

Chained 1996 $2

1987 6,113 110 99 1,046 1,255 271 446 717 12 4 22

1988 6,368 101 115 1,120 1,336 323 464 787 12 5 24

1989 6,592 111 103 1,112 1,326 363 483 847 13 6 27

1990 6,708 119 106 1,102 1,327 393 498 891 13 6 30

1991 6,676 121 101 1,066 1,289 421 498 919 14 6 33

1992 6,880 131 96 1,085 1,311 450 544 994 14 7 34

1993 7,063 123 101 1,123 1,347 463 598 1,062 15 7 34

1994 7,348 136 108 1,206 1,450 508 678 1,186 16 7 35

1995 7,544 123 113 1,285 1,521 569 739 1,308 17 8 37

1996 7,813 130 113 1,316 1,560 618 808 1,427 18 8 40

1997 8,159 144 117 1,387 1,648 708 923 1,631 20 9 43

1998 8,509 145 120 1,444 1,710 723 1,031 1,754 21 8 42

1999 8,857 153 112 1,532 1,797 751 1,159 1,911 22 8 42

2000 9,224 166 95 1,595 1,856 836 1,316 2,152 23 9 45

2 1987 is the earliest year for which the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis reports total merchandise trade figures

adjusted for inflation in chained 1996 dollars.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Account (NIPA), available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of August 2002.

(Table C-4 continued)
> 120 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-5

U.S. International Merchandise Trade by World Regions: 2001

Total Exports Imports

World regions Billion $ Percent Billion $ Percent Billion $ Percent

Asia 637 34.0 199 27.2 438 38.3 

Pacific Rim 439 23.4 131 17.9 308 27.0 

Southeast and 

Southwest Asia 142 7.6 49 6.7 93 8.2 

Middle East 56 3.0 19 2.6 36 3.2 

Western Hemisphere 738 39.4 323 44.2 415 36.3 

North America 612 32.7 265 36.2 348 30.4 

Central and South 

America 106 5.6 48 6.5 58 5.1 

Caribbean 20 1.1 11 1.5 9 0.8 

Other Western Hemisphere1 1 0.04 1 0.1 <1 0.01 

Europe 435 23.2 182 24.8 254 22.2 

Western Europe 414 22.1 175 23.9 239 21.0 

Eastern Europe 21 1.1 7 0.9 14 1.3 

Africa 38 2.0 12 1.7 25 2.2 

Australia and Oceania2 22 1.2 13 1.8 9 0.8 

World total 1,873 100.0 731 100.0 1,142 100.0 

1 Includes Bermuda, Cuba, the Falkland Islands, French Guiana, Greenland, Guadalupe, Martinique, St. Pierre, and Miquelon

Island.

2 Includes New Zealand.

NOTE: The regional figures do not sum to the world total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. International

Trade Administration, U.S. Foreign Trade Highlights, available at http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/

tabcon.html, as of October 2002.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 121 <

Table C-6

Value of U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

by Mode of Transportation: 2000 and 2001

(Millions of dollars)

Percentage change,

Mode 2000 2001 2000–2001

Imports and exports

Water 739,963 718,448 –2.9

Air 592,999 518,602 –12.5

Truck 428,700 395,425 –7.8

Rail 94,198 92,617 –1.7

Pipeline 23,592 26,428 12.0

Other and unknown 117,855 121,466 3.1

Total 1,997,306 1,872,985 – 6.2

U.S. imports

Water 540,895 519,607 –3.9

Air 308,642 267,107 –13.5

Truck 216,485 203,507 –6.0

Rail 70,755 69,255 –2.1

Pipeline 23,129 25,910 12.0

Other and unknown 56,982 56,573 –0.7

Total 1,216,888 1,141,959 – 6.2

U.S. exports

Water 199,069 198,841 –0.1

Air 284,356 251,494 –11.6

Truck 212,215 191,918 –9.6

Rail 23,442 23,362 –0.3

Pipeline 463 517 11.7

Other and unknown 60,873 64,894 6.6

Total 780,419 731,026 – 6.3

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, May 2002; based

on: total, water, and air data—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade

Division, U.S. Exports of Merchandise CD and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2001; truck,

rail, pipeline, and other and unknown data—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, 2001; and special tabulations.
> 122 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-7

Top 25 U.S. Maritime Trade Partners by Value and Weight: 2001

RANKED BY TOTAL VALUE

Value of maritime trade (millions of $) Value per short ton ($)

Rank Country Total Imports Exports Balance Total Imports Exports

1 Japan 115,204 89,027 26,177 –62,850 1,675 6,794 470

2 China 96,277 86,714 9,562 –77,152 1,825 2,535 515

3 Germany 42,067 33,625 8,442 –25,183 2,834 3,342 1,764

4 South Korea 30,819 21,125 9,694 –11,431 1,064 1,863 550

5 United Kingdom 26,214 15,927 10,287 –5,640 846 701 1,244

6 Taiwan 25,160 18,338 6,822 –11,516 1,274 3,015 499

7 Mexico 20,148 14,272 5,877 –8,395 165 148 234

8 Venezuela 19,413 15,102 4,310 –10,792 164 133 865

9 Brazil 17,157 9,652 7,505 –2,147 462 355 755

10 Saudi Arabia 16,865 13,215 3,650 –9,565 178 144 1,252

11 Italy 15,940 12,392 3,548 –8,844 759 1,437 287

12 France 12,974 8,855 4,119 –4,735 1,105 1,394 765

13 Thailand 12,631 10,425 2,206 –8,219 1,045 1,219 623

14 Netherlands 12,507 5,000 7,507 2,507 618 765 547

15 Belgium 11,593 4,604 6,989 2,385 814 775 842

16 Hong Kong 11,153 6,116 5,037 –1,079 2,594 6,917 1,475

17 Indonesia 10,658 8,693 1,966 –6,727 759 1,044 344

18 Australia 10,466 4,793 5,673 880 839 512 1,824

19 Malaysia 10,361 8,642 1,720 –6,922 1,448 1,673 863

20 Canada 9,180 6,279 2,900 –3,379 100 104 90

21 Nigeria 9,036 8,295 741 –7,554 182 174 357

22 Dominican Republic 7,268 3,523 3,745 222 1,395 2,382 1,004

23 Singapore 7,043 2,977 4,066 1,089 1,032 2,394 729

24 India 7,007 5,441 1,566 –3,875 1,119 1,452 622

25 Spain 6,890 3,718 3,173 –545 421 568 323

Total, all countries 718,448 519,607 198,841 –320,766 563 568 551

(Table C-7 continued on next page)
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 123 <

RANKED BY TOTAL WEIGHT

Value of maritime trade (millions of $) Value per short ton ($)

Rank Country Total Imports Exports Balance Total Imports Exports

1 Mexico 121,786 96,689 25,097 –71,592 165 148 234

2 Venezuela 118,204 113,224 4,980 –108,243 164 133 865

3 Saudi Arabia 94,906 91,992 2,914 –89,078 178 144 1,252

4 Canada 92,151 60,091 32,059 –28,032 100 104 90

5 Japan 68,778 13,104 55,674 42,570 1,675 6,794 470

6 China 52,767 34,207 18,560 –15,646 1,825 2,535 515

7 Nigeria 49,750 47,673 2,077 –45,595 182 174 357

8 Iraq 42,621 42,531 91 –42,440 136 136 441

9 Brazil 37,163 27,216 9,947 –17,269 462 355 755

10 Colombia 36,533 32,021 4,512 –27,510 178 139 453

11 United Kingdom 30,994 22,725 8,269 –14,456 846 701 1,244

12 South Korea 28,966 11,340 17,626 6,286 1,064 1,863 550

13 Norway 21,864 21,418 446 –20,972 226 206 1,172

14 Italy 21,004 8,624 12,381 3,757 759 1,437 287

15 Netherlands 20,251 6,535 13,716 7,181 618 765 547

16 Taiwan 19,754 6,081 13,672 7,591 1,274 3,015 499

17 Angola 18,634 18,507 126 –18,381 173 164 1,563

18 Algeria 18,289 16,090 2,199 –13,892 184 166 313

19 Trinidad and Tobago 17,582 16,719 863 –15,856 181 139 983

20 Spain 16,378 6,541 9,837 3,296 421 568 323

21 Kuwait 15,109 14,889 220 –14,669 174 128 3,272

22 Germany 14,846 10,061 4,785 –5,276 2,834 3,342 1,764

23 Belgium 14,239 5,939 8,300 2,360 814 775 842

24 Indonesia 14,041 8,327 5,715 –2,612 759 1,044 344

25 Russia 12,832 10,868 1,964 –8,903 497 397 1,048

Total, all countries 1,275,909 915,079 360,830 –554,249 563 568 551

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transporation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.

Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Exports of Merchandise CD and U.S. Imports of Merchandise CD, December 2001.

(Table C-7 continued)
> 124 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-8

Total Monthly Maritime Container Entries 

into the United States: 1998–2001

Monthly % change,

1998 1999 2000 2001 2000–2001

January 408 276 463 515 11.2

February 393 303 456 528 16.0

March 474 303 492 484 –1.7

April 489 325 466 462 –0.8

May 447 426 461 481 4.3

June 450 426 470 416 –11.6

July 463 544 514 486 –5.6

August 492 496 517 471 –8.9

September 289 630 531 432 –18.6

October 312 500 552 462 –16.2

November 293 499 526 401 –23.7

December 308 466 526 444 –15.7

Total 4,817 5,195 5,974 5,582 –6.6

NOTE: Includes full and empty vessel containers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,

special tabulation, April 2002; based on U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Customs

Service, Mission Support Services, Office of Field Operations, Operations Management

Database CD.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 125 <

Table C-9

Top 20 Fastest Growing U.S. Gateways for International 

Air Freight by Weight: 1990–2000

(Short tons)

Annual

growth rate,

Rank in Rank in 1990–2000

19901 20001 Airport 1990 2000 (%)

48 9 Memphis,TN 14 198,630 160.1 

49 38 Laredo,TX 9 9,809 101.3 

45 25 Indianapolis, IN 65 27,922 83.4 

47 40 Phoenix, AZ 23 8,713 81.1 

46 41 Toledo, OH 26 8,614 78.7 

40 29 Oakland, CA 209 19,956 57.8 

44 46 Austin,TX 68 5,732 55.8 

41 39 San Jose, CA 149 9,625 51.7 

42 44 El Paso,TX 139 6,402 46.7 

39 36 Detroit Willow Run Airport, MI 254 11,176 46.0 

43 49 Las Vegas, NV 113 4,934 45.9

37 26 Louisville, KY 842 26,442 41.2 

36 35 Houston Ellington Field,TX 1,073 13,178 28.5 

27 20 Huntsville/Decatur, AL 6,167 64,253 26.4 

38 47 Pago Pago, Samoa 559 5,428 25.5 

26 21 Cincinnati, OH 7,517 57,914 22.7 

19 14 Philadelphia, PA 18,041 124,317 21.3 

17 10 Fairbanks, AK 27,351 175,186 20.4 

35 33 Pittsburgh, PA 2,235 13,602 19.8 

11 7 Newark, NJ 74,627 353,066 16.8 

Total U.S.

international freight 4,357,583 8,428,478 6.8 

1 Airports are ranked by annual growth rate.

NOTE: These data are based on nonstop bidirectional air trade by U.S. and foreign carriers by weight

between the United States and other countries and as such, will differ from U.S. Census Bureau international air freight weight data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of Airline

Information data, May 2002.
> 126 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-10

U.S. Air Transportation Freight Operating Revenues: 1980–2001

Current $ in millions Real 1996 $ in millions

Domestic International Total Domestic International Total

1980 1,614 1,036 2,650 2,829 1,816 4,645 

1981 1,695 1,009 2,704 2,718 1,618 4,335 

1982 1,547 1,015 2,562 2,335 1,532 3,867 

1983 1,654 1,022 2,676 2,402 1,484 3,886 

1984 1,786 1,196 2,982 2,500 1,674 4,174 

1985 1,659 1,159 2,818 2,251 1,573 3,824 

1986 4,363 1,479 5,842 5,793 1,964 7,756 

1987 5,019 1,816 6,835 6,469 2,341 8,810 

1988 5,879 2,190 8,069 7,329 2,730 10,059 

1989 5,478 2,464 7,942 6,579 2,959 9,538 

1990 4,352 2,645 6,997 5,029 3,057 8,086 

1991 4,564 3,184 7,748 5,090 3,551 8,642 

1992 4,743 3,027 7,770 5,164 3,296 8,459 

1993 5,357 3,269 8,626 5,696 3,476 9,172 

1994 5,943 3,651 9,594 6,190 3,803 9,993 

1995 6,638 4,042 10,680 6,767 4,120 10,887 

1996 7,123 4,711 11,834 7,123 4,711 11,834 

1997 7,596 5,212 12,808 7,451 5,112 12,563 

1998 7,816 5,327 13,143 7,574 5,162 12,735 

1999 8,171 5,968 14,139 7,807 5,702 13,509 

2000 8,776 6,324 15,100 8,199 5,908 14,107 

2001 8,087 6,366 14,453 7,395 5,821 13,216 

NOTE: Data reflect only U.S. air carriers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of Airline Information data,

May 2002.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 127 <

Table C-11

U.S. Total Merchandise Trade with Canada 

and Mexico by Mode: 2001

TOTAL NAFTA TRADE

Value Weight Value to

Mode (U.S. million $) (short tons) weight ratio

Truck 395,425 180,443,036 2,191 

Rail 92,617 97,304,192 952 

Pipeline 26,428 79,303,348 333 

Air 36,996 465,362 79,499 

Water 29,328 213,932,666 137 

Other and unknown 32,843 1,019,752 32,207 

Total 613,635 572,468,357 1,072 

TRADE WITH CANADA

Value Weight Value to

Mode (U.S. million $) (short tons) weight ratio

Truck 234,824 138,572,490 1,695 

Rail 60,171 84,945,768 708 

Pipeline 26,130 76,025,236 344 

Air 24,999 327,016 76,445 

Water 9,180 92,148,977 100 

Other and unknown 25,390 628,518 40,397 

Total 380,693 392,648,004 970 

TRADE WITH MEXICO

Value Weight Value to

Mode (U.S. million $) (short tons) weight ratio

Truck 160,600 41,870,546 3,836 

Rail 32,446 12,358,424 2,625 

Pipeline 298 3,278,112 91 

Air 11,997 138,347 86,717 

Water 20,148 121,783,690 165 

Other and unknown 7,452 391,234 19,049 

Total 232,942 179,820,352 1,295 

NOTES: Other includes "flyaway aircraft" (i.e., aircraft moving from the

manufacturer to a customer and not carrying any freight), vessels 

moving under their own power, pedestrians carrying freight, and miscellaneous.

Shipments that neither originate nor terminate in the United States

(i.e., in-transit shipments) are not included here, although they use the

U.S. transportation system. These shipments are usually part of MexicoCanada trade and simply pass through the United States. Merchandise

trade data exclude export shipments valued at less than $2,500 and

import shipments valued at less than $1,250. Individual modal totals

may not sum to exact export or import totals due to rounding.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, special tabulation, May 2002; based on: total trade, air, and

water—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign

Trade Division, FT920 U.S. Merchandise Trade (Washington, DC: 2001); all

land modes—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, January 2002.
> 128 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-12

U.S. Merchandise Imports from Canada 

and Mexico by Mode: 2001

TOTAL NAFTA IMPORTS

Value Weight Value to

Mode (U.S. million $) (short tons) weight ratio

Truck 203,507 91,639,312 2,221 

Rail 69,255 75,032,793 923 

Pipeline 25,910 75,399,107 344 

Air 15,127 138,614 109,131 

Water 20,551 156,777,660 131 

Other and unknown 14,052 443,131 31,710 

Total 348,402 399,430,616 872 

IMPORTS FROM CANADA

Value Weight Value to

Mode (U.S. million $) (short tons) weight ratio

Truck 117,130 69,119,663 1,695 

Rail 47,198 66,631,589 708 

Pipeline 25,908 75,381,271 344 

Air 9,836 76,617 128,379 

Water 6,279 60,090,216 104 

Other and unknown 10,617 262,819 40,397 

Total 216,969 271,562,176 799 

IMPORTS FROM MEXICO

Value Weight Value to

Mode (U.S. million $) (short tons) weight ratio

Truck 86,377 22,519,649 3,836 

Rail 22,057 8,401,204 2,625 

Pipeline 2 17,836 91 

Air 5,291 61,996 85,345 

Water 14,272 96,687,444 148 

Other and unknown 3,435 180,311 19,049 

Total 131,433 127,868,440 1,028 

NOTES: Other includes "flyaway aircraft" (i.e., aircraft moving from the

manufacturer to a customer and not carrying any freight), vessels 

moving under their own power, pedestrians carrying freight, and miscellaneous.

Shipments that neither originate nor terminate in the United States (i.e.,

in-transit shipments) are not included here, although they use the U.S.

transportation system. These shipments are usually part of MexicoCanada trade and simply pass through the United States. Merchandise

trade data exclude import shipments valued at less than $1,250. Individual modal totals may not sum to exact import totals due to rounding.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, special tabulation, May 2002; based on: total trade, air, and

water—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign

Trade Division, FT920 U.S. Merchandise Trade (Washington, DC: 2001); all

land modes—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, January 2002.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 129 <

Table C-13

U.S. Merchandise Exports to Canada 

and Mexico by Mode: 2001

TOTAL NAFTA EXPORTS

Value Weight Value to

Mode (U.S. million $) (short tons) weight ratio

Truck 191,918 88,803,724 2,161 

Rail 23,362 22,271,399 1,049 

Pipeline 517 3,904,240 133 

Air 21,869 326,749 66,928 

Water 8,777 57,155,006 154 

Other and unknown 18,791 576,622 32,588 

Total 265,234 173,037,741 1,533 

EXPORTS TO CANADA

Value Weight Value to

Mode (U.S. million $) (short tons) weight ratio

Truck 117,694 69,452,828 1,695 

Rail 12,973 18,314,179 708 

Pipeline 221 643,965 344 

Air 15,163 250,398 60,554 

Water 2,900 32,058,760 90 

Other and unknown 14,773 365,699 40,397 

Total 163,724 121,085,828 1,352 

EXPORTS TO MEXICO

Value Weight Value to

Mode (U.S. million $) (short tons) weight ratio

Truck 74,223 19,350,897 3,836 

Rail 10,389 3,957,221 2,625 

Pipeline 296 3,260,275 91 

Air 6,706 76,350 87,832 

Water 5,877 25,096,246 234 

Other and unknown 4,018 210,923 19,049 

Total 101,509 51,951,912 1,954 

NOTES: Other includes "flyaway aircraft" (i.e., aircraft moving from the

manufacturer to a customer and not carrying any freight), vessels 

moving under their own power, pedestrians carrying freight, and miscellaneous.

Shipments that neither originate nor terminate in the United States (i.e.,

in-transit shipments) are not included here, although they use the U.S.

transportation system. These shipments are usually part of MexicoCanada trade and simply pass through the United States. Merchandise

trade data exclude export shipments valued at less than $2,500. Individual modal totals may not sum to exact export totals due to rounding.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, special tabulation, May 2002; based on: total trade, air, and

water—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign

Trade Division, FT920 U.S. Merchandise Trade (Washington, DC: 2001); all

land modes—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, January 2002.
> 130 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-14

U.S.-NAFTA Trade by State for All Surface Modes: 2001

(Millions of current dollars)

Total U.S.-NAFTA

U.S. state1 surface trade U.S.-Canada U.S. -Mexico

Michigan 89,327 61,787 27,540

Texas 77,324 14,972 62,352

California 53,845 21,623 32,222

New York 31,748 27,133 4,616

Ohio 28,335 22,919 5,417

Illinois 28,023 22,750 5,273

Pennsylvania 15,697 11,947 3,751

Indiana 15,270 9,745 5,525

Washington 14,585 13,382 1,203

Tennessee 11,891 8,097 3,794

North Carolina 11,047 6,289 4,758

Arizona 10,287 2,150 8,137

Georgia 9,903 6,541 3,362

New Jersey 9,569 7,736 1,833

Wisconsin 9,131 7,595 1,537

Minnesota 8,332 7,354 978

Massachusetts 7,975 6,958 1,017

Kentucky 7,319 5,431 1,888

Florida 7,067 4,471 2,596

Missouri 6,344 4,694 1,650

South Carolina 5,815 4,067 1,747

Virginia 5,426 3,717 1,709

Vermont 4,453 4,427 26

Connecticut 4,326 3,356 970

Oregon 3,879 3,398 481

Iowa 3,872 3,311 562

(Table C-14 continued on next page)
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 131 <

Total U.S.-NAFTA

U.S. state1 surface trade U.S.-Canada U.S. -Mexico

Alabama 3,845 2,591 1,253

Kansas 3,571 2,924 647

Maryland 2,862 2,085 778

Colorado 2,722 2,192 529

Maine 2,695 2,657 37

Oklahoma 2,121 1,629 492

Arkansas 2,022 1,630 391

Montana 1,909 1,863 46

Utah 1,902 1,659 242

Louisiana 1,882 1,509 374

New Hampshire 1,725 1,402 323

North Dakota 1,716 1,616 100

Mississippi 1,647 864 783

Nebraska 1,593 1,097 497

Delaware 1,517 1,099 418

Wyoming 1,310 1,254 56

West Virginia 1,174 1,095 79

Nevada 992 888 105

Idaho 893 813 80

Rhode Island 869 725 144

South Dakota 611 531 80

New Mexico 473 252 221

Alaska 303 275 28

District of Columbia 122 109 13

Hawaii 60 57 3

Total, all 

U.S. states 547,312 346,515 200,797

1 States are ranked by total U.S.-NAFTA surface trade.

NOTE: U.S. state surface trade value equals imports to the U.S. state of destination plus

exports from the U.S. state of origin. The U.S. state of destination reflects the state of the

importer of record. This state may not always represent the ultimate physical destination

of shipments. The U.S. state of origin typically reflects the state of origin where the goods

were grown, manufactured or otherwise produced. In some instances, however, it may not

always reflect the actual state of physical origin. Shipments for Hawaii are intermodal and

are included in this dataset, because a portion of the shipment moves by a land mode

from either its origin or final destination. Total for all U.S. states includes data where the

state of origin or destination was unknown.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, as of January 2002.

(Table C-14 continued)
> 132 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-15

Incoming Truck Crossings on the U.S.-Canadian and U.S.-Mexican 

Borders: 1994, 2000, and 2001

(Thousands of crossings)

INCOMING TRUCK CROSSINGS ON THE U.S.-CANADIAN BORDER

Percentage Annual

Rank in 1994 2001 change, growth

2001 Port 1994 2000 2001 (percent) (percent) 1994–2001 rate (%)

1 Detroit, MI 1,155 1,769 1,642 23.3 24.2 42.2 5.2

2 Buffalo-Niagara 

Falls, NY 887 1,198 1,124 17.9 16.6 26.7 3.4

3 Port Huron, MI 609 839 829 12.3 12.2 36.1 4.5

4 Blaine,WA 324 517 472 6.5 7.0 45.6 5.5

5 ChamplainRouses Pt., NY 273 391 382 5.5 5.6 40.0 4.9

6 Alexandria Bay, NY 190 278 277 3.8 4.1 45.9 5.5

7 Pembina, ND 127 214 220 2.6 3.2 73.0 8.1

8 Calais, ME 112 154 144 2.3 2.1 28.3 3.6

9 Derby Line,VT 81 139 141 1.6 2.1 74.6 8.3

10 Sweetgrass, MT 90 146 140 1.8 2.1 55.8 6.5

Total, U.S.-Canadian

border 4,956 7,048 6,777 100.0 100.0 36.7 4.6

INCOMING TRUCK CROSSINGS ON THE U.S.-MEXICAN BORDER

Percentage Annual

Rank in 1994 2001 change, growth

2001 Port 1994 2000 2001 (percent) (percent) 1994–2001 rate (%)

1 Laredo,TX 668 1,493 1,404 24.2 32.6 110.2 11.2

2 Otay Mesa/

San Ysidro, CA 440 688 708 15.9 16.5 61.0 7.0

3 El Paso,TX 574 720 661 20.8 15.3 15.1 2.0

5 Calexico East/

Calexico, CA 178 279 257 6.4 6.0 44.2 5.4

4 Hidalgo,TX 165 374 368 6.0 8.6 123.3 12.2

6 Brownsville,TX 267 299 252 9.7 5.8 –5.8 -0.8

7 Nogales, AZ 192 255 249 6.9 5.8 29.8 3.8

8 Eagle Pass,TX 57 107 98 2.1 2.3 71.3 8.0

9 Tecate, CA 36 63 61 1.3 1.4 69.1 7.8

10 Del Rio,TX 33 61 60 1.2 1.4 81.6 8.9

Total, U.S.-Mexican 

border 2,763 4,526 4,305 100.0 100.0 55.8 6.5

NOTES: Data represent the number of truck crossings, not the number of unique vehicles, and include both loaded and

unloaded trucks. Data for the port of Calexico are typically reported as a combined total with Calexico East.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, March 2002; based on data from U.S.

Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Mission Support Services, Office of Field Operations, Operations Management CD, 2002.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 133 <

Table C-16

Monthly Incoming Truck Crossings at the Top 10 U.S. Land Ports: 2001

THOUSANDS OF CROSSINGS

Rank in

2001 Port Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

1 Detroit, MI 144 133 153 142 156 146 113 143 123 143 138 107

2 Laredo,TX 115 106 121 108 125 117 117 128 114 132 114 106

3 Buffalo-Niagara 

Falls, NY 97 89 100 96 106 99 89 101 81 99 93 75

4 Port Huron, MI 70 64 71 69 77 72 63 73 66 76 70 59

5 Otay Mesa, CA 55 53 61 58 64 62 63 63 56 66 59 50

6 El Paso,TX 53 55 59 53 60 57 46 56 53 60 58 50

7 Blaine,WA 40 38 42 40 42 41 44 46 35 40 33 29

8 ChamplainRouses Pt., NY 32 29 32 31 36 33 32 33 32 35 31 26

9 Hidalgo,TX 30 28 35 34 32 29 30 32 28 32 30 27

10 Alexandria Bay, NY 24 21 24 24 25 23 24 25 22 25 22 19

Total, top 10 ports 660 618 698 656 723 679 619 700 609 709 650 547

Total, from Canada 579 532 596 569 626 585 529 601 542 607 555 455

Total, from Mexico 359 342 388 352 388 361 343 374 333 385 356 322

Total, all land ports 939 875 985 921 1,013 946 872 975 875 993 912 777

PERCENTAGE CHANGE: 2000–2001

Rank in 

2001 Port Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

1 Detroit, MI –3.9 –13.5 –9.3 –2.4 –3.3 –6.4 –1.6 –8.3 –16.7 –9.1 –4.3 –5.5

2 Laredo,TX 0.5 –13.0 –9.4 –3.8 –4.8 –10.9 –1.7 –5.1 –9.8 –0.2 –9.0 –3.4

3 Buffalo-Niagara

Falls, NY 5.4 –8.0 –11.2 –4.9 –4.8 –8.1 –0.3 –4.8 –16.4 –7.1 –4.6 –8.1

4 Port Huron, MI 5.2 –4.4 –6.0 1.8 1.1 –7.2 4.7 –3.7 –6.3 –1.1 –2.6 8.1

5 Otay Mesa, CA 10.4 –1.4 4.1 7.3 6.6 –2.8 3.4 0.1 –5.2 9.4 5.0 –0.9

6 El Paso,TX –6.2 –6.9 –8.9 –5.0 –7.5 –10.0 –16.0 –27.4 –11.5 –5.4 14.0 1.3

7 Blaine,WA 1.6 –2.9 –4.6 –3.3 –10.7 –9.7 –1.9 –5.7 –17.1 –3.7 –27.9 –18.2

8 ChamplainRouses Pt., NY 9.3 0.5 0.0 –3.8 2.4 1.0 0.2 –9.6 –14.1 1.6 –6.5 –3.5

9 Hidalgo,TX 5.9 –8.3 –3.0 10.9 –3.0 –6.9 –1.5 –5.3 –7.1 0.4 –2.5 4.0

10 Alexandria Bay, NY 5.2 –2.7 –5.1 0.9 –1.0 –4.1 8.5 3.8 –0.2 –0.2 –6.4 –3.1

Total, North America 2.0 –8.0 –6.3 –1.4 –2.3 –6.6 –1.6 –6.5 –8.4 –2.2 –5.5 –3.3

From Mexico 0.6 –9.2 –6.3 –2.0 –3.5 –9.7 –4.1 –8.9 –9.1 –0.7 –2.1 –2.0

From Canada 2.9 –7.2 –6.3 –1.1 –1.5 –4.6 0.0 –5.0 –7.9 –3.1 –7.5 –4.2

NOTE: Rank is based on the total number of truck crossings in 2001. Data represent the number of truck crossings, not the number of unique

vehicles, and include both loaded and unloaded trucks.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, special tabulation, April 2002; based on U.S. Department of the

Treasury, U.S. Customs Service, Mission Support Services, Office of Field Operations, Operations Management Database CD, 2002.
> 134 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-17

Top 50 U.S. International Freight Gateways 

by Shipment Value: 2001

(Millions of current dollars)

Rank in 

2001 Port Mode Total Exports Imports 

Total, airports 518,602 251,494 267,107

Total, maritime ports 718,448 198,841 519,607 

Total, surface ports 547,312 234,588 312,724

1 JFK Internatl.

Airport, NY Air 116,581 50,079 66,502 

2 Los Angeles, CA Waterborne 104,193 17,436 86,757 

3 Long Beach, CA Waterborne 94,699 16,716 77,984 

4 Detroit, MI Surface 91,982 49,205 42,776 

5 NY/NJ Waterborne 85,918 22,673 63,245 

6 Laredo,TX Surface 79,607 34,706 44,901 

7 Los Angeles 

Internatl. Airport, CA Air 63,882 34,030 29,853 

8 San Francisco Internatl.

Airport, CA Air 61,953 32,320 29,633 

9 Buffalo-Niagara 

Falls, NY Surface 60,478 29,375 31,103 

10 Port Huron, MI Surface 55,648 17,276 38,372 

11 Chicago, IL Air 44,916 19,918 24,998 

12 Houston,TX Waterborne 44,489 19,522 24,967 

13 El Paso,TX Surface 37,931 15,918 22,013 

14 Charleston, SC Waterborne 33,411 12,483 20,928 

15 Seattle,WA Waterborne 28,595 5,298 23,298 

16 New Orleans, LA Air 27,353 13,810 13,544 

17 Oakland, CA Waterborne 24,985 7,739 17,245 

18 Norfolk,VA Waterborne 24,864 11,260 13,604 

19 Miami Internatl.

Airport, FL Air 22,565 15,403 7,162 

20 Anchorage, AK Air 21,874 5,109 16,765 

21 Baltimore, MD Waterborne 20,820 5,131 15,689 

22 Cleveland, OH Airport 19,679 9,213 10,467 

23 Otay Mesa, CA Surface 19,401 8,232 11,169 

24 Dallas/Fort Worth,TX Air 18,797 8,836 9,961 

25 Tacoma,WA Waterborne 18,650 4,256 14,394 

(Table C-17 continued on next page)
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 135 <

Rank in 

2001 Port Mode Total Exports Imports 

26 Savannah, GA Waterborne 17,158 6,421 10,737 

27 New Orleans, LA Waterborne 16,976 8,134 8,842 

28 Miami, FL Waterborne 16,600 8,487 8,113 

29 Champlain-Rouses 

Pt., NY Surface 16,163 5,929 10,234 

30 Atlanta, GA Air 15,848 7,562 8,286 

31 Nogales, AZ Surface 12,509 4,619 7,890 

32 Hidalgo,TX Surface 12,423 5,715 6,708 

33 Blaine,WA Surface 11,687 5,079 6,608 

34 BrownsvilleCameron,TX Surface 10,911 5,813 5,098 

35 Jacksonville, FL Waterborne 10,807 1,991 8,817 

36 Portland, OR Waterborne 10,713 2,690 8,023 

37 Alexandria Bay, NY Surface 10,621 4,051 6,570 

38 Port Everglades, FL Waterborne 10,283 4,433 5,851 

39 Philadelphia, PA Waterborne 9,971 556 9,414 

40 Newark, NJ Air 9,414 3,245 6,170 

41 Boston, MA Air 9,216 5,664 3,552 

42 Pembina, ND Surface 8,886 4,428 4,458 

43 Seattle-Tacoma 

Internatl.,WA Air 8,849 3,546 5,303 

44 Philadelphia Internatl.

Airport, PA Air 8,799 4,945 3,854 

45 Sweetgrass, MT Surface 8,269 3,834 4,435 

46 Morgan City, LA Waterborne 7,830 144 7,687 

47 San Juan Internatl.

Airport, PR Air 7,779 3,686 4,093 

48 Houston Internatl.

Airport,TX Air 7,690 4,824 2,866 

49 Corpus Christie,TX Waterborne 7,679 1,227 6,452 

50 Beaumont,TX Waterborne 7,669 824 6,845 

NOTES: All data—Trade levels reflect the mode of transportation as a shipment enters or exits a border

port. Flows through individual ports are based on reported data collected from U.S. trade documents.

Trade does not include low-value shipments. (In general, these are imports valued at less than $1,250

and exports valued at less than $2,500.) Air—Data for all air gateways include a low level (generally

less than 2%–3% of the total value) of small user-fee airports located in the same region. Air gateways

not identified by airport name (e.g., Chicago, IL) include major airport(s) in that geographic area in

addition to small regional airports. In addition, due to Census Bureau confidentiality regulations, data

for courier operations are included in the airport totals for JFK International Airport, New Orleans, Los

Angeles, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, and Anchorage. Water—Data are preliminary.

SOURCES: Air—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, special tabulation, May 2002. Water—U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis, personal communication, May 2002. Land—U.S. Department of

Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, 2002.

(Table C-17continued)
> 136 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-18

U.S. International Trade Balance in Transportation-Related Goods 

Among the Top 5 Trading Partners for Each Commodity 

Group: 1990, 2000, and 2001

(Millions of current dollars)

Commodity and country 1990 Country 2000 Country 2001

87: Vehicles other than railway

Canada –8,345 Canada –22,325 Canada –20,508

Japan –26,734 Japan –40,267 Japan –39,107

Germany –5,904 Mexico –14,586 Mexico –15,229

Mexico –264 Germany –14,604 Germany –14,336

United Kingdom –1,249 Korea –4,856 Korea –6,375

Total –42,431 Total –101,927 Total –100,592

88: Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts

United Kingdom 2,799 France –3,418 Canada –3,469

Japan 3,058 Canada –2,479 France –3,563

Canada –249 United Kingdom 3,259 United Kingdom 3,673

France 340 Germany 804 Germany 173

Germany 1,908 Japan 2,207 Japan 1,292

Total 24,182 Total 22,809 Total 23,607

89: Ships, boats, and 

floating structures

Canada 37 France –134 Canada 147

Japan 139 Canada –96 France 349

Singapore 94 United Kingdom –126 United Kingdom –89

United Kingdom 62 Germany 89 Germany –142

France 43 Japan –105 Japan –80

Total 969 Total –65 Total 693

86: Railway locomotives

and parts

Canada –283 Canada –85 Canada 257

Mexico 115 Mexico –267 Mexico –31

Japan –61 Japan –50 Japan –83

Sweden –29 Italy –64 Italy –91

Germany –20 Brazil 42 China –20

Total –179 Total –416 Total 149

NOTE: Totals are for all countries worldwide.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. International Trade Commission, available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, as of August 2002.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 137 <

Table C-19

U.S. Transportation-Related Commodity Trade by Mode: 2001

(Millions of current dollars)

Total, Other and

HS code Commodity description all modes Maritime Air Truck Rail unknown 1

Total trade

86 Railway locomotives 

and parts 2,863 928 160 854 857 63

87 Vehicles other than railway 218,091 96,506 3,004 59,858 54,696 4,027

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 65,804 5,449 18,303 2,017 35 39,999

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 3,105 2,024 53 607 2 419

Share (%)

86 Railway locomotives

and parts 100.0 32.4 5.6 29.8 29.9 2.2

87 Vehicles other than railway 100.0 44.3 1.4 27.4 25.1 1.8

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 100.0 8.3 27.8 3.1 0.1 60.8

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 100.0 65.2 1.7 19.5 0.1 13.5

Exports

86 Railway locomotives

and parts 1,506 434 94 468 490 21

87 Vehicles other than railway, and parts 58,750 14,740 1,712 29,308 10,503 2,486

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 44,705 2,786 14,855 1,375 0 25,689

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 1,899 1,266 39 208 1 386

Imports

86 Railway locomotives

and parts 1,357 494 66 387 367 42

87 Vehicles, other than railway 159,341 81,767 1,292 30,549 44,193 1,540

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 21,098 2,664 3,448 642 35 14,310

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 1,206 758 14 399 2 34

Balance (exports minus imports)

86 Railway locomotives

and parts 149 –61 28 81 122 –22

87 Vehicles other than railway –100,592 –67,027 419 –1,241 –33,690 946

88 Aircraft, spacecraft, and parts 23,607 122 11,407 733 –34 11,380

89 Ships, boats, and floating structures 693 507 25 –191 –1 352

1 Other includes "flyaway aircraft" (i.e., aircraft moving from the manufacturer to a customer and not carrying freight) and vessels moving

under their own power.

NOTES: Truck and rail land modes cover trade with Canada and Mexico. Maritime and Air modes includes trade with all countries. Commodity come, based on the 2-digit harmonized schedule for internationally traded goods.

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, special tabulation, May 2002; based on: total trade, air,

and water—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, FT920 U.S. Merchandise Trade (Washington, DC:

2001); all land modes—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data.
> 138 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-20

U.S. International Private Services Trade by Type: 2000–2001

(Millions of dollars)

Exports Imports Total (exports Percentage

(receipts) (payments) plus imports) change,

2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000–2001

Total private services 277,478 266,209 202,060 192,305 479,538 458,514 –4.4

Travel 82,267 73,119 64,788 60,117 147,055 133,236 –9.4

Passenger fares 20,760 18,007 24,306 22,418 45,066 40,425 –10.3

Freight transportation and 

port services 30,137 28,306 41,598 38,823 71,735 67,129 –6.4

Freight 12,994 11,930 27,388 25,667 40,382 37,597 –6.9

Port services 17,143 16,376 14,210 13,156 31,353 29,532 –5.8

Royalties and license fees 39,607 38,668 16,115 16,359 55,722 55,027 –1.2

Other private services 104,707 108,109 55,253 54,588 159,960 162,697 1.7

NOTES: Receipts consist of money received by the domestic carriers or service providers from foreign sources. Payments consist of money

paid by domestic consumers to foreign carriers or service providers.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. International Accounts Data, available at http://www.bea.gov/bea/di/1001serv/intlserv.htm, as of 

January 2003.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 139 <

Table C-21

U.S. International Trade in Transportation-Related Services 

with G-7 and Selected Countries: 2001

(Millions of dollars)

Total Freight services Port services

freight and Other and Other and

Country port services Total Ocean Air unknown1 Total Ocean Air unknown1

Total (exports plus imports) 

All countries 67,129 37,597 23,538 9,322 4,737 29,532 10,476 18,746 310

Japan 8,553 4,387 3,072 1,231 NA 4,166 1,428 2,738 NA

Canada 5,510 4,298 292 125 3,881 1,212 264 638 310

United Kingdom 4,320 1,628 573 1,047 NA 2,692 204 2,488 NA

Germany 4,023 1,793 1,197 584 NA 2,230 719 1,511 NA

South Korea 3,311 1,786 1,396 390 NA 1,525 827 698 NA

Mexico 2,228 535 238 228 69 1,693 138 1,555 NA

China 2,109 1,201 596 605 NA 908 333 575 NA

France 1,587 616 160 444 NA 971 41 930 NA

Italy 1,091 688 519 165 NA 403 136 267 NA

Exports (receipts)

All countries 28,306 11,930 4,143 5,364 2,423 16,376 8,474 7,699 203

Japan 3,298 1,229 384 761 84 2,069 1,279 790 NA

Canada 2,212 1,837 146 80 1,611 375 45 127 203

United Kingdom 1,904 847 178 661 8 1,057 146 911 NA

Germany 1,887 462 147 303 12 1,425 615 810 NA

South Korea 1,751 335 132 203 NA 1,416 780 636 NA

China 894 378 202 176 NA 516 159 357 NA

Mexico 680 345 61 221 63 335 109 226 NA

France 631 343 52 279 12 288 28 260 NA

Italy 383 163 75 84 4 220 69 151 NA

Imports (payments)

All countries 38,823 25,667 19,395 3,958 2,314 13,156 2,002 11,047 107

Japan 5,255 3,158 2,688 470 NA 2,097 149 1,948 NA

Canada 3,298 2,461 146 45 2,270 837 219 511 107

United Kingdom 2,416 781 395 386 NA 1,635 58 1,577 NA

Germany 2,136 1,331 1,050 281 NA 805 104 701 NA

South Korea 1,560 1,451 1,264 187 NA 109 47 62 NA

Mexico 1,548 190 177 7 6 1,358 29 1,329 NA

China 1,215 823 394 429 NA 392 174 218 NA

France 956 273 108 165 NA 683 13 670 NA

Italy 708 525 444 81 NA 183 67 116 NA

1 For Canada and Mexico, “Other” includes freight services by surface modes.

Key: NA = not applicable.

NOTES: Payments consist of money paid by domestic consumers to foreign carriers or service providers. Receipts consist of money

received by domestic carriers or service providers from foreign sources. G-7 (Group of Seven) countries are the United States, Canada,

France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. International Accounts Data, available at http://www.bea.gov/bea/di/1001serv/intlserv.html, as of

January 2003.
> 140 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-22

U.S. Exports and Imports of Computer and Related 

Information Technology (IT) Goods

Total trade in 

merchandise goods Computer-related IT goods IT as %

(exports plus imports)1 Total Exports Imports of total goods 

Billions of current $

1990 907 49 26 23 5.4 

1991 927 53 27 26 5.7 

1992 994 61 29 32 6.1 

1993 1,053 67 29 38 6.4 

1994 1,186 80 33 46 6.7 

1995 1,341 96 40 56 7.2 

1996 1,427 105 44 62 7.4 

1997 1,574 120 49 70 7.6 

1998 1,611 118 45 73 7.3 

1999 1,745 128 47 82 7.3 

2000 2,031 145 56 90 7.2 

2001 1,910 122 48 74 6.4 

Billions of chained 1996 $

1990 891 24 12 12 2.7 

1991 919 29 14 15 3.2 

1992 994 38 17 21 3.8 

1993 1,062 47 20 27 4.5 

1994 1,186 61 25 36 5.2 

1995 1,308 82 33 48 6.2 

1996 1,427 105 44 62 7.4 

1997 1,631 139 57 81 8.5 

1998 1,754 161 60 101 9.2 

1999 1,911 199 68 130 10.4 

2000 2,152 238 86 153 11.1 

2001 2,068 215 76 139 10.4 

1 Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data for overall U.S. trade in current dollars will differ from 

figures reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, due to BEA adjustments in the data.

NOTE: Exports and imports of certain goods, primarily military equipment purchased and sold by

the federal government, are included in services.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics; based on data from

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Products Account

basis, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N#S4, as of

Apr. 24, 2002.
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 141 <

APPENDIX D

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES

List of Tables

Table 1

Top 10 Leading Exporters and Importers 

in World Merchandise Trade: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 2

U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

and Gross Domestic Product (GDP): 1990–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 3

Top 25 U.S. International Merchandise 

Trade Partners by Value: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 4

Top 25 U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

Partners by Value: 2001 vs. 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 5

Top 25 U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

Partners by Value: 1970–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 6

Top 25 U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

Partners by Value: 1970 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 7

Value and Weight of U.S. International Merchandise Trade 

by Mode of Transportation: 1997 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 8

Modal Shares of U.S. International Merchandise 

Trade by Value and Weight: 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 9

Top 25 U.S. Maritime Trade Partners by Value 

and Weight: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 10

Top 25 U.S. International Maritime Ports 

by Value and Weight: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 11

Top 10 U.S. Maritime Container Ports: 1995–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
> 142 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table 12

U.S. Containerized Exports and Imports by 

Coastal Port Regions: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 13

Top 20 U.S. Port Calls by Vessel Type: 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 14

Top 25 World Port Calls by Container Vessels: 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 15

Value of U.S. Merchandise Trade by Air 

Transportation: 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 16

Value of U.S. Merchandise Trade by Air Transportation: 1970–2001 . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 17

Top 25 U.S. Merchandise Trade Partners 

for Air Transportation: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 18

Top 25 U.S. Air Gateways for U.S. International 

Merchandise Trade by Value: 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Table 19

Top 20 U.S. Gateways for International Freight by 

Weight: 1990, 1995, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 20

Top 20 Airport Pairs for U.S. International Air Freight 

by Weight: 1990, 1995, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 21

Value of U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada and Mexico 

Compared with U.S.Trade with All Other Countries: 1994–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Table 22

Value of U.S. Merchandise Trade with NAFTA

Partners by Mode: 1997–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Table 23

U.S. Merchandise Trade with Canada and Mexico

by Mode: 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 24

Top 10 U.S. Land Ports by Value of U.S.-NAFTA 

Surface Trade: 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 25

Top 20 NAFTA Border Truck Crossings into the 

United States: 1994, 2000, and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 143 <

Table 26

Top 5 U.S. Land Ports for North American Merchandise 

Trade by Truck and Rail: 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table 27

Top 10 U.S. International Freight Gateways 

by Shipment Value: 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Table 28

U.S.Total Merchandise Trade by 2-Digit Commodity 

Code: 1990, 1995, and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Table 29

Top 15 Commodities in U.S. Merchandise Trade with NAFTA 

Partners by All Modes Compared with Total U.S.Trade: 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Table 30 

U.S.Trade in Transportation-Related Goods by 

Commodity: 1990, 2000, and 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 31

U.S. Share of Top 25 Trading Partners' Total Merchandise 

Imports and Exports: 1991, 1995, and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Table 32 

Top 10 Countries for U.S. Direct Investment Abroad and Foreign

Direct Investment in the United States: 1997–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Table 33

Balance of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad and Foreign Direct

Investment in the United States: 1997–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

List of Figures

Figure 1

Value of U.S. International Merchandise 

Trade: 1990–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 2

U.S. International Merchandise Trade

and Real GDP: 1990–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 3

U.S. International Merchandise Trade and 

Gross Domestic Product: 1970–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 4

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
> 144 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Figure 5

Merchandise Export Trade and Goods Production

in the U.S. Economy: 1970-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 6

Modal Shares of U.S. International Merchandise 

Trade by Value and Weight: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 7

Maritime Container Entries into the

United States: 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 8

U.S. International Air Merchandise Trade,

Exports Minus Imports: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 9

U.S. International Air Operating Revenues and 

Revenue Ton-Miles: 1980–2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 10

U.S. International Air Cargo Availability and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 11

Modal Share of U.S. NAFTA-Partner Merchandise 

Trade by Value and Weight: 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 12

Value of North American Merchandise Trade by 

U.S. State—All Surface Modes: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 13

Percentage Change in the Value of U.S. NAFTA-Partner

Land Trade by State: 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 14

U.S.-NAFTA Imports by Truck: 1994–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 15

Top 25 U.S. International Freight Gateways by Shipment Value: 2001 . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 16

U.S. International Merchandise Trade by 

Commodity Type: 1980–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 17

Value of Transportation-Related U.S. Merchandise Trade 

for Selected Categories: 1990–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 18

Balance of Trade for Transportation-Related 

Merchandise Goods: 1990–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 145 <

Figure 19

Overall U.S. International Trade in Merchandise 

and Services by Sector: 1990–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 20

Components of a Trade Flow Between Shipper and Consignee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 21

U.S.Trade in Services: 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 22

U.S. International Freight and Port Services Trade

and Share of Total Services: 1986–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 23

Balance of Trade for U.S. International Freight 

and Port Services: 1986–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 24

Receipts and Payments for U.S. International Freight

and Port Services Trade: 1986–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 25

Advances in Transportation Technology and 

the Shrinking of “Real” Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

List of Boxes

Box 1

Current and Inflation-Adjusted Economic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Box 2

West Coast Ports Shutdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Box 3

Current Status of NAFTA Motor Carrier Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Box 4

Components of International Services Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

List of Statistical Appendix Tables

Table C-1

Value and Tonnage of U.S. Freight Shipments: 1997 and 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Table C-2

U.S. International Merchandise Trade and Real 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP): 1990–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
> 146 < U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends

Table C-3

U.S. International Merchandise Trade and 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP): 1970–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Table C-4

U.S. Merchandise Trade and Production of Tradable Goods

in Gross Domestic Product (GDP): 1970–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Table C-5

U.S. International Merchandise Trade by World Regions: 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Table C-6

Value of U.S. International Merchandise Trade by Mode 

of Transportation: 2000 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Table C-7

Top 25 U.S. Maritime Trade Partners by Value and Weight: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Table C-8

Total Monthly Maritime Container Entries 

into the United States: 1998–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table C-9

Top 20 Fastest Growing U.S. Gateways for International 

Air Freight by Weight: 1990–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Table C-10

U.S. Air Transportation Freight Operating Revenues: 1980–2001. . . . . . . . . . 126

Table C-11

U.S.Total Merchandise Trade with Canada 

and Mexico by Mode: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Table C-12

U.S. Merchandise Imports from Canada 

and Mexico by Mode: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Table C-13

U.S. Merchandise Exports to Canada 

and Mexico by Mode: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Table C-14

U.S.-NAFTA Trade by State for All Surface Modes: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Table C-15

Incoming Truck Crossings on the U.S.-Canadian and

U.S.-Mexican Borders: 1994, 2000, and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Table C-16

Monthly Incoming Truck Crossings at the 

Top 10 U.S. Land Ports: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Table C-17

Top 50 U.S. International Freight Gateways 

by Shipment Value: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Table C-18

U.S. International Trade Balance in Transportation-Related Goods 

Among the Top 5 Trading Partners for Each Commodity

Group: 1990, 2000, and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Table C-19

U.S. Transportation-Related Commodity Trade by Mode: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Table C-20

U.S. International Private Services Trade by Type: 2000–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Table C-21

U.S. International Trade in Transportation-Related Services 

with G-7 and Selected Countries: 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Table C-22

U.S. Exports and Imports of Computer and Related 

Information Technology (IT) Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

U.S. International Trade and Freight Transportation Trends > 147 <