America’s Container Ports:

Freight Hubs That Connect Our Nation to Global Markets

June 2009

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

RITA Bureau of Transportation Statistics

America’s Container Ports:

Freight Hubs That Connect Our Nation to Global Markets

June 2009

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Bureau of Transportation Statistics
To obtain America’s Container Ports, 2009

and other BTS publications

Mail: Product Orders

 Research and Innovative Technology Administration

 Bureau of Transportation Statistics

 U.S. Department of Transportation

 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

 Washington, DC 20590

Internet: www.bts.gov

BTS Information Service

E-mail: answers@bts.gov

Phone: 800-853-1351

Recommended citation

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

Statistics, America’s Container Ports: Freight Hubs That 

Connect Our Nation to Global Markets (Washington, DC: 

2009).

All material contained in this report is in the public domain 

and may be used and reprinted without special permission; 

citation as to source is required.

Cover photos by Chester Ford

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Bureau of Transportation Statistics
U.S. Department of

Transportation

Ray LaHood

Secretary

Research and

Innovative Technology

Administration

Peter H. Appel

Administrator

Bureau of

Transportation

Statistics

Steven K. Smith, Ph.D.

Acting Director

Produced under the 

direction of:

Deborah D. Johnson

Assistant Director, Offi ce of

Transportation Analysis

Project Manager

Long X. Nguyen

Major Contributors 

Felix Ammah-Tagoe

E-Ternational

Shana Johnson

E-Ternational

Other Contributors

Steve Beningo

Matt Chambers

Jacob Hommeland

Gail Perkins

RITA Editor

William H. Moore

RITA Visual Information Specialist

Alpha Wingfi eld

Acknowledgments
Table of Contents

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

Introduction ................................................................................................................3

Effects of Drop in Container Throughput ..................................................................6

Trends in Container Throughput ................................................................................7

Gateways for Inbound and Outbound Traffi c ..........................................................11

Port Concentration ...................................................................................................14

Regional Shifts in Port Market Share ......................................................................15

Vessel Calls and Capacity ........................................................................................16

Ranking of U.S. Ports Among World’s Top Ports ....................................................18

Trading Partners .......................................................................................................19

Entries of Oceanborne Container Units ...................................................................21

Container Entries by All Modes from All Countries ...............................................21

Spotlight 1: Landside Access to Seaports ................................................................23

Spotlight 2: Maritime Security .................................................................................26

Spotlight 3: Ports and Environmental Concerns ......................................................29

References ................................................................................................................31

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................33

Glossary ...................................................................................................................34
1

Overview

The U.S. marine transportation system continues to handle large volumes of domestic and international freight in support of the nation’s economic activities. The demand for freight transportation 

responds to trends in global economic activity and merchandise trade. When U.S. businesses produce more goods, the demand for freight transportation services to move raw materials and fi nished 

products to markets and customers around the country and world will increase. When economic 

conditions result in less production, the demand for transportation services will decrease.

This report provides an overview of the movement of maritime freight handled by the nation’s container seaports in 2008 and summarizes trends in maritime freight movement since 1995. It covers 

the impact of the recent U.S. and global economic downturn on U.S. port container traffi c, trends in 

container throughput, concentration of containerized cargo at the top U.S. ports, regional shifts in 

cargo handled, vessel calls and capacity in ports, the rankings of U.S. ports among the world’s top 

ports, and the number of maritime container entries into the United States relative to truck and rail 

containers. The report also presents snapshots of landside access to container ports, port security 

initiatives, and ongoing maritime environmental issues.

The principal fi ndings of the report include the following:

• Maritime freight handled by U.S. container ports fell sharply towards the end of 2008, and the decline continued into the fi rst quarter of 2009. Total U.S. containerized cargo for December 2008 

was down 18 percent compared with December 2007. The decline was severe at the nation’s 

two leading container ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach, which experienced 13 and 25 percent 

drops, respectively.

• Overall in 2008, U.S. container ports handled 28.2 million loaded TEUs (20-foot equivalent 

units—a measure for counting containers), a 3 percent drop from the 29 million TEUs handled in 

2007.

• In 2008, containerized freight throughput fell for each of the leading ports in the Pacifi c/west 

coast, Atlantic/east coast, and gulf coast regions. West coast ports had a 5 percent decline, east 

coast ports a less than 1 percent decline, and gulf coast ports a 3 percent decline.

• The consequences of the 2008 decline in container throughput at the nation’s seaports reached 

beyond the marine ports and terminals, affecting containership fl eet capacity, the railroads and 

commercial trucks that service the seaports, and the inland warehouses and distribution centers 

that provide logistical support for the entire multimodal freight supply chain.

• In 2008, the decline in maritime containerized cargo impacted international intermodal containers 

handled by the nation’s Class I railroads, which fell 7 percent from 2007. It also affected overall 

trucking activity, which saw record declines in the second half of 2008.

• Despite the 2007 to 2008 declines, today 1 container in every 10 that is engaged in global trade 

is either bound for or originates in the United States, accounting for 10 percent of worldwide 

container traffi c.

• On a typical day in 2008, U.S. container ports handled an average of 77,000 TEUs, up from 

37,000 TEUs per day in 1995.

• In 2008, the top 10 U.S. container ports accounted for 86 percent of containerized TEU imports 

and exports, up from 78 percent in 1995.

• In 2008, 3 U.S. ports—Los Angeles, Long Beach, and New York/New Jersey—ranked among the 

world’s top 20 container ports when measured by TEUs, placing 16th, 17th, and 20th, respectively.
2 America’s Container Ports

• In 2007, there were nearly 20,000 containership calls at U.S. seaports, accounting for 31 percent 

of the total oceangoing vessel calls made by all vessel types at U.S. ports.

• In 2007, there were about 12 million oceanborne container entries into the United States, down 

slightly from 2006 but still double those of 2000.

• In April 2009, a U.S.-fl agged container vessel with 20 American sailors was hijacked by pirates off 

the coast of Somalia, highlighting the challenge of fully securing maritime cargo throughout the 

entire global logistics supply chain.
America’s Container Ports 3

America’s container ports play an important role in handling U.S. merchandise trade moving to and from distant places around the world. Each year, these seaports 

handle exports produced at U.S. factories and farms and imports of goods such as automobiles, machinery, electronics, apparel, shoes, toys, and food. American households 

depend on the nation’s container seaports for everyday items, and American businesses 

depend on these seaports for facilitating the exchange of merchandise with trading 

partners around the world.

During 2008, the volume of maritime freight handled by America’s container ports 

dropped. U.S. international merchandise trade transported by maritime container vessels fell sharply toward the end of the year, a decline that continued into 2009. Total U.S. 

containerized freight for December 2008 was down 18 percent compared with December 

2007 (table 1). Maritime containerized imports declined 15 percent, and exports fell by 

21 percent (JOC PIERS 2009a). This happened as U.S. businesses cut inventories, 

manufacturing and construction activities stalled, and Americans cut back on spending as 

unemployment rose, home values fell, and investment portfolios shrank.

The year 2008 was exceptionally challenging for the nation’s leading container seaports. 

After a steady pace at the beginning of the year, by end of 2008, containerized freight 

throughput declined for each of the leading ports in the Pacifi c/west coast, Atlantic/east 

coast, and gulf coast regions (table 1). All the major ports saw a decline in December 

2008 compared with the same month in the previous year. The nation’s two leading container ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach, experienced 13 and 25 percent year-on-year 

drops, respectively. Other leading ports saw worse declines in container traffi c, with cargo 

falling by more than one-third to almost one-half—for example, Seattle fell 38 percent and 

Mobile fell 49 percent.

By the end of 2008, U.S. total maritime container traffi c at all U.S. ports was estimated at 

28.2 million TEUs (see box), a 3 percent drop from the 29 million TEUs in 2007 (table 1). 

During 2008, west coast ports had a 5 percent decline in container traffi c and gulf coast 

ports had a 3 percent decline. East coast ports had a 0.2 percent, or essentially negligible, increase. Among the nation’s top 10 leading container ports, 7 saw declines in their 

container cargo throughput in 2008. The two largest declines were Seattle at 16 percent 

and Long Beach at 8 percent (table 1 and fi gure 1). Only 3 of the top 10 ports, all on the 

east coast, handled slightly more container cargo in 2008 than in 2007—Savannah grew 

by 3.6 percent, New York/New Jersey by 1.4 percent, and Norfolk by 1.2 percent. These 

east coast ports tend to have a more diversifi ed trade market with Europe, Asia, Latin 

America, and South America, unlike the west coast ports, which trade almost exclusively 

with the Asia-Pacifi c market.

Containerized trade between the United 

States and the rest of the world fell in 2008 

because of the combined infl uence of 

weak domestic consumer demand, which 

cut import levels, and the global economic 

slowdown, which cut foreign demand for 

U.S. exports. During the second half of 2008, 

as the U.S. fi nancial crisis began to directly 

impact consumer spending, Americans cut 

back on their purchase of imported clothes, 

automobiles, and other consumer merchandise, such as toys and fl at-panel televisions. 

In addition, as the domestic fi nancial crisis deepened and the global recession widened, 

overseas trading partners’ demand for U.S. goods started to tumble, further weakening 

2008 was an 

exceptionally 

challenging year 

for the nation’s 

container ports 

as TEU throughput dropped 

nationwide.

TEU Defi ned:

The standard measure for counting 

containers is the 20-foot equivalent 

unit, or TEU. This measure is used to 

count containers of various lengths. A 

standard 40-foot container is 2 TEUs, 

and a 48-foot container equals 2.4 

TEUs. It is also used to describe the 

capacities of containerships or ports.

Introduction
4 America’s Container Ports

the maritime container market. As a result, declines 

occurred in U.S. demand for maritime container 

transportation by ocean vessels, cargo-handling 

activity at the container ports, and the volume of 

intermodal freight moved to and from the ports by 

truck and rail.

The declines in maritime container traffi c mirrored 

the slide in overall U.S. international merchandise 

exports and imports transported by all modes of 

transportation in 2007 and 2008 and followed the 

trend in the national economy as a whole (fi gure 

2 and fi gure 3). According to the U.S. Department 

of Commerce, the primary contributors to the 

declines in merchandise exports and imports in the 

fourth quarter of 2008 were industrial supplies and 

materials; automotive vehicles, parts, and engines; 

consumer goods; and foods, feeds, and beverages 

(USDOC CB BEA 2009). When adjusted for infl ation, the value of merchandise exports in the fourth 

quarter of 2008 dropped 34 percent compared with 

that of the third quarter. The value of merchandise 

imports dropped 19 percent (fi gure 3).

Trends in container shipping are directly related 

to patterns in overall international trade, which is 

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

TABLE 1

Maritime Container Cargo Handled at Leading U.S. Container Ports: 2007 and 2008

(Thousands of TEUs)

Monthly comparison, 

December 2007 and December 2008

Annual comparison, 

2007 and 2008

Ranked within port region

December 

2007

December 

2008

Percent change 

from same month 

previous year 2007 2008

Percent change 

from previous 

year

West coast total 1,177 939 -20.2 14,906 14,162 -5.0

 Los Angeles, CA 450 393 -12.6 5,740 5,671 -1.2

 Long Beach, CA 391 294 -24.8 4,995 4,612 -7.7

 Oakland, CA 115 95 -17.3 1,451 1,395 -3.9

 Tacoma, WA 93 71 -23.4 1,151 1,129 -1.9

 Seattle, WA 106 66 -37.7 1,289 1,083 -16.0

Other ports 22 20 -9.8 280 273 -2.4

East coast total 976 820 -16.0 12,011 12,030 0.2

 New York/New Jersey 316 279 -11.7 3,935 3,992 1.4

 Savannah, GA 162 138 -14.9 2,042 2,116 3.6

 Norfolk, VA 131 104 -20.4 1,573 1,592 1.2

 Charleston, SC 111 81 -27.1 1,408 1,331 -5.5

 Port Everglades, FL 59 48 -18.3 692 681 -1.6

 Miami, FL 57 47 -18.4 685 669 -2.3

 Wilmington, NC 16 9 -41.6 150 147 -1.8

Other ports 126 115 -8.5 1,526 1,502 -1.6

Gulf coast total 165 147 -11.1 2,052 1,998 -2.6

 Houston, TX 115 104 -9.3 1,416 1,371 -3.2

 Mobile, AL 7 4 -48.8 68 75 10.4

Other ports 43 39 -9.7 568 552 -2.8

U.S. total TEUs 2,318 1,906 -17.8 28,969 28,190 -2.7

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

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

The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), reported by Georgia Ports Authority in U.S. Port Rankings report, available at 

http://www.gaports.com/SalesandMarketing/MarketingBusinessDevelopment/GPABytheNumbers/tabid/435/Default.aspx as of Feb. 16, 2009.
America’s Container Ports 5

FIGURE 1

Maritime Container Cargo Handled at Top 10 U.S. Container Ports: 2007 and 2008

(Millions of TEUs)

Los Angeles

Long Beach

New York/

New Jersey

Savannah

Norfolk

Oakland

Houston

Charleston

Tacoma

Seattle

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2007

2008

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), reported by 

Georgia Ports Authority in U.S. Port Rankings report, available at http://www.gaports.com/SalesandMarketing/MarketingBusinessDevelopment/GPABytheNumbers/tabid/435/Default.aspx as of January 2009.

FIGURE 2

Quarterly Value of Total U.S. International Merchandise Trade: 2007 and 2008

(Billions of chained 2000 dollars)

 2007-I 2007-II 2007-III 2007-IV 2008-I 2008-II 2008-III 2008-IV

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Merchandise exports

Merchandise imports

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

United States, the Bureau of Economic Analysis establishes indices to calculate changes between years. These are used 

to calculate real chained dollars. Annual changes in the indices are chained (multiplied) together to form a time series. 

Chained dollars, instead of merely refl ecting infl ation, capture the effect of relative changes in prices and in the composition of output. They also better refl ect cyclical fl uctuations in the economy.

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

Accounts, National Incomes and Products Account, www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/index.asp as of Mar. 14, 2009.
6 America’s Container Ports

product (GDP)—the output of goods and services 

produced by labor and property located in the 

United States—decreased at an annual rate of 

6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 (i.e., from 

the third quarter to the fourth quarter). In the third 

quarter, real GDP decreased 0.5 percent (USDOC 

BEA 2009). The slowdown in real GDP primarily 

refl ected a sharp decline in personal consumption 

expenditure, the downturn in exports and 

imports, and a decline in state and local government spending.

Declines in economic activity and drops in exports 

and imports result in reduced demand for freight 

transportation services by all modes of transportation. However, because the majority of U.S. 

overseas merchandise trade (over 66 percent by 

value and 99 percent by weight) moves by ocean 

vessel (USDOC CB 2009), the nation’s container 

ports felt the crunch immediately, but the effects 

were not limited to the seaports.1

1

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

trade with Canada and Mexico.

EFFECTS OF DROP IN 

CONTAINER THROUGHPUT

The consequences of the 2008 decline in container throughput at the nation’s seaports reached 

beyond marine ports and terminals, affecting 

containership fl eet capacity, railroads and commercial trucks that service the seaports, and the inland 

warehouses and distribution centers that provide 

logistical support for the entire multimodal freight 

supply chain. First, because of the decline in global 

demand for containership services, the estimated 

number of container vessels idled at seaports 

worldwide soared by March 2009 to a record high 

of more than 450 ships with a carrying capacity 

of 1.4 million TEUs (AXS-Alphaliner 2009). These 

idle container vessels accounted for approximately 

11 percent of the world containership fl eet. The 

capacity of idle container vessels worldwide nearly 

tripled from the beginning of 2008, when it was estimated to be about 210 ships and 550,000 TEUs.

FIGURE 3

Quarter-to-Quarter Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product: 2007–2008

(Percent)

 2007-I 2007-II 2007-III 2007-IV 2008-I 2008-II 2008-III 2008-IV

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Gross domestic product

Merchandise exports

Merchandise imports

NOTE: Real GDP growth is measured at seasonally adjusted annual rates based on chained 2000 dollars.

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

Accounts, National Incomes and Products Account, www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/index.asp as of Mar. 14, 2009.
America’s Container Ports 7

Second, with the overall decline in containerized exports and imports, the number of 

intermodal2

 shipping containers and truck 

trailers transported nationwide on railcars 

by the nation’s Class I railroads3 in 2008 

was 11.5 million units, down 4 percent 

from 12 million in 2007 and from a record 

high of 12.3 million in 2006. About 60 

percent of rail intermodal traffi c consists 

of merchandise imports and exports (AAR 

2009). In 2008, the number of international 

intermodal containers moved by rail from 

the seaports totaled 7.8 million, a decrease 

of 7 percent from 2007 (Intermodal Association of North America 2008). The 

imports arrive on ocean vessels and are 

long-hauled by railcars to destinations 

across the county, and the exports originate all across the nation and are headed 

for destinations around the world.

In one example of the severity of the 

declines, the leading Class I railroad for 

handling intermodal shipments from west 

coast ports, Union Pacifi c (UP), reported 

that the major economic downturn during 

the fourth quarter of 2008 compounded 

already declining intermodal volumes experienced earlier in the year and resulted 

in fewer intermodal shipments (Union 

Pacifi c Corp. 2009). UP’s intermodal traffi c 

from west coast intermodal terminals was 

1.5 million container units in 2008, down 

7 percent from 1.6 million units in 2007. 

In particular, at the Intermodal Container 

Transfer Facility in Los Angeles, UP’s intermodal traffi c dropped 13 percent during 

the same period.

There were similar declines in trucking services in the second half of 2008, resulting 

in record lows for overall freight trucking 

activity. In December 2008, according to 

the American Trucking Association (ATA), 

2

 As used in this report, the term “intermodal” refers 

to the traditional rail and truck combination only. This 

involves using rail for the long-haul portion of the 

shipment and trucks for the shorter distances at both 

ends of the shipment. The term also could be used to 

describe shipments transported by multiple modes, 

including ocean vessels.

3

 Class I railroads are line-haul freight railroads with 

2008 operating revenues exceeding $360 million.

trucking activity nationwide was down 

13 percent from December 2007. Trucking services declined for 6 consecutive 

months, from June through December 

2008 (ATA 2009).

Nationwide freight activity for all modes, 

measured by the Freight Transportation 

Services Index (TSI), declined 3.0 percent 

in 2008. According to the TSI, this decline 

was the third consecutive annual decline 

and the largest since 2000 (USDOT RITA 

BTS 2009). The freight TSI measures 

changes in the output of services provided 

by the for-hire freight transportation industries and consists of data from for-hire 

trucking, rail, inland waterways, pipelines, 

and air freight. 

Third, the slowdown of economic activity 

within the United States, the reduction in 

consumer spending on foreign goods, and 

the decline in demand for freight transportation services resulted in excess inventory 

for certain imported products moved by 

ocean vessels, especially foreign automobiles. By March 2009, the parking lots of 

the nation’s top auto ports had thousands 

of new car imports that could not be moved 

out. Auto dealers could not take delivery 

of them because of the drop in consumer 

demand and the lack of bank credit to 

fi nance their inventories (Leach 2009). The 

Port of Baltimore, the top auto-handling 

port in the United States, had about 57,000 

new cars at its terminals and the port had 

to store some at the nearby BaltimoreWashington International Marshall Airport 

(Dennis 2009). Storage of imported autos 

at U.S. seaports further reduces demand 

for train and truck services to transport 

them to dealerships, dampens the market 

for third-party logistics services, decreases 

overseas car manufacturing, and ultimately 

increases the number of ocean vessels 

that are idled.

TRENDS IN CONTAINER 

THROUGHPUT

Despite the 2008 decline in the nation’s 

economic activity and international merchandise exports and imports, the United 

States remains the world’s largest trading 

Globally, 1 

maritime 

container in 

every 10 is 

bound to or 

originates in 

the United 

States.
8 America’s Container Ports

nation with the world’s biggest economy. Today, 1 

container in every 10 carrying global trade is bound 

for or originates in the United States, accounting 

for 10 percent of worldwide container traffi c. In 

2008, world maritime container traffi c (loaded and 

empty) was estimated at over 387 million TEUs, 

down from 437 million TEUs transported in 2007 

(table 2).

Between 1995 and 2008, world container traffi c 

more than tripled in volume from 137 million TEUs 

to 387 million TEUs, growing at an average annual 

rate of about 8 percent (table 2). This continued 

long-term growth in maritime container freight 

refl ects sustained U.S. and global economic activity. During this same period, U.S. total container 

traffi c more than doubled in volume from 22 million 

TEUs in 1995 to an estimated 45 million in 2007, 

falling to about 38 million in 2008. From 1995 to 

2008, U.S. total TEUs rose at an average annual 

rate of 4.2 percent. The primary factors underlying 

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

traffi c are the proportion of merchandise trade 

transported in containers; rising trade with AsiaPacifi c trading partners, particularly China; and the 

increasing importance of merchandise trade to U.S 

economic activity. Looking ahead, the volume of 

containers that U.S. seaports handle in the coming years will mainly be determined by how much 

the United States continues to rely on imported 

manufactured goods, which countries it trades 

with most, and what kinds of products it imports 

rather than produces domestically. Rising demand 

for foreign manufactured products would mean 

super-sized container vessels would carry such 

TABLE 2

U.S. v. World Maritime Container Traffi c and Gross Domestic Product: 1995–2008

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

World 

(millions)

United States 

(millions)

U.S. share of 

world total 

(percent) U.S. rank

World 

GDP 

(billions)

United States 

(billions)

U.S. share of 

World GDP 

(percent) U.S. rank

1995 137.2 22.3 16.3 1 29,391 7,398 25.2 1

1996 150.8 22.6 15.0 1 30,080 7,817 26.0 1

1997 160.7 24.5 15.3 1 29,928 8,304 27.7 1

1998 169.6 26.2 15.4 2 29,682 8,747 29.5 1

1999 184.6 28.0 15.2 2 30,786 9,268 30.1 1

2000 233.5 30.4 13.0 2 31,650 9,817 31.0 1

2001 245.1 30.7 12.5 2 31,456 10,128 32.2 1

2002 269.5 32.7 12.1 2 32,714 10,470 32.0 1

2003 307.4 36.3 11.8 2 36,751 10,961 29.8 1

2004 300.8 38.7 12.9 2 41,258 11,686 28.3 1

2005 306.0 42.0 13.7 2 44,455 12,422 27.9 1

2006 426.4 44.4 10.4 2 48,665 13,178 27.1 1

2007 436.6 45.0 10.3 2 54,585 13,808 25.3 1

2008 387.1 38.0 9.8 2 60,863a

 14,265 23.4 1

Percent change, 

1995-2008 182.1 70.1 

Average annual 

rate (percent), 

1995-2008 8.3 4.2 

a

 World 2008 GDP is an estimate that includes projections by the International Monetary Fund for some countries.

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

SOURCES: TEUs, world estimates, 1995–1999: Containerisation International Yearbook (London: Informa Group, Inc., 1997–2001); 2000–2008: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, based on Containerisation International Online, www.ci-online.co.uk as of Mar. 30, 2009. TEUs, U.S. 

estimates, 1995–2007: American Association of Port Authorities, Industry Statistics; 1995–2007, www.aapa-ports.org/Industry as of Apr. 20, 2009; 2008: 

Containerisation International Online, www.ci-online.co.uk as of Apr. 20, 2009. GDP: World estimates from International Monetary Fund, World Economic 

Outlook Database, www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2009/01/weodata/index.aspx as of Apr. 20, 2009; U.S. estimates from U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, www.bea.gov/national as of Mar. 30, 2009.
America’s Container Ports 9

products to the nation’s seaports, enabling 

continued growth in containerization.4

The United States ranked second in 

container traffi c in 2007, a position it has 

held since China took over the number one 

position in 1998. Nonetheless, the United 

States remains the leading trading nation, 

accounting for 11 percent of total world 

merchandise trade in 2007 (fi gure 4). U.S. 

total imports ranked fi rst, accounting for 

over 14 percent of the global imports in 

2007. U.S. total exports accounted for 8 

percent of global exports, behind Germany, 

the leading exporter (WTO 2008). The 

United States also remained the world’s 

largest economy, accounting for 23 percent 

of World GDP in 2008, down slightly from 

25 percent in 1995 (table 2).

4

 Containerization is a form of transportation in 

which the size and shape of freight is standardized 

through the use of containers to allow fast mechanical 

handling of cargo at seaports. It differs sharply from 

the labor-intensive and time-consuming break-bulk 

method of handling cargo of varying sizes and 

shapes.

From 1995 to 2008, the volume of containerized cargo moving through U.S. seaports 

grew at a faster rate, 6 percent, than U.S. 

real GDP growth, 3 percent (fi gure 5). 

During most of the 1990s, strong growth of 

the U.S. economy, rising household wealth 

and income in the United States, and 

steady consumer demand at home spurred 

U.S. international goods trade, which 

resulted in greater demands for containerized freight transportation services.

A comparison of the year-on-year percent 

change between U.S.-loaded container 

TEUs and real GDP shows a correlation 

between the container maritime industry 

trends and general economic conditions 

(fi gure 6). This comparison shows the 

effect that economic cycles have on the 

U.S. container trade, as evidenced by 

the declines in TEUs during the 2001 and 

2008 recessions. As fi gure 6 shows, the 

container trade trend is more volatile than 

the GDP trend. However, assuming that 

the strong cyclical relationship continues, 

when the U.S. economy recovers and the 

volume of merchandise imports and exU.S. container 

traffi c doubled 

over the past 

decade, and 

the growth 

trend is 

expected to 

continue.

FIGURE 4

World’s Top Merchandise Trade Countries: 2007

(Percent)

Singapore

Mexico

Spain

Korea, Republic of

Hong Kong, China

Canada

Belgium

Italy

Netherlands

United Kingdom

France

Japan

China

Germany

United States

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Percent

11.3

8.5

7.7

4.7

4.1

3.8

3.7

3.5

3.0

2.9

2.6

2.6

2.2

2.0

2.0

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

based on data from World Trade Organization, 2008 Trade Report.
10 America’s Container Ports

FIGURE 6

Year-on-Year Percent Change in U.S. Container Trade and Real GDP: 1995–2008

(Percent)

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

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

U.S.-loaded TEUs U.S.-real GDP

NOTE: Real GDP growth is measured at seasonally adjusted annual rates based on chained 2000 dollars.

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

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

bea.gov/national/nipaweb/index.asp as of Mar. 14, 2009. TEU data based on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS).

FIGURE 5

Growth in U.S. Container Trade, Overall Freight, and Real GDP: 1995–2008

(Index 2000 = 100)

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

U.S.-loaded TEUs

U.S. real GDP

Freight TSI

NOTE: Real GDP growth is measured at seasonally adjusted annual rates based on chained 2000 dollars. TSI fi gures are annualized estimates 

based on the monthly published estimates. TEUs = twenty-foot equivalent units.

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

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

www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/index.asp as of Mar. 14, 2009. TEU data based on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS). Freight TSI data based on monthly freight 

TSI estimates from U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

monthly TSI press releases at www.bts.gov.
America’s Container Ports 11

ports rebounds, then U.S. container seaports are 

likely to see a resurgence of container throughput 

at their terminals.

GATEWAYS FOR INBOUND AND 

OUTBOUND TRAFFIC

While America’s container seaports serve as 

gateways for both merchandise imports and 

exports, overall they handle more TEUs of imports 

than exports. In 2008, the U.S. defi cit in maritime 

container traffi c—the gap between exports and 

imports—narrowed to 6 million TEUs as maritime 

container imports fell 8 percent and exports grew 

6 percent (fi gure 7). This marked the second 

year in a row that the defi cit fell following record 

high imports in 2006. In 2007 and 2008, although 

the United States exported less abroad than it 

imported, imports declined steeply because of the 

economic slowdown at home. Exports grew 

at a modest pace.

Before 1998, the defi cit of U.S. international 

container traffi c was less than 1 million 

TEUs per year, but by 2008, this gap had 

signifi cantly widened, with imports accounting for a larger share of the total container 

traffi c (fi gure 7). In 2008, maritime container 

imports passing through U.S. seaports 

accounted for 61 percent of total container 

traffi c, a sizeable increase from 51 percent in 1995. However, container exports 

handled by the ports seem to be rebounding, reaching 39 percent of total container 

traffi c in 2008, an increase from a low of 33 

percent in 2005. A likely factor for the surge 

in exports during 2007 and 2008 is the fall of 

the U.S. dollar relative to the European euro 

and other currencies. During this period, as 

the dollar fell against the euro, American 

goods became more affordable overseas. 

This contributed to the rise in maritime 

container exports. A stronger dollar provides 

Americans with greater purchasing power 

and results in more goods being imported, 

while a weaker dollar leads to foreign buyers purchasing more U.S. products.5

Figure 8 shows the location of the nation’s 

top 25 maritime container ports for U.S. 

international containerized exports and 

imports in 2008. The top three container port 

gateways were Los Angeles, Long Beach, 

and New York/New Jersey. The containerized exports and imports handled by these 

leading ports serve the international trade needs 

of every state, both coastal states with seaports as 

well as landlocked states that depend on seaports 

for their merchandise trade export and imports. 

The containerized cargo arrives and leaves the 

seaports either by rail or truck as single modes or 

by intermodal truck-rail combination.

Overall U.S. international maritime container traffi c 

more than doubled between 1995 and 2008 (fi gure 

9). In 2008, about 28 million TEUs of U.S. international oceanborne trade moved through U.S. 

container ports, up from 13 million in 1995 (JOC 

PIERS 2009b). As the rebound after the low year 

5

 Because the merchandise trade defi cit is more complicated 

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

is not always effective in closing the gap between exports and 

imports. Domestic recessions are often more effective in cutting 

demand for imports and therefore reducing the trade balance.

BOX 1

Repositioning of Empty Containers

A broad challenge facing the U.S. maritime industry is the 

repositioning of empty containers after they have been emptied of 

the goods they transported to the United States. During the past 

20 years, as merchandise trade between the United States and 

its trading partners—particularly Asia-Pacifi c Rim countries—

mushroomed and the trade imbalance grew, the number of empty 

containers idling in the United States increased. In general, the 

larger the trade imbalance, the greater the need to reposition 

empty containers for shippers to use for exports.

Although containers are designed to be reused (with new cargo 

loaded for a new location soon after the original cargo is off-loaded), in many cases the cost of transporting an empty container to 

a place where it can be reloaded is higher than the container is 

worth, particularly when empty containers must be transported 

from inland locations to U.S. shippers or overseas.

In 1997, the difference between TEUs of U.S. containerized 

imports and exports was about 715,000. By 2006, the difference 

had reached a record high of nearly 10 million TEUs. In 2008, 

it was about 6 million TEUs. These large numbers illustrate the 

magnitude of the challenge of handling idle containers.

Empty containers are stored near seaports and inland intermodal 

transfer locations. Los Angeles, Long Beach, and New York/New 

Jersey are the three largest port markets where leasing companies 

and shipping lines store empty containers, and Chicago, Dallas, 

and Memphis are notable storage locations for empty containers 

inland (Mongelluzzo 2008). In 2008, the nation’s top container 

port, the Port of Los Angeles, handled about 1.9 million TEUs of 

empty export containers, accounting for 51 percent of the total 

outbound export TEUs for the port.
12 America’s Container Ports

FIGURE 7

U.S. International Maritime Container Traffi c: 1995-2008

(Millions of TEUs)

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

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Exports Imports Balance (exports minus imports)

SOURCES: 1995–2004: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, based on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, 

Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS). 2005–2007: Data from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 

www.marad.dot.gov/data_statistics 2008: Estimate based on PIERS Trade Horizon estimate of annual percentage growth from 2007, reported 

at www.joc.com as of Mar. 19, 2009.

FIGURE 8

Top 25 Container Ports for U.S. International Maritime Freight: 2008

(Thousands of TEUs)

Port

of

Los Angeles

Port of Long Beach

Port of Portland

Port of Oakland

Port of Seattle

Port of Tacoma

Port of Houston

Port

of

New Orleans

Port of Gulfport

Port

of

Mobile

Port Everglades

Port of West Palm Beach

Port of Miami

Port of Jacksonville

Port of Savannah

Port of Charleston

Port of Wilmington, NC Port of Norfolk

Port of Baltimore

Port of

Wilmington, DE

Port

of

Philadelphia

Port of Chester

Port of New York/New Jersey

Port of Boston

Port of San Juan, PR

Imports

Exports

Total

TEUs

(in millions)

1 - 3

H 1

H 3

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

NOTE: The data in this fi gure include only loaded containers in U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, exports, 

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

exclude transshipments. The data also exclude military shipments.

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

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

Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), available at www.marad.dot.gov as of Mar. 30, 2009.
America’s Container Ports 13

in 2001 suggests, long-term growth is likely to resume after the U.S. and global economies recover 

from the current worldwide economic downturn.

In 2008, U.S. container ports handled a daily 

average of 77,000 TEUs, up from 37,000 TEUs 

per day in 1995. This large number of containers 

moving through the nation’s seaports highlights 

the signifi cance of container traffi c and its potential impacts on the economy, local communities, 

national security, and the natural environment. It 

also underscores the challenges of handling this 

cargo effi ciently, alleviating highway congestion 

around the seaports, improving landside access to 

ports, and removing freight bottlenecks at intermodal transfer locations where trucks and railroads 

connect to marine terminals.

A major factor affecting landside access to U.S. 

container ports is the continuing growth of containerization. Growth in containerization is directly 

related to the provision of adequate intermodal 

capacity to handle the associated increase in the 

level of landside traffi c. For example, on a typical 

day in 2008, container throughput for the New 

York/New Jersey port, the nation’s third largest 

container port, was 5,265,053 TEUs (PANYNJ 

2009). Assuming a typical line-haul truck6

 carries 

an equivalent of two TEUs, this annual throughput 

translates into 2,632,526 one-way truck trips per 

year. This is equivalent to 10,125 truck trips each 

weekday resulting from containerized cargo. At 

approximately 40 feet per trailer, on a typical work 

day the trailers would stretch about 77 miles if 

lined up end to end.

6

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

or more axles. A typical line-haul trailer is approximately 40 to 

48 feet long and is permitted in most states to move a maximum of 80,000 pounds gross weight.

FIGURE 9

U.S. International Maritime Containerized Activity: 1995-2008

(Millions of loaded TEUs)

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

13.3

14.8 14.9 15.6

16.6

17.9 18.1

19.7

21.3

23.9

26.1

27.6

29.0

28.2

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

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

SOURCE: 1995–2004: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port 

Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS). 2005–2007: Data from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 

www.marad.dot.gov/data_statistics 2008: Estimate based on PIERS Trade Horizon estimate of annual percentage growth from 2007, reported at 

www.joc.com as of Mar. 19, 2009.
14 America’s Container Ports

PORT CONCENTRATION

The geographic distribution of container activity 

among U.S. seaports shows a greater concentration of vessel calls and cargo traffi c in a few 

leading ports because of increased demand for 

larger, faster, and more specialized vessels. Today, 

maxi-Panamax superfreighter vessels are much 

longer than two football fi elds and can carry up to 

12,500 TEUs.7

7

 These vessels are twice as large as the post-Panamax vessels. Post-Panamax vessels are too large to pass through the 

Panama Canal. They can carry up to 6,500 TEUs. They typically have widths exceeding 32.2 meters (105.6 feet). Recent 

designs of these vessels are able to carry more than 12,000 

TEUs. The world’s largest container vessel, Emma Maersk, 

commissioned in 2006, is offi cially listed as an 11,000 TEU 

ship, but its cargo capacity is estimated to range from 13,000 

to 15,000 TEUs (http://about.maersk.com/en/Fleet/Pages/Fleet.

aspx).

In 2008, the top 10 U.S. container ports accounted 

for 86 percent of containerized imports and exports 

(measured in TEUs), up from 78 percent in 1995. 

Five of the top 10 container ports in the United 

States are on the west coast, four are on the east 

coast, and one on the gulf coast (table 3).

From 1995 to 2008, Los Angeles and Long Beach 

grew the most in terms of absolute level of container traffi c, refl ecting increased U.S. trade with 

Pacifi c Rim8

 countries, particularly China, and 

the transportation of higher-value per ton Asian 

manufactured goods into the United States. New 

York followed closely, showing signifi cant growth 

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

Los Angeles, and Houston had the largest average 

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

8

 Pacifi c Rim refers to Australia, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, 

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

Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and various Pacifi c islands.

TABLE 3

Top 10 U.S. Maritime Container Ports by Loaded TEUs: 1995, 2000, 2007, and 2008

Annual traffi c (thousands) Daily average Trend

Port 1995 2000 2007 2008 1995 2000 2007 2008

Percent 

change, 

2007–2008

Percent 

change, 

1995–2008

Average 

annual 

growth rate, 

1995–2008 

(percent)

Los Angeles, CA 1,849 3,228 5,740 5,671 5,066 8,843 15,727 15,537 -1.2 206.7 9.0

Long Beach, CA 2,137 3,204 4,995 4,612 5,855 8,777 13,685 12,635 -7.7 115.8 6.1

New York/New Jersey, NY/NJ 1,537 2,200 3,935 3,992 4,211 6,028 10,782 10,938 1.4 159.7 7.6

Savannah, GA 445 720 2,042 2,116 2,077 3,414 5,593 5,797 3.6 375.5 12.7

Norfolk, VA 647 850 1,573 1,592 1,219 1,973 4,310 4,360 1.2 146.0 7.2

Oakland, CA 919 989 1,451 1,395 2,518 2,709 3,976 3,821 -3.9 51.8 3.3

Charleston, SC 758 1,246 1,416 1,371 2,721 2,630 3,879 3,756 -3.2 80.8 4.7

Houston, TX 489 733 1,408 1,331 1,773 2,330 3,859 3,646 -5.5 172.2 8.0

Seattle, WA 993 960 1,151 1,129 1,340 2,009 3,152 3,094 -1.9 13.7 1.0

Tacoma, WA 604 647 1,289 1,083 1,654 1,773 3,533 2,966 -16.0 79.3 4.6

Total top 10 ports 10,378 14,777 25,001 24,291 28,432 40,486 68,495 66,550 -2.8 134.1 6.8

Total all ports1 13,328 17,938 28,969 28,190 36,515 49,144 79,368 77,234 -2.7 111.5 5.9

 Top 10, percent of total 77.9 82.4 86.3 86.2 77.9 82.4 86.3 86.2 

1

 All container ports in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

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

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

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

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

Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, which are drawn from The Journal of Commerce, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) as of Mar. 

20, 2009.
America’s Container Ports 15

Savannah and Houston refl ect the expansion in 

U.S. container trade with Latin American countries 

and changes in the location of freight logistics and 

distribution service centers.

Despite the national economic slowdown, container cargo handled by the Port of Savannah grew 

4 percent in 2008 over 2007, the fastest growth 

among the leading container ports. Between 1995 

and 2005, oceanborne containerized cargo handled there increased by 13 percent, making it the 

fastest growing port in the nation. This growth in 

Savannah’s containerized traffi c also underscores 

the increase in retail import distribution centers 

in the Savannah area—several national retailers 

have established large distribution centers there 

for handling the thousands of TEUs transiting the 

nation’s seaports.

REGIONAL SHIFTS IN PORT 

MARKET SHARE

The increased use of oceanborne containers in 

transporting U.S. international trade continues 

to affect port operations and the distribution of 

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

mid-1980s, when U.S. trade with Pacifi c Rim Asian 

countries was modest, east coast ports handled 

the majority of U.S. international maritime trade. As 

trade with Asia grew, the east coast ports’ share of 

the value of trade declined and west coast ports’ 

share increased (fi gure 10). Eventually, west coast 

ports surpassed east coast ports in maritime cargo 

handled, and this trend has continued to today. 

Also during this period, changes in industrial activity in the Midwest affected the volume and type 

of cargo moving through Great Lakes ports. For 

example, the relocation of fi nal automobile assembly plants and companies that produce auto parts 

had an impact on manufacturing activities in the 

Midwest. With the emergence of automakers and 

parts producers in other parts of the United States, 

maritime cargo originating in the Midwest and 

cargo transport via the Great Lakes dwindled. 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 terms of TEUs, passes through west 

coast ports. In 2007, 55 percent of the containerFIGURE 10

Coastal Port Region’s Market Share of U.S. Containerized TEUs: 1980–2007

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

West/Pacific Coast

East/Atlantic Coast

Gulf Coast

(Percent)

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

NOTES: Totals are for all container ports in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The data in this fi gure include both loaded and unloaded containers in 

U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, exports, and transshipments.

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

data from the American Association of Port Authorities, available at www.aapa.org as of Mar. 20, 2009.
16 America’s Container Ports

FIGURE 11

Growth of U.S. Maritime Containerized Exports and Imports by Coastal Port Region: 1980-2007

(Index 1980 = 100)

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

West/Pacific Coast

East/Atlantic Coast

Gulf Coast

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

NOTES: Totals are for all container ports in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The data in this fi gure include both loaded and unloaded containers in 

U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. imports, exports, and transshipments.

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

data from the American Association of Port Authorities, available at www.aapa.org as of Mar. 20, 2009.

ized imports and exports passed through these 

ports, up from 42 percent in 1980 (fi gure 10). West 

coast ports as a region grew the fastest during this 

period (fi gure 11).

Although west coast ports handled the most 

container trade, they also had a larger share of the 

oceanborne containerized trade defi cit, in terms of 

export-import balance, than other regional ports. 

Today, west coast ports serve more as import gateways to the United States than as export gateways 

to the rest of the world. In contrast, east coast 

ports handle more exports than imports, despite 

the decline in their regional market share.

Container trade also affects the pattern of freight 

movement within the United States. Nearly all U.S. 

oceanborne container trade is transported throughout the country by either rail carriers, long-haul 

truck carriers, or local truck carriers. Some ports 

use short-sea shipping as an alternative to transport goods shorter distances.9

 The availability and 

9

 Short-sea shipping describes the movement of freight along 

coastal waterways (for example, from Long Beach to Portland 

effi ciency of intermodal transportation in moving 

these goods to and from any U.S. port increases 

shippers’ choices of transportation modes and 

port facilities, allowing ports to effectively use their 

economies of scale to attract cargo from beyond 

their immediate region. The growth in U.S. containerized cargo shipping is placing pressure on the 

nation’s transportation network and affects local 

traffi c congestion and delays in the urban areas 

surrounding the major U.S. container ports. (See 

Spotlight 1 on landside access to the seaports.)

VESSEL CALLS AND CAPACITY

During the past two decades, the concentration 

of maritime container vessel calls at U.S. ports 

has shifted as the volume of containerized cargo 

handled by the ports has changed. In 2007, 

there were nearly 20,000 containership calls at 

U.S. seaports, accounting for 31 percent of the 

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

movement of containers and wet and dry bulk cargoes.
America’s Container Ports 17

TABLE 4

Top 25 U.S. Container Ports by Containership Port Calls: 2007 

 All vessel types Containership 

 Containerships as 

percent of port’s 

total vessels 

Average vessel size per 

call (dwt)

Ranked 

by 

container 

capacity Port/State

 Calls 

(total vessels) 

 Capacity 

(dwt, thousands) 

 Calls 

(total 

vessels) 

 Capacity 

(dwt, 

thousands) Calls Capacity 

All 

vessel 

types Containerships

1 Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA 5,492 335,898 3,058 169,562 55.7 50.5 61,161 55,449 

2 New York/New Jersey, NY/NJ 4,968 232,426 2,549 127,359 51.3 54.8 46,785 49,964 

3 San Francisco, CA 3,945 212,966 2,046 115,246 51.9 54.1 53,984 56,328 

4 Savannah, GA 2,615 121,811 1,807 93,739 69.1 77.0 46,582 51,875 

5 Virginia Ports, VA 2,775 137,548 1,940 91,138 69.9 66.3 49,567 46,979 

6 Charleston, SC 2,160 96,571 1,589 76,622 73.6 79.3 44,709 48,220 

7 Seattle, WA 1,042 59,936 666 39,485 63.9 65.9 57,520 59,287 

8 Houston, TX 6,195 267,045 818 34,090 13.2 12.8 43,106 41,675 

9 Tacoma, WA 1,241 62,621 621 33,262 50.0 53.1 50,460 53,562 

10 Miami, FL 927 31,184 563 26,078 60.7 83.6 33,640 46,320 

11 Port Everglades, FL 1,472 51,636 739 25,602 50.2 49.6 35,079 34,645 

12 Baltimore, MD 1,833 63,052 427 17,793 23.3 28.2 34,398 41,671 

13 Philadelphia, PA 3,148 191,814 499 15,594 15.9 8.1 60,932 31,250 

14 Honolulu, HI 648 20,798 412 12,892 63.6 62.0 32,096 31,292 

15 New Orleans, LA 4,884 239,972 281 12,189 5.8 5.1 49,134 43,379 

16 San Juan, PR 1,045 23,484 498 11,464 47.7 48.8 22,473 23,020 

17 Columbia River Ports, OR 2,578 99,772 154 7,473 6.0 7.5 38,701 48,529 

18 Boston, MA 544 23,591 161 7,337 29.6 31.1 43,365 45,571 

19 Jacksonville, FL 1,470 42,957 265 7,243 18.0 16.9 29,222 27,331 

20 Dutch Harbor, AK 153 6,635 146 6,415 95.4 96.7 43,363 43,936 

21 Wilmington, NC 562 22,322 102 5,477 18.1 24.5 39,718 53,698 

22 Mobile, AL 885 47,279 50 2,110 5.6 4.5 53,423 42,195 

23 Kodiak, AK 95 2,024 95 2,024 100.0 100.0 21,310 21,310 

24 Anchorage, AK 184 4,265 94 2,007 51.1 47.1 23,179 21,356 

25 Tampa, FL 800 28,652 36 1,416 4.5 4.9 35,815 39,328 

 Total top 5 ports 19,795 1,040,649 11,400 597,044 57.6 57.4 52,571 52,372 

 Total top 10 ports 31,360 1,558,006 15,657 806,582 49.9 51.8 49,681 51,516 

 Total top 25 ports 51,661 2,426,260 19,616 943,620 38.0 38.9 46,965 48,105 

Total all U.S. ports1 63,804 3,295,980 19,863 947,862 31.1 28.8 51,658 47,720 

 Top 5, percent of U.S. total 31.0 31.6 57.4 63.0 

 Top 10, percent of U.S.

 total 49.2 47.3 78.8 85.1 

 Top 25, percent of U.S.

 total 81.0 73.6 98.8 99.6 

KEY: dwt = deadweight tons.

NOTES: Data include oceangoing vessels 1,000 gross tons and above. Capacity equals dwt multiplied by calls. San Francisco includes Oakland, San Francisco, and 

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

1

 All container ports in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The data in this table include only loaded containers in U.S. international maritime activity and cover U.S. 

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

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

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

www.marad.dot.gov as of Mar. 20, 2009.
18 America’s Container Ports

total oceangoing vessel calls made by all vessel 

types at U.S. ports.10 The top fi ve container ports 

handled over half (57 percent) of these container 

vessel calls and 63 percent of the container cargo 

capacity (table 4). Just 2 years before, in 2005, the 

top fi ve ports handled 55 percent of the calls and 

61 percent of the capacity.

Between 2002 and 2007, the number of vessel 

calls at U.S. container ports rose 16 percent, from 

about 17,100 to 19,800 calls. By contrast, total 

vessel calls grew by 13 percent, from 56,600 to 

63,800 calls.

Measured by the average vessel size per call, 

U.S. maritime ports also handled larger container 

vessels than in the past. The average size (per 

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

10 Of the remainder, 34 percent were by tankers, 17 percent 

by dry-bulk vessels, 10 percent by roll-on/roll-off ships, and 6 

percent by general cargo ships.

nearly 48,000 deadweight tons (dwt) in 2007 (table 

4). This is a signifi cant increase from 38,000 dwt in 

2000. Increases in vessel calls and containership 

capacity affect port operation, port productivity, 

and infrastructure requirements needed to accommodate the mega post-Panamax vessels. 

They also affect environmental considerations 

and community-impact issues. (See Spotlight 3 on 

ports and environmental concerns.)

RANKING OF U.S. PORTS 

AMONG WORLD’S TOP PORTS

In 2008, only 3 U.S. ports—Los Angeles, Long 

Beach, and New York/New Jersey—ranked among 

the world’s top 20 container ports when measured 

by TEUs, placing 16th, 17th, and 20th, respectively 

(table 5). Since 2000, these 3 U.S. ports have 

dropped in the ranking of the world’s top 20 ports 

as European and Southeast Asian ports handled 

TABLE 5

Top 20 World Container Ports: 2000, 2007, and 2008

(Thousands of loaded and unloaded TEUs)

Rank in 

2000

Rank in 

2007

Rank in 

2008 Port name Country 2000 2007 2008

Percent 

change, 

2000–2008

Percent 

change, 

2007–2008

Average 

annual rate 

(percents), 

2000–2008

2 1 1 Singapore Singapore 17,040 27,932 29,918 76 7.1 7.3

6 2 2 Shanghai China 5,613 26,150 27,980 398 7.0 22.2

1 3 3 Hong Kong China 18,098 23,881 24,248 34 1.5 3.7

11 4 4 Shenzhen China 3,994 21,099 21,414 436 1.5 23.4

3 5 5 Busan South Korea 7,540 13,270 13,425 78 1.2 7.5

13 7 6 Dubai United Arab Emirates 3,059 10,653 11,828 287 11.0 18.4

65 11 7 Ningbo China 902 9,360 11,226 1,145 19.9 37.0

38 12 8 Guangzhou China 1,430 9,200 11,001 669 19.6 29.1

5 6 9 Rotterdam Netherlands 6,280 10,791 10,800 72 0.1 7.0

24 10 10 Qingdao China 2,120 9,462 10,320 387 9.1 21.9

9 9 11 Hamburg Germany 4,248 9,900 9,700 128 -2.0 10.9

4 8 12 Kaohsiung Taiwan 7,426 10,257 9,677 30 -5.7 3.4

10 14 13 Antwerp Belgium 4,082 8,177 8,664 112 6.0 9.9

32 17 14 Tianjin China 1,708 7,103 8,500 398 19.7 22.2

12 16 15 Port Klang Malaysia 3,207 7,120 7,970 149 11.9 12.1

7 13 16 Los Angeles United States 4,879 8,355 7,850 61 -6.0 6.1

8 15 17 Long Beach United States 4,601 7,312 6,488 41 -11.3 4.4

113 18 18 Tanjung Pelepas Malaysia 418 5,500 5,600 1,239 1.8 38.3

17 20 19 Bremen/Bremerhaven Germany 2,712 4,892 5,501 103 12.4 9.2

14 19 20 New York/New Jersey United States 3,050 5,400 5,265 73 -2.5 7.1

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

SOURCES: 2000 and 2007: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

based on Maritime Administration, www.marad.dot.gov/data_statistics 2008: Containerisation International Online, www.ci-online.co.uk, as of March 17, 

2009.
America’s Container Ports 19

more containerized cargo. During the same period, 

Chinese seaports became more dominant, and 

today 6 of the top 10 world ports are in China. 

Figure 12 shows the locations of the top 20 world 

container ports in 2008, the 2008 ranking by TEUs 

of cargo handled, and the cargo increases since 

2000.

TRADING PARTNERS

While the United States exports and imports maritime goods from more than 175 countries, the vast 

majority of the trade is with relatively few countries. 

In 2007, nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of the 

container import TEUs were with 10 countries, and 

over half (55 percent) of the container export TEUs 

were with 10 countries. The top fi ve overall U.S. 

containerized cargo trading partners in 2007 were 

all Asian countries: China (mainland),11 Japan, 

Hong Kong (China), South Korea, and Taiwan. 

China (mainland) was the leading containerized 

merchandise trading partner, accounting for 47 

percent of U.S. maritime import TEUs, up from 25 

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

mainland China and Hong Kong are considered separate. As 

used here, China refers to mainland China.

percent in 2000. China accounted for 18 percent of 

the export TEUs in 2007, down slightly from 2005 

(fi gures 13 and 14).

Between 2000 and 2007, while China’s share grew 

of total U.S. container trade, the other top fi ve 

trading partners saw declines in their total maritime 

containerized cargo with the United States. Japan 

is now the second largest trading partner for U.S. 

oceanborne containerized exports, having been 

overtaken by China in 2003. In 2007, the U.S. 

maritime container imports from China alone were 

larger than those from more than 170 countries 

combined (i.e., those countries grouped into “other” 

(fi gure 13)).

U.S. imports and exports with major trading partners vary by types of goods, and this affects the 

types of vessels (for example, container, dry bulk, 

general cargo, or tanker), number of port calls, and 

the seaports the vessels use. For instance, while 

most U.S.-Canada maritime trade involves agricultural products, lumber, and petroleum products, 

most U.S.-Germany maritime trade involves 

manufactured products such as automobiles and 

machinery. In addition, U.S. maritime imports from 

Japan were valued at over $7,000 per ton, but 

U.S. exports to Japan were valued at $800 per ton, 

FIGURE 12

Top 20 World Container Ports: 2000 and 2008

(Millions of loaded and unloaded TEUs)

Los Angeles,

United States (16)

Long Beach,

United States (17)

Bremen, Germany (19)

Antwerp, Belgium (13)

Hamburg, Germany (11) Rotterdam, Netherlands (9)

Dubai,

United Arab Emirates (6)

Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia (18)

Singapore, Singapore (1)

Port Klang, Malaysia (15)

New York/

New Jersey,

United States (20) Kaohsiung, Taiwan (12)

Hong Kong, China (3)

Shenzhen,

China (4)

Guangzhou, China (8)

Ningbo, China (7)

Busan, South Korea

(5)

Shanghai, China (2) Tianjin, China (14)

Qingdao, China (10)

2000 2008

Total Loaded

and

Unloaded TEUs

20 - 30 million

10 - 19.9 million

5 - 9.9 million

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

NOTE: Numbers in parenthesis are the 2008 port rankings.

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

Transportation Statistics, based on U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, www.marad.dot.gov/data_

statistics 2008: Containerization International Online, www.ci-online.co.uk as of Mar. 17, 2009.
20 America’s Container Ports

FIGURE 13

Top 10 Trading Partners for U.S. Waterborne Containerized Imports: 2000, 2005, and 2007

(Percent)

China (excluding 

Hong Kong)

Japan

Hong Kong

South Korea

Taiwan

Germany

Italy

Brazil

Thailand

Vietnam

Others

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percent share of total TEUs, 2000 Percent share of total TEUs, 2005

Percent share of total TEUs, 2007

NOTE: For the analysis in this report, U.S. merchandise trade with mainland China and Hong Kong are considered separately. As used here, 

China refers to mainland China.

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

on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, www.marad.dot.gov/data_statistics 2008 as of Apr. 20, 2009.

FIGURE 14

Top 10 Trading Partners for U.S. Waterborne Containerized Exports: 2000, 2005, and 2007

(Percent)

China (excluding 

Hong Kong)

Japan

Taiwan

South Korea

Hong Kong

Belgium

Germany

United Kingdom

Brazil

India

Others

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Percent share of total TEUs, 2000 Percent share of total TEUs, 2005

Percent share of total TEUs, 2007

NOTE: For the analysis in this report, U.S. merchandise trade with mainland China and Hong Kong are considered separately. As used here, 

China refers to mainland China.

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

on data from U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, www.marad.dot.gov/data_statistics 2008 as of Apr. 20, 2009.
America’s Container Ports 21

refl ecting differences in the types of goods and the 

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

ports. Major U.S. maritime imports from Japan 

include passenger cars, car parts, and electronic 

equipment, and major U.S. maritime exports to 

Japan include agricultural products, industrial 

machinery, and chemicals.

ENTRIES OF OCEANBORNE 

CONTAINER UNITS

The container entries data from U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) represented in this 

section and the next and in fi gures 15 and 16 are 

different from the TEU data presented earlier in 

the report. The CBP entries data count individual 

container units, while the TEU data refer to 20-foot 

equivalent units (that is, one 20-foot container 

equals one TEU, and one 40-foot container equals 

two TEUs). Because containers come in different 

lengths (for example, 20 feet, 40 feet, and 48 feet), 

the CBP fi gures on individual units differ from the 

TEU fi gures, which convert the tonnage of goods 

moved in the containers into TEUs.

The challenge of handling large volumes of containerized imports from U.S. trading partners can 

also be seen in the number of individual container 

entries processed by CBP. After a slight decline in 

the number of oceanborne containers entering the 

United States in the aftermath of the September 

11, 2001, attacks, the nation’s seaports again 

began handling an increasing number of container 

units. In 2007, there were about 12 million oceanborne container entries into the United States, 

down slightly from 2006 but still double those of 

2000 (fi gure 15). Maritime container entries peak in 

the summer months, when imported merchandise 

trade is delivered for the fall and holiday seasons 

(fi gure 16).

CONTAINER ENTRIES BY ALL 

MODES FROM ALL COUNTRIES

On a typical day in 2007, more than 70,000 

individual container units entered the United States 

by ocean vessel, truck, and rail. In 2000, the fi gure 

was about 50,000 units per day.

Overall, there were over 25 million container 

entries into the United States by all modes of 

transportation in 2007, up 38 percent from nearly 

19 million in 2000. In addition to the more than 11 

million oceanborne containers used to bring goods 

into the United States, over 14 million containers 

entered the nation by truck and rail from Canada 

and Mexico in 2007 (table 6). The large number of 

containers crossing by land border into the United 

States by surface modes refl ects the importance 

of U.S. trade with two of our top three trading 

partners. From 2000 to 2007, the number of truck, 

rail, and maritime container units (loaded and unloaded) crossing into the United States rose by 8 

percent, 27 percent, and 94 percent, respectively.

Table 6

Container Entries into the United States from All Countries and by All Modes: 2000–2008

(Thousands of entries)

Vessel containers 

full

Vessel containers 

empty

Truck containers 

full

Truck containers 

empty

Rail containers 

full

Rail containers 

empty

Overall 

total

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

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

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

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

2008 NA NA 7,680 2,947 1,645 1,029 NA 

Modal shares (percent)

2000 28.8 3.4 41.3 14.8 8.0 3.7 100.0 

2005 42.8 1.9 34.7 10.2 7.0 3.4 100.0 

2006 43.5 1.9 33.7 10.4 6.9 3.6 100.0 

2007 43.1 2.3 32.9 10.9 6.8 3.9 100.0 

2008 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

KEY: NA = Not available.

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

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

Database.
22 America’s Container Ports

FIGURE 15

Maritime Container Entries into the United States: 2000-2007

(Millions of container units of all sizes)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

6.0 5.6

8.0

9.3

10.4

11.4

11.7 11.6

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

Statistics, based on data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Mission Support 

Services, Operations Management Database.

FIGURE 16

Monthly Maritime Container Entries into the United States: 2006–2007

(Thousands of container units of all sizes)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2006

2007

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

Statistics, based on data from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Mission Support 

Services, Operations Management Database.
America’s Container Ports 23

SPOTLIGHT 1: LANDSIDE ACCESS TO SEAPORTS

While container traffi c at U.S. ports has increased steadily for many years, landside access to ports 

has not kept pace. Improving the intermodal connections for freight moving through ports remains 

a daunting task. Many cities grew around their ports, and thus many ports are now surrounded by 

dense urban environments. New rights-of-way for rail or truck traffi c leaving port facilities are not 

available, restricting rail or road expansion.

Containerization has dramatically reduced the time needed to load and unload a vessel, but it has 

also contributed to landside congestion at ports. As containerships continue to increase in size, the 

number of containers they bring at one time also increases, shifting congestion from the waterways to the rail and truck infrastructure that serve the ports (USDOT FHWA 2008). The practice 

of double-stacking containers on railcars has been constrained in some locations because of low 

bridge and tunnel clearances. New facilities are needed to better enable the transfer of containers 

from ships to railcars and trucks. Finding locations for these large facilities in busy port and urban 

areas, however, is a problem (National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission 2007). While containerized international trade is predicted to double between 2001 and 

2020, container capacity at U.S. ports has not grown in proportion to that of U.S. trading partners. 

By 2010, the container port in Singapore alone will have more container capacity than all the U.S. 

container ports combined (USDOT MARAD 2005). As of 2005, congestion resulting from landside 

access challenges was estimated to cost as much as $200 billion, wasting 2.3 billion gallons of fuel 

and 3.7 billion man-hours annually (USDOT MARAD 2005).

This section briefl y presents the components of the intermodal freight system that operates at U.S. 

ports and discusses efforts at improving landside access and intermodal connectivity.

Intermodal Infrastructure at U.S. Ports

Railroads

America’s rail system consists of 162,000 miles of track that is privately owned and operated (AAR 

2008). Following deregulation in 1980, the freight rail industry underwent years of downsizing, 

but it is now experiencing demand that is greater than capacity. Intermodal freight rail (the movement of containers or truck trailers from ports by rail) has increased substantially—from 3 million 

trailers and containers in 1980 to more than 12 million in 2007. Railroads have invested heavily in 

intermodal infrastructure to accommodate intermodal demand—for example, investing in intermodal freight cars, raising bridge and tunnel clearances to accommodate double-stacked containers, 

laying additional track, and implementing new communications systems (AAR 2008).

NHS Freight Connectors

Public roads that connect major intermodal freight terminals with the arterials and interstates of the 

National Highway System (NHS) are designated as NHS freight connectors. While these connectors are often short (often 2 miles long or less), they serve a vital purpose in America’s economy. 

A 2000 study of NHS freight connectors found that connectors to ports had “twice the percent 

of mileage with pavement defi ciencies when compared to non-Interstate NHS routes” (USDOT 

FHWA 2000).

The Marine Transportation System

The Marine Transportation System (MTS) consists of all of the intermodal components that are 

part of the maritime domain, including ships, ports, inland waterways, intermodal rail and truck, 
24 America’s Container Ports

and MTS users (USDOT MARAD 2005). Although in recent years the demands placed on ports 

have been signifi cant, some ports have had excess waterside capacity because problems with their 

landside access have discouraged use of them (NRC TRB 2003).

Congestion Mitigation and Access-Improvement 

Strategies

U.S. economic expansion and international trade are inextricably linked to the resolution of congestion and landside access challenges at U.S. ports. In recognition of this need, public and private 

MTS stakeholders have examined strategies for reducing landside congestion and improving 

access.

A comprehensive research project to fi nd “low-cost and quickly implementable approaches” to 

reduce freight access and congestion challenges is currently under way through the National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP). The approaches reviewed for this study include radio 

frequency identifi cation devices (RFID) on containers to allow operators to better position specifi c 

containers according to when they need to be transported, virtual container yards,12 congestion pricing, inland ports, extended business hours, truck-only lanes, and on-dock rail access (GAO 2008a).

Traffi c bottlenecks on the landside transportation system serving the nation’s seaports affect 

seaports’ performance and the effi cient movement of goods in and out of the ports.

In 2005, the most recent year for which data on both port freight activity and landside traffi c delay 

are available, the top seaports ranked by port vessel calls were the ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach (table 7). The Los Angeles-Long Beach metropolitan area was also the top ranked urban area 

in 2005 in terms of annual traffi c delay per traveler, averaging about 72 hours of delay.

Growing traffi c delays on the access routes serving the nation’s largest seaports combined with the 

rising volumes of inbound and outbound cargo may result in increased congestion in the surrounding communities.

12 Virtual container yards are Web-based platforms where users can match empty containers to container needs at the 

dock rather than returning them to the terminal.
America’s Container Ports 25

TABLE 7

U.S. Maritime Port Activity and Landside Traffi c Delay per Traveler in Surrounding Urban Area: 2007 

Ranked by 

port calls 

by all 

vessel types Port

 Port calls and capacity by 

all vessel types 

 Overall maritime cargo 

tonnage (domestic and 

international) 

Landside annual traffi c 

delay per traveler in 

surrounding urban 

area (2005)1

 Calls 

 Capacity 

(dwt, millions) 

Total short 

tons 

(millions)

Rank by 

tonnage

Hours of 

delay Rank

1 Houston, TX 6,195 267 216 2 56 7

2 Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA 5,492 336 151 4 72 1

3 New York, NY 4,968 232 157 3 46 16

4 New Orleans, LA 4,884 240 76 9 18 63

5 San Francisco Bay Area ports, CA2 3,945 213 48 17 60 2

6 Philadelphia/Delaware River ports, PA3 3,148 192 111 5 38 33

7 Virginia ports, VA4 2,775 138 56 15 30 42

8 Savannah, GA 2,615 122 36 23 NA NA

9 Columbia River ports, OR5 2,578 100 56 14 38 33

10 Charleston, SC 2,160 97 23 33 31 40

11 Baltimore,MD 1,833 63 41 20 44 22

12 Port Everglades, FL 1,472 52 24 32 NA NA

13 Jacksonville, FL 1,470 43 21 35 39 29

14 Port Arthur, TX 1,418 95 29 27 11 77

15 Tacoma, WA 1,241 63 27 29 45 19

16 Texas City, TX 1,200 70 57 13 56 7

17 Corpus Christi, TX 1,080 72 81 7 10 80

18 San Juan, PR 1,045 23 12 45 NA NA

19 Seattle, WA 1,042 60 28 28 45 19

20 Miami, FL 927 31 7 56 50 11

21 Mobile, AL 885 47 64 10 NA NA

22 Freeport, TX 806 40 30 26 NA NA

23 Tampa, FL 800 29 47 18 NA NA

24 Lake Charles, LA 796 56 64 11 NA NA

25 Honolulu, HI 648 21 18 37 24 51

KEY: dwt = deadweight tons. NA = Not available in the Texas Transportation Institute 2007 Annual Urban Mobility Study. 

1 The most recent year for which data on landside annual traffi c delay are available is 2005. Annual delay per traveler equals extra travel time 

for peak-period travel during the year divided by the number of travelers who begin a trip during the peak period (6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 

p.m.). These peak-period travel times are compared wih times for free-fl ow speeds (60 mph on freeways and 35 mph on principal arterials).

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

3 Philadelphia/Delaware River ports: Philadelphia, Paulsboro, Marcus Hook, Camden-Gloucester, Chester, and Wilmington.

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

5 Columbia River ports: Portland, Longview, Vancouver, and Kalama.

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

based on data from three sources. Port calls data: Maritime Administration, Ports Calls Data, at www.marad.dot.gov, as of Mar. 31, 2009. 

Cargo weight data: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, at www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm, 

as of Mar. 31, 2009. Traffi c delay data: Texas Transportation Institute, 2007 Annual Urban Mobility Study, Table 1, available at mobility.tamu.

edu/ums as of Mar. 30, 2009.
26 America’s Container Ports

SPOTLIGHT 2: MARITIME SECURITY

Securing maritime cargo globally throughout the entire supply chain remains a security challenge 

for shipping lines, vessel owners, and shippers. In 2007 and 2008, the issue of piracy and hijacking 

of ocean vessels on the high seas became a major concern, particularly for vessels passing through 

the Gulf of Aden on the east coast of Africa. In 2008, more than 120 pirate attacks occurred in the 

Gulf of Aden (New York Times 2009). On April 8, 2009, a U.S.-fl agged container vessel with 20 

American sailors was hijacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia. The vessel’s crew later regained 

control of the ship. The International Maritime Bureau estimates that between January and April 

2009, there were 41 attempted pirate attacks and 6 hijackings in Gulf of Aden (ICC Commercial 

Crime Services 2009). Preventing such attacks in the vast open oceans is an enormous challenge 

for the international maritime community.

The security of U.S. ports and the goods that pass through them depends on numerous governmental actors, foreign and domestic, and private-sector entities. Following the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001, attention to maritime trade security increased substantially. Legislation and 

related government strategies have proliferated, but signifi cant concerns remain about the overall 

security of maritime trade.

Several long-term trends in maritime trade have made it more diffi cult for U.S. authorities to secure 

maritime cargo. In the second half of the 20th century, globalization transformed the nation’s 

economy. The production of many goods moved to low-cost locations overseas, necessitating an 

increase in maritime trade. Containerization, the use of large aluminum or steel containers to ship 

freight, aided globalization by reducing the amount of time and labor needed to ship goods and by 

reducing cargo damage (OECD 2003). The trend toward just-in-time (JIT) production and inventory management, in which fi rms seek to cut costs and improve effi ciencies through a build-to-order 

strategy that dramatically reduces their inventories, has provided many benefi ts to shippers, but it 

has also presented complex security challenges.13

Because containers make up the largest percentage of inbound maritime cargo traffi c, they have 

been the focus of security efforts. Containers obscure cargo from plain sight. Because of the high 

volume of imported containers handled at U.S. seaports, it is a challenge to attempt to inspect every 

container without severely interrupting the fl ow of trade. Containers, and the items they transport, 

often take circuitous routes from origin to destination, not only passing port to port but traveling 

inland via rail or truck. An average container makes 17 stops between its origin and fi nal destination. Tampering with containers—inserting illicit material—is not diffi cult at most points in the 

supply chain (Cohen 2006).

U.S. authorities have taken a multilayered approach that attempts to provide maritime freight 

security throughout the international supply chain. This section reviews the current maritime security system and the diffi cult challenges the United States faces in providing a completely secured 

maritime transportation system.

Post-9/11 Security Improvements

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks dramatically increased public-sector attention to maritime transportation system security. In fi scal year 2001, federal funding for port security was 

approximately $259 million. By fi scal year 2005, it had risen to $1.6 billion, a 700 percent increase 

(USDHS CBP 2006).

13 JIT involves keeping materials on hand for only a few days or sometimes only a few hours of operation.
America’s Container Ports 27

Table 8 summarizes some of the signifi cant maritime security legislation in the post- 9/11 period. 

The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) and the Security and Accountability for 

Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) are among the most important pieces of legislation. Out of 

MTSA, the National Maritime Transportation Security Plan was created to provide a framework for 

deterrence of security incidents involving maritime transportation infrastructure and for response 

to any that may arise. This plan requires two levels of security planning at the local level, the Area 

Maritime Security Plans (AMSP) and the Vessel and Facility Security Plans (VSPs and FSPs, 

respectively). AMSPs are developed by the local U.S. Coast Guard sector commander/federal maritime security coordinator, with input from the area maritime security committees, which include 

government offi cials and other key stakeholders. Facility owners or vessel owners or operators 

create VSPs and FSPs. There are eight additional mode-specifi c security plans that are subsidiaries 

of the National Maritime Transportation Security Plan.

Under the SAFE Port Act, the Draft Strategy to Enhance International Supply Chain Security was 

produced in July 2007.14 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS) is the lead agency 

in implementing this strategy. It provides an overarching framework to facilitate the secure fl ow 

of international cargo, provides plans for specifi c segments of the international supply chain, and 

focuses on guidance for the resumption of operations following an all hazards incident.15 The 

strategy aims to integrate the many plans and initiatives currently in place in order to secure the 

supply chain (USDHS 2007).

14 A fi nal version of this strategy is scheduled to be completed by October 2009.

15 An all hazards incident refers to any incident, terrorist or natural disaster, that could affect the maritime transportation 

system.

TABLE 8

Post-9/11 Legislation Relevant to Maritime Transportation System Security 

Legislation Purpose

Aviation and Transportation 

Security Act (2001)

Gave the federal government broad authority in transportation security for all modes.

Maritime Transportation 

Security Act (2002)

Required the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to create the National Maritime Security Plan. 

This plan outlines the coordinated action and incident-response plans between federal, state, and 

local governments to respond to security incidents involving maritime assets and infrastructure. 

The act also required, among other things, the establishment of transportation worker identifi cation 

cards, maritime safety and security teams, port security grants, and enhancements to maritime intelligence and matters dealing with foreign ports and international cooperation. 

Critical Infrastructure 

Information Act (2002)

Created the framework that allows private-sector entities and others to voluntarily submit information regarding critical infrastructure/key resources in their possession to the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, with the assurance that this information will not be publicly available.

The Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act (2004)

Required the development of the National Strategy for Transportation Security. This strategy is a 

classifi ed document, but it is known that this document provides the framework for the federal 

government, working with state, local, and tribal governments and private industry, to secure the 

national transportation system and to prepare to respond to terrorist threats or attacks to transportation infrastructure.

Security and Accountability for 

Every Port Act (2006)

Required the secretary of homeland security, in coordination with relevant federal, state, local, and 

tribal government authorities and the private sector and international community, to develop and 

implement a strategic plan to “enhance the security of the international supply chain.”

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Draft Strategy to Enhance International Supply Chain Security, July 2007. 
28 America’s Container Ports

USDHS and its partners have programs in place to secure maritime cargo throughout the chain of 

custody, from the origination of the cargo through its arrival at a fi nal destination (Frittelli 2002). 

Table 9 provides an overview of federal programs to secure the various points in the maritime 

supply chain. Each program in this table has a unique responsibility in maritime cargo security and 

takes a specifi c approach to it.

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) is a voluntary public-private partnership 

program in which the private owners of supply chain infrastructure and cargo work with U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to improve the security of the international supply chain. CTPAT participants are asked to ensure that their own security plans and practices are in compliance 

with C-TPAT security criteria and coordinated with their business partners throughout the supply 

chain. CBP validates and regularly revalidates an entity’s participation in C-TPAT (USDHS 2007). 

As of March 2008, C-TPAT had more than 8,200 certifi ed members. C-TPAT members account for 

80 percent of the value of goods imported into the United States (USDHS CBP 2008).

The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI), a joint program of USDHS and the U.S. Department of Energy 

(USDOE), is implemented by CBP and USDOE. SFI began as a pilot program in which seven 

overseas ports participated in scanning all U.S.-bound containers for nuclear or radiological materials. The SFI pilot phase was intended to help authorities prepare for the scanning of U.S.-bound 

containers that will be required in the future (GAO 2008b). In the pilot phase, however, 100 percent 

of container cargo was scanned at just three of the seven participating ports: Port Qasim, Karachi, 

Pakistan; Puerto Cortes, Honduras; and Southampton, United Kingdom (USDHS CBP 2007a).

SFI builds on the Container Security Initiative (CSI), a CBP program, which works with foreign 

governments and cargo and facility owners to target and inspect high-risk cargo at its port of origin. 

SFI also builds on the USDOE’s Megaports Initiative, which works with partner governments to 

scan containers for nuclear or radioactive materials (USDHS CBP 2007b).

In addition to these programs, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) began distributing 

individual port security grants in 2002. By fi scal year 2005, grants awarded totaled $632 million. 

Grants have aided ports in conducting security assessments, enhancing facility or operational 

security, and implementing cutting-edge technology (Haveman et al. 2006).

TABLE 9

Overview of Major Federal Programs for Supply Chain Security

Throughout the Supply 

Chain

Port of Origin Port of Origin to the U.S. Port 

of Entry

U.S. Port of Entry Port of Entry to Destination

C-TPAT 

(Customs-Trade 

Partnership Against 

Terrorism) 

CSI (Container Security Initiative) The International Ship and Port 

Facility Security Code (ISPS 

Code) 

Advance notice of arrival Certain dangerous cargo 

tracking 

CSDs 

(Container Security 

Devices) 

SFI (Secure Freight Initiative) MDA (Maritime Domain 

Awareness) 

Operational security 

measures

Highway security 

ATS (Automated Targeting 

Systems) 

NAIS (Nationwide Automatic 

Identifi cation System) 

Maritime security regulations Rail security

DOE Megaports Initiative LRIT (Long Range Identifi cation and Tracking of Vessels)Transportation Worker 

Identifi cation Credential 

(TWIC)

Air cargo security 

TSA Known Shipper Database CBP cargo screening

International Port Security 

Program 

NII (non-intrusive 

inspection) and radiation 

scanning technology

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Draft Strategy to Enhance International Supply Chain Security, July 2007. 
America’s Container Ports 29

SPOTLIGHT 3: PORTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERNS

Oceanborne container activities at U.S. seaports, while essential for trade and commerce, can affect 

water quality, air quality, and land-use patterns. The complex interconnections between port activities and environmental quality have implications for the nation’s coastal, ocean, and freshwater 

resources. They also affect transportation demands and traffi c congestion. U.S. ports have recently 

renewed their attention to environmental concerns. In particular, port and federal agencies with 

responsibility for marine environmental quality have focused on the following issues:

• Water quality. The greater use of larger shipping vessels and increased portside traffi c escalate 

the risk both of introducing nonindigenous aquatic species through ballast water16 and of 

leaking of toxic materials into marine ecosystems. They also increase demand for dredging of 

sediments in ports and harbors.

• Air quality. Increased container activity and the accompanying growth in truck and cargohandling equipment operating at U.S. ports generate additional air pollutants, including carbon 

monoxide (CO), ozone (O3

), nitrogen oxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Port activities can 

also result in noise pollution.

• Land-use patterns. Increased containership traffi c and activity at ports adds to traffi c congestion 

around the ports, affecting landside access. Because port traffi c intermingles with residential 

and commercial traffi c in the adjacent land areas, growth in container traffi c results in increasing congestion for both freight carriers and private citizens.

U.S. ports are also considering the potential environmental challenges implicit in climate change, 

including costs of improved infrastructure to protect harbors from rising sea levels, increased port 

maintenance costs, and increased operations costs due to delays in shipping activities (EPA 2008b).

To deal with these challenges, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has introduced 

new environmental and sustainability initiatives. EPA’s initiative to reduce diesel emissions at 

U.S. ports, called Clean Ports USA, suggests a variety of operational and technological ideas that 

ports can adapt to their individual needs, including truck idle reduction, the use of cleaner fuel, and 

replacement of older equipment (EPA 2005). EPA has also developed an overarching strategy for 

sustainable ports that provides measures that ports can implement, largely voluntarily, in partnership with the agency. Focus areas include clean air and affordable energy, clean and safe water, 

healthy communities and ecosystems, the global environment, ports communication, and enforcement (EPA 2007).

By 2008, more than 18 U.S. ports were developing and using Environmental Management Systems 

(EMS), which integrate environmental considerations in both day-to-day operational decisions and 

long-term planning (EPA 2008a). Many U.S. ports have also launched their own “green” initiatives. For example, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have received national attention for 

environmental efforts focused on air quality. With help from California state and local air-quality 

agencies, for example, they are using cleaner fuels and replacing older trucks with hybrid vehicles, 

including the world’s fi rst hybrid tugboat (Murr 2008).

16 Ballast water is taken on empty ships to stabalize the ship. When a ship is loaded with cargo, the ballast water is 

pumped out, introducing aquatic organisms from its origin port at its destination.

America’s Container Ports 31

References

American Trucking Association (ATA). 2009. Historical Trucking Index Database, as of Mar. 25, 2009. Personal communication.

Association of American Railroads (AAR). 2008. Rail Intermodal Transportation. Available at www.aar.org, as of Mar. 31, 

2009.

Association of American Railroads (AAR). 2009. Class I Railroad Statistics 2009. Available at www.aar.org/Resources/

Resources%20Landing.aspx, as of Mar. 20, 2009.

AXS-Alphaliner. 2009. AXS-Alphaliner Newsletter, no. 2009/09. Available at www.alphaliner.com, as of Mar. 5, 2009.

Cohen, S.S. 2006. Boom Boxes: Containers and Terrorism. In Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and 

Cost. Edited by J.D. Haveman and H.J. Shatz. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.

Dennis, B. Too Many Cars and They’re Not on the Road: After ‘Car Bubble’ Collapses, Excess Inventory Creates a 

Backlog. The Washington Post, Apr. 3, 2009, A1. 

Frittelli, J. 2002. Maritime Security: Overview of Issues. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress. 

Washington, DC.

Haveman, J.D., H.J. Shatz, and E. Vilchis. 2006. The Government Response: U.S. Port Security Programs. In Protecting the Nation’s Seaports: Balancing Security and Cost. Edited by J.D. Haveman and H.J. Shatz. San Francisco: Public 

Policy Institute of California.

ICC Commercial Crime Services. 2009. Somali Pirates Take Two Container Ships off the East Coast of Somalia. News, 

April 8. Available at www.icc-ccs.org, as of Apr. 8, 2009.

Intermodal Association of North America. 2008. Rail Intermodal Traffi c Activity—2008. Available at www.intermodal.org/

statistics_fi les/stats6.shtml, as of Mar. 16, 2009.

The Journal of Commerce (JOC). 2009a. Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS). Available at The Journal of 

Commerce Online, www.joc.com, as of Mar. 20, 2009.

The Journal of Commerce (JOC). 2009b. Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), Annual Container Trade Data. 

Available at The Journal of Commerce Online, www.joc.com, as of Mar. 20, 2009.

Leach, P.T. 2009. Auto Sprawl. The Journal of Commerce 10, no. 9 (Mar. 2): 24–26.

Mongelluzzo, B. 2008. How to Find an Export Box. The Journal of Commerce Online, June 30. Available at www.joc.com/

node/403939.

Murr, A. 2008. Shipping News: The “Greening” of America’s Two Biggest Ports. Newsweek (Web exclusive), September 

9. Available at www.newsweek.com/id/158126, as of Apr. 7, 2009.

National Research Council (NRC), Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2003. Special Report 271: Freight Capacity for 

the 21st Century. Washington, DC.

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. 2007. Transportation for Tomorrow: Report of 

the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. Washington, DC. Available at http://transportationfortomorrow.org, as of Mar. 31, 2009.

New York Times. 2009. Times Topics: Piracy at Sea. Available at http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/

subjects/p/piracy_at_sea/index.html, as of Apr. 8, 2009.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, 

Maritime Transport Committee. 2003. Security in Maritime Transport: Risk Factors and Economic Impact. Paris, France. 

July.

The Port Authority of New York/New Jersey (PANYNJ). 2009. Press release, March 20, 2009. Available at www.panynj.

gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=1212, as of Mar. 20, 2009.

Union Pacifi c Corp. 2009. Annual Report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Feb. 6. Available at www.

up.com/investors/attachments/secfi ling/2009/upc10k_020609.pdf, as of Mar. 16, 2009.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2009. Gross Domestic Product: Fourth 

Quarter 2008 (Final). News release, Mar. 26. Available at www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm.
32 America’s Container Ports

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Census Bureau (CB) and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2009. U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services (December 2008). Press release, Feb. 11. Available at www.census.gov/foreign-trade/

Press-Release/2008pr/12.

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Census Bureau (CB), Division of Foreign Trade, 2009. Available at www.census.

gov/foreign-trade, as of Mar. 30, 2009.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). 2007. Strategy to Enhance International Supply Chain Security. Washington, DC. July. Available at www.dhs.gov, as of Mar. 31, 2009.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2006. Fact Sheet: An Overall 

Picture of Port Security. July 12. Available at www.cbp.gov, as of Mar. 31, 2009.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2007a. Fact Sheet: Secure Freight 

Scanning at a Glance. October 11. Available at www.cbp.gov, as of Mar. 31, 2009.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2007b. Fact Sheet: Secure Freight 

with CSI, Megaports. October 11. Available at www.cbp.gov, as of Mar. 31, 2009.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2008. Fact Sheet: C-TPAT. March 

27. Available at www.cbp.gov, as of Mar. 31, 2009.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Mission Support Services. 2009. 

Operations Management Database, as of Mar. 20, 2009. Personal communication.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. NHS Intermodal Freight Connectors: A Report to Congress. Washington, DC. December.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2008. Freight Story 2008. Washington, DC. Available at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/freight_story, as of Apr. 7, 2009.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Maritime Administration (MARAD). 2005. Report to Congress on the Performance of Ports and the Intermodal System. Washington, DC. Available at http://marad.dot.gov/documents/Rpt_to_Congress-Perf_Ports_Intermodal_Sys-June2005.pdf, as of Apr. 7, 1009.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 2009. Transportation Services Index press release, as of Jan. 20, 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Clean Ports USA: Navigating Toward Cleaner Air. Washington, DC. 

November. Available at www.epa.gov/otaq/diesel/ports/documents/420f05033.pdf, as of Apr. 7, 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. EPA Strategy for Sustainable Ports. September 6. Available at www.

epa.gov/ispd/ports/index.html, as of Apr. 7, 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008a. An Environmental Management System (EMS) Primer for Ports: 

Advancing Port Sustainability. Washington, DC. Jan. 4. Available at www.epa.gov/ispd/ports/emsprimer.pdf, as of Apr. 7, 

2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008b. Planning for Climate Change Impacts at U.S. Ports. White paper. 

Washington, DC. July. Available at www.epa.gov/ispd/ports/ports-planing-for-cci-white-paper.pdf, as of Apr. 7, 2009.

U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce (GAO). 2008a. Letter to Rep. James L. Oberstar and Rep. Peter A. DeFazio: 

Approaches to Mitigate Freight Congestion, Nov. 20. Available at www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-163R, as of Apr. 7, 2009.

U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce (GAO). 2008b. Supply Chain Security: Challenges to Scanning 100 Percent of U.S.-

Bound Cargo Containers. Washington, DC. . Available at www.gao.gov, as of Mar. 31, 2009.

World Trade Organization (WTO), 2008. World Trade Report 2008. Available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/

wtr_e.htm, as of Mar. 1, 2009.
America’s Container Ports 33

List of Abbreviations

AAR Association of American Railroads

ATA American Trucking Association

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

CB U.S. Census Bureau

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

dwt deadweight tons

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce

GDP gross domestic product

GHG greenhouse gas

ICC International Chamber of Commerce

MARAD Maritime Administration

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration

TEU twenty-foot equivalent container unit

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TTI Texas Transportation Institute

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security

USDOC U.S. Department of Commerce

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

America’s Container Ports 35

Defi nitions in this glossary are adapted from the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and 

Innovative Technologies Administration, Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics, available at www.bts.

gov/dictionary.

All hazards incident. Refers to any incident, the 

result of terrorism or a natural disaster, that could 

affect the maritime transportation system.

Ballast water. Fresh or salt water, sometimes 

containing sediments, held in tanks and cargo 

holds of ships to increase stability and maneuverability during transit.

Break-bulk. Packages of maritime cargo that 

are handled individually, palletized, or unitized 

for purposes of transportation as opposed to bulk 

and containerized freight.

Bulk carrier. A ship with specialized holds for 

carrying dry or liquid commodities, such as oil, 

grain, ore, and coal, in unpackaged bulk form. 

Bulk carriers may be designed to carry a single 

bulk product (crude oil tanker) or accommodate 

several bulk product types (ore/bulk/oil carrier) 

on the same voyage or on a subsequent voyage 

after holds are cleaned.

Chained dollars. A measure used to express 

real prices, defi ned as prices that are adjusted to 

remove the effect of changes in the purchasing 

power of the dollar. Real prices usually refl ect 

buying power relative to a reference year. The 

“chained-dollar” measure is based on the average weights of goods and services in successive 

pairs of years. It is “chained” because the second 

year in each pair, with its weights, becomes the 

fi rst year of the next pair. Before 1996, real prices 

were expressed in constant dollars, a weighted 

measure of goods and services in a single year. 

See also current dollars.

Class I freight railroad. Defi ned by the American 

Association of Railroads each year based on 

annual operating revenue. For 2008, the threshold for Class I railroads was revenues exceeding 

$360 million. A railroad is dropped from the Class 

I list if it fails to meet the annual revenue threshold for three consecutive years.

Container. A large standard-size metal box 

into which cargo is packed for shipment aboard 

specially confi gured oceangoing containerships. 

It is designed to be moved with common handling 

equipment to enable high-speed intermodal 

transfers in economically large units between 

ships, railcars, truck chassis, and barges using a 

minimum of labor. Therefore, the container rather 

than the cargo in it serves as the transfer unit.

Containerization. A system of intermodal freight 

transportation that uses standard containers that 

can be loaded onto vessels, railcars, and trucks. 

It involves the stowage of general or special 

cargo in a container for transport in the various 

modes.

Containership. A cargo vessel designed and 

constructed to transport, within specifi cally 

designed cells, portable tanks and freight containers, which are lifted on and off with their contents 

intact.

Containerized cargo: Cargo that is practical to 

transport in a container and results in a more 

economical shipment than could be achieved by 

shipping the cargo in some other form of unitization (e.g., break-bulk).

Container terminal. An area designated for 

the stowage of cargo in containers. It is usually 

accessible by truck, railroad, and marine transportation. At a container terminal, containers are 

picked up, dropped off, maintained, and housed.

Container throughput. A measure of the number 

of containers handled over a period of time. It 

is a standard measure for the productivity of a 

seaport. Container throughput is measured by 

twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU).

Current dollars. Dollar value of a good or service 

in terms of prices current at the time the good or 

service is sold. See also chained dollars.

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism 

(C-TPAT). A voluntary public-private partnership 

program in which the private owners of supply 

chain infrastructure and cargo work with U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to improve the 

security of the international supply chain. See 

www.cbp.gov for details.

Deadweight tons (dwt). The total weight of a 

ship’s load, including cargo, fuel, and crew. The 

deadweight tonnage of a ship is the difference 

Glossary
36 America’s Container Ports

between its weight when completely empty and its 

weight when fully loaded.

Gross domestic product (GDP). The total value 

of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States. As long as the 

labor and property are located in the United States, 

the supplier (the workers and, for property, the 

owners) may be either U.S. residents or residents 

of foreign countries.

Highway-rail crossing. A location where one or 

more railroad tracks intersect a public or private 

thoroughfare, a sidewalk, or a pathway.

Intermodal container. A freight container designed 

to permit it to be used interchangeably in two or 

more modes of transport.

Intermodal. Used to denote movements of cargo 

containers interchangeably between transport 

modes—i.e., motor, water, and air carriers—and 

where the equipment is compatible within the 

multiple systems.

Just in time (JIT). A method of inventory control 

in which warehousing is minimal or nonexistent. 

A container is the movable warehouse and must 

arrive “just in time,” not too early or too late.

Marine terminal. A designated area of a port 

used for the transmission, care, and convenience 

of cargo and/or passengers in the interchange of 

them between land and water carriers or between 

two water carriers. It includes wharves, warehouses, covered and/or open storage spaces, cold 

storage plants, grain elevators and/or bulk cargo 

loading and/or unloading structures, landings, and 

receiving stations.

Marine Transportation System (MTS). Consists 

of all the intermodal components that are part of 

the maritime domain, including ships, ports, inland 

waterways, intermodal rail and truck, and other 

users of the maritime system.

Merchandise trade exports. Merchandise transported out of the United States to foreign countries 

whether such merchandise is exported from 

within the U.S. Customs Service territory, from a 

U.S. Customs bonded warehouse, or from a U.S. 

Foreign Trade Zone. (Foreign Trade Zones are 

areas, operated as public utilities, under the control 

of U.S. Customs with facilities for handling, storing, manipulating, manufacturing, and exhibiting 

goods.)

Merchandise trade imports. Commodities of 

foreign origin entering the United States, as well 

as goods of domestic origin returned to the United 

States with no change in condition or after having 

been processed and/or assembled in other countries. Puerto Rico is a customs district within the 

U.S. Customs territory, and its trade with foreign 

countries is included in U.S. import statistics. U.S. 

import statistics also include merchandise trade between the U.S. Virgin Islands and foreign countries 

even though the islands are not offi cially a part of 

the U.S. Customs territory.

Port. A harbor area in which marine terminal facilities for transferring cargo between ships and land 

transportation are located.

Real gross domestic product (GDP). The real 

counterpart to current/nominal GDP, obtained 

by valuing output in a given year at prices from 

another year, called the base year. It refl ects 

correction for infl ation and changes in the price of 

goods and services.

Roll-on/roll-off vessel. Ships that are designed to 

carry wheeled containers or other wheeled cargo 

and that use the roll-on/roll-off method for loading 

and unloading.

Secure Freight Initiative (SFI). A joint program 

of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and 

the U.S. Department of Energy that is designed 

to scan U.S.-bound containers for nuclear or 

radiological materials at their foreign ports of origin. 

See www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_security/

secure_freight_initiative for details.

Tanker. An oceangoing ship designed to haul liquid 

bulk cargo in world trade.

Twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU). The standard 

unit for measuring the volume of containers that 

seaports handle. Standard container sizes are 20 

feet, 40 feet, and 48 feet long.

Virtual container yard. Virtual container yards 

are Web-based platforms where users can match 

empty containers to container needs at the dock 

rather than returning them to the terminal.
&

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Maritime Administration

U.S. Coast Guard

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

America’s Container Ports:

Delivering the Goods

March 2007

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Other recent BTS maritime-related reports

Maritime Trade & Transportation 2007 provides an update on the 

major marine infrastructure, maritime-related transportation services, 

domestic and international freight and passenger trade, the economic 

impact of the Maritime Transportation System, safety and environment, national security, and shipbuilding. It also presents information 

about the St. Lawrence Seaway and the U.S. Coast Guard (92 pages, 

2008).

America’s Container Ports: Delivering the Goods 2007 examines 

trends in U.S. containerized cargo and freight activity at major U.S. 

container ports. It reviews the direction of container traffi c, port 

concentration, regional port trends, vessel calls and capacity, trading 

patterns, and container entries by all modes (11 pages, 2007).