Office of Operations Freight Management and Operations
Home > Freight Analysis > Freight Analysis Framework > FAF2 Technical Documentation

Report #2 (R2)
Identifying Candidate International Gateways and Foreign Geography Detail per FAF Needs

Printable Version [PDF 2091KB]
Download the free Adobe Reader to view PDFs You will need the Adobe Reader to view the PDFs on this page.

Background

International trade is a significant portion of the U.S. economy. During 2004, U.S. international merchandise trade reached $2,290 billion. The export portion was about $819 billion, while imports reached $1,471 billion. Although the United States trades with many partners, that trade is concentrated with only a few countries. The top fifteen countries account for about 75% of the total value of foreign trade merchandises.

U.S. international trade is processed through more than 400 U.S. seaports, airports, and land-based border crossings. However, most international trade passes through a relatively small number of gateways. For example, in 2003,

  • The top five freight transportation gateways in the U.S. handled more than one-fourth ($533 billion) of the total U.S. international trade by dollar value;
  • More than 50 percent, by value, of U.S. international merchandise trade is handled by the top 14 freight transportation gateways; and
  • The top 50 U.S. international gateways handled 80 percent ($1.6 trillion) of that trade.

Information on freight involving international trade and its associated domestic movement by mode of transportation is of prime interests to the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF). Increasing trade deficits, potential terrorist threats, and growing traffic congestion have elevated public concern about imports and exports – in particular their points of arrival and departure. The base geography of the FAF is that of the Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) – i.e. 114 regions that include some of the largest international gateways for imports and exports. However, not all major gateways are included as CFS regions. In order to adequately describe actual freight movements related to international trades, additional international trade gateways (as origins and destinations) are needed within the 2002 FAF. This paper summarizes an analysis of all major international gateways and recommends that an additional 17 gateways be added to the 114 CFS regions for the 2002 FAF. These regions are referred to as the CFS-extended geography. Recommendations for additional gateways must balance the benefits of more accurate freight flows with greater model and data complexity.

Data Sources

This analysis was based on data from a variety of sources. Information on international trade volumes, in terms of weight and dollar value came from the following data sources:

Border Crossing - Highway and Railroad

Transborder Surface Freight Data prepared by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Seaports - Waterborne

Official U.S. Waterborne Transportation Statistics published by the Maritime Administration (MARAD)

Airports - Air Cargo

T-100 International Segment [Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic)] published by the Office of Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Trade Partners

U.S. Imports of Merchandise and U.S. Exports of Merchandise compiled by the Freight Trade Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

Gateway Selection Procedure

Based on the above stated methodology, a preliminary set of gateways to supplement CFS regions is determined as follows:

  • Candidate gateways are selected from the top gateways with a combined total of 80 percent of the total dollar value of U.S. trade and 80 percent of the total weight of U.S. trade (up to 25 candidates). These include gateways for
    • Border crossings by highway, by value and by weight (no exports by weight information),
    • Border crossings by railroad, by value and by weight (no exports by weight information),
    • Seaports by value and by weight, and
    • Airports by weight.
  • Candidate gateways that are located within the CFS metropolitan areas (MAs) are eliminated.
  • Remaining candidate gateways are ranked (for border crossings, seaports, and airports). Candidate gateways are arranged in their original ranking orders. The rows of three tables represent the candidate gateways and the columns of these tables represent transportation modes by weight and by value for border crossings, by weight and by value for seaports, and by weight for airports.
  • Combined rankings are rearranged in ascending order for each type of gateway (i.e. airport, seaport, and highway/rail). A preliminary set of international trade gateways is then selected from each of these three tables.

Preliminary Results

Recommended International Gateways for FAF by Type

Based on the selection process outlined above, the following 17 gateways are recommended for inclusion in the 2002 FAF:

Border Crossings:
Laredo, TX
Blaine, WA
International Falls, MN
Champlain/Rouses Point, NY
Alexandria Bay, NY
El Paso, TX
Brownsville/ Hidalgo, TX

Seaports:
Beaumont, TX
Charleston, SC
Portland, ME
Savannah, GA
Morgan City, LA
Corpus Christi, TX
Lake Charles, LA
Baton Rouge, LA
Mobile, AL

Airport:
Anchorage, AK

Geography for Foreign Trade Partners

The current FAF geography groups all foreign trade partners into six trade regions: Canada, Mexico, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Rest of World (ROW). An assessment of the adequacy of these trade regions was included within this study. A similar procedure as that described for international gateways was employed in the assessment of foreign geography. As a result, the Middle East is recommended as a potential candidate to be added to supplement existing FAF foreign regions.

Introduction

A great deal of U.S. freight enters and leaves the country through a relatively small number of major seaports, airports, and land border crossings. Although many of these international gateways are already included in the 114 CFS regions (including 64 metropolitan areas, 33 “remainder of states” regions, and 17 small states), a number of significant international gateways for freight are combined into “remainder-of-state” regions. To better reveal significant foreign trade freight flows, these international gateways should be identified and separated from their associated “remainder-of-state” regions. This study recommends a set of candidate international gateways that should be added to the 114 CFS regions to form the geography for the 2002 FAF.

Ideally, freight analysis models should track international trade freight movements from their origin and destination countries. However, due to the availability of data and the complexities of modeling, foreign trade origins and destinations are reduced to a manageable number. Using foreign trade regions, instead of individual countries, as origins and destinations is a viable alternative. Under the second-generation FAF, called FAF2, international freight flows were divided into six regions. They are Canada, Mexico, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Rest of World (ROW). This study examines foreign geography to assess whether additional detail is merited to better reflect international freight flows for FAF needs.

Data Sources

Border Crossing - Highway and railroad

Transborder Surface Freight Data
Highway and railroad freight data are based on the Bureau of Transportation's Transborder Surface Freight Database. This database provides North American merchandise trade data by commodity type, by surface mode of transportation (rail, truck, pipeline, mail and other), and with geographic detail for U.S. exports to and imports from Canada and Mexico. There is no freight value information on exports, however.

Seaports - Waterborne

Official U.S. Waterborne Transportation Statistics
Information on imports and exports through U.S. seaports is based on the U.S. Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics published by the Maritime Administration (MARAD). The database contains monthly statistics on U.S. foreign trade imported or exported by vessel. The data are compiled by MARAD during its regular processing of statistics on foreign trade shipments. Information contained in this data set reflects the physical movement of waterborne foreign trade shipments into, and out of, U.S. foreign trade zones, the Virgin Islands, and U.S. Customs territories (including the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). It contains information on the type of vessels, commodities, weight, customs districts and ports, and origins and destinations.

Airports - Air Cargo

T-100 International Segment [Air Carrier Statistics (Form 41 Traffic)]
International trade by air is based on Air Carrier Traffic Statistics published by the Office of Airline Information, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). This database contains monthly data reported by certificated U.S. and foreign air carriers on passengers, freight, and mail they transport. It also includes aircraft type, service class, available capacity and seats, and aircraft hours ramp-to-ramp and airborne.

Trade Partners

U.S. Imports of Merchandise and U.S. Exports of Merchandise
Freight information used for identifying U.S. major international trade partners is based on U.S. Exports of Merchandise and U.S. Imports of Merchandise on DVD-ROMs, compiled by the Freight Trade Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Data on the U.S. Exports of Merchandise DVD-ROM provides information on value, quantity, method of transportation, and shipping weights for 9,000 exported commodities, between 240 trading partners, and for 45 districts. Similarly, data on the U.S. Imports of Merchandise DVD-ROM provides types of products that are being imported into the U.S. It also contains information on a wide range of products; more than 17,000 commodities ranging from wheat, airplanes, cars, to computers and artwork. This DVD-ROM includes data for 240 trading partners and 45 districts. It provides value, quantity, and method of transportation, shipping weights, import charges, and custom duties.

Gateway Selection Procedure

After careful consideration, the following procedure was formulated and used in selecting international gateways to supplement the 114 CFS regions for the 2002 FAF. This selection process includes three steps.

Step 1: Identify Preliminary Candidates

To begin, candidate seaports, airports, and border crossings are identified based on the “significance” of their contribution toward the U.S. international trade total. A significance measure was based on weight (tonnage) or value ($) of freight being handled by the given facility (e.g., shipments passing through a seaport). For seaports, the amount of containerized cargo processed at the port facility is also included as a measure in identifying gateway candidates. Note that seaports recommended for inclusion as additional international gateways based on containerized cargo are included within the gateways selected on the basis of other criteria. Therefore, a separate table for seaports selected on the basis of containerized cargo is not presented in this report.

All facilities (i.e. seaports, airports, and border crossings) are ranked in descending order by tonnages and values of freights passing through their jurisdiction by mode of transportation. Top contributing seaports, airports, and border crossings (up to 25 facilities each) were identified by using a cut-off of 80% cumulative total in tonnages and values.

Step 2: Eliminate Candidates Already in FAF Metropolitan Areas

The second step is to eliminate duplication with existing CFS regions. Each additional international gateway added to the existing 114 CFS regions will add processing efforts to subsequent tasks. These include the origin-destination matrices, forecasting, as well as flow assignments. Thus, candidate seaports, airports or border crossings located within existing FAF metropolitan areas are not separated from their MA regions. Consequently, these candidates are removed from the list generated in Step 1.

Step 3: Select International Gateways Based on Combined Ranking Scores

The remaining international gateways are rearranged by their original rankings and combined into a table. A combined "score" is calculated to reflect the combined significance of each gateway. The final set of gateways is determined by ranking of combined scores. More detail on this process is given in the following section.

Gateways Selection Example - Boarder Crossings between U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico

To better illustrate the selection procedures, an example is given – i.e. selecting international gateways along the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders by highway and rail.

Step 1: Select Gateway Candidates

Candidate border crossings by dollar value of freights transported between U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico are identified and presented in Table 1. Both dollar value ($) and weight (tonnage) are used in this selection.

Table 1. Candidate Highway Border Crossings with Canada and Mexico by Value
Name Exports ($) Imports ($) Total Foreign Trade ($) % of Total In MA
Detroit MI$48,631,644,477 $36,178,973,987 $84,810,618,464 21.1%Y
Laredo TX$24,160,772,426 $30,459,008,739 $54,619,781,165 34.7%N
Buffalo/Niagara Falls NY$24,988,019,401 $20,764,579,978 $45,752,599,379 46.1%Y
El Paso TX$16,190,233,104 $19,745,171,951 $35,935,405,055 55.0%N
Port Huron MI$18,170,710,173 $17,548,936,732 $35,719,646,905 63.9%Y
Otay Mesa Station CA$8,260,389,400 $11,400,334,548 $19,660,723,948 68.8%Y
Brownsville/Hidalgo TX$6,204,142,895 $8,135,922,774 $14,340,065,669 72.4%N
Champlain/Rouses Point NY$4,845,415,199 $7,894,263,770 $12,739,678,969 75.5%N
Alexandria Bay NY$3,832,476,729 $6,192,527,176 $10,025,003,905 78.0%N
Blaine WA$4,935,105,190 $4,945,983,532 $9,881,088,722 80.5%N
Key: MA=metropolitan area identified in the 2002 CFS.
Note: Due to data limitations, weight (tonnage) information for exports is not available.
Therefore, only imports information is used in identifying these candidate border crossings by weight. The selected candidate border crossings by weight are presented in Table 2.

Step 2: Eliminate Gateways already in FAF MA Regions

Candidates selected in the first step were compared to the geography of the existing FAF MA regions. Only those that are not located within existing FAF metropolitan areas were chosen under this second selection process. The status of each selected candidate, with respect to existing FAF MA regions, is presented in the rightmost columns of Tables 1 and 2.

Table 2. Candidate Highway Border Crossings with Canada and Mexico by Weight (kg)
Name Imports (kg) Total Foreign Trade (kg) % of Total In MA
Detroit MI13,200,064,30213,200,064,30215.3%Y
Buffalo/Niagara Falls NY10,345,675,01410,345,675,01427.4%Y
Port Huron MI8,790,669,5218,790,669,52137.6%Y
Laredo TX8,435,927,8028,435,927,80247.4%N
Champlain/Rouses Point NY4,234,373,2364,234,373,23652.3%N
Alexandria Bay NY3,475,709,0433,475,709,04356.4%N
Blaine WA3,249,531,0683,249,531,06860.1%N
Pembina ND2,527,675,0182,527,675,01863.1%N
Nogales AZ2,424,300,3242,424,300,32465.9%N
Otay Mesa Station CA2,350,042,8312,350,042,83168.6%Y
El Paso TX2,173,749,9232,173,749,92371.2%N
Brownsville/Hidalgo TX2,012,529,8582,012,529,85873.5%N
Sweet Grass MT1,822,043,7401,822,043,74075.6%N
Derby Line VT1,708,770,5141,708,770,51477.6%N
Highgate Springs/Alburg VT1,409,447,5031,409,447,50379.2%N
Houlton ME1,333,409,2491,333,409,24980.8%N
Key: kg=kilograms; MA=metropolitan area identified in the 2002 CFS.

Step 3: Final Selection Based on Combined Ranking Scores

Gateways identified in Tables 1, 2, and A-1, A-2, for highway and rail respectively, are re-arranged and entered into Table 3. The original rankings for highway and railroad are preserved. Cells with no original ranking are set to 99. By doing so, those with high individual rankings in multiple categories (e.g., by value and weight for both highway and rail) result in a higher combined ranking. The combined ranking scores were calculated as the sum of individual ranks, where the smaller the score is, the higher its order of importance becomes.

Based on the combined ranking scores, seven border crossing were identified as recommended international gateways between U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico. They are: Laredo, TX; Blaine, WA; International Falls, MN; Champlain/Rouses Point, NY; Alexandria Bay, NY; El Paso, TX; and Brownsville/Hidalgo, TX.

Table 3. Border Crossings Gateways by Surface Mode (highway and railroad)
Ranked order
Highway
Value		 Ranked order
Highway
Weight		 Ranked order
Rail
Value		 Ranked order
Rail
Weight		 Combined ranking
Laredo, TXhighlighted241613
Blaine, WAhighlighted107994120
International Falls, MNhighlighted999951204
Champlain Rouses Point, NYhighlighted859999211
Alexandria Bay, NYhighlighted969999213
El Paso, TXhighlighted4119999213
Brownsville/ Hidalgo, TXhighlighted7129999217
Portal, ND9999993300
Pembina, ND9989999305
Noyes, MN9999998305
Nogales, AZ9999999306
Eastport, ID9999999306
Sweet Grass, MT99139999310
Derby Line, VT99149999311
Highgate Springs/Alburg, VT99159999312
Houlton ME99169999313
Notes: 99 = not a contributing facility for the 8% of U.S. total. Highlighted are top border crossings by ranking for FAF international gateway needs.

A similar procedure is used to select seaports, airports, and grouping of foreign trading partners into regions. The following sections provide the resulting gateway selections from Step 3 for seaports and airports. Detailed information per their selection processes, as well as the grouping of foreign trade partners, is presented in Appendices of this report.

Selected International Gateways for Seaports

The combined ranking scores calculated for seaports that are not already in the FAF MA regions are presented in Table 4. Highlighted gateways are seaports to be recommended as additional FAF regions. These ports play significant roles, by value and/or by weight, in U.S. foreign trades via waterway. Freight flows in these regions are expected to be significantly different from others in their respective remainder of states.

Table 4. International Gateways by Waterway (seaports)
Ranked order
Value		 Ranked order
Weight		 Combined ranking
Beaumont, TXhighlighted16521
Charleston, SChighlighted52227
Portland, MEhighlighted151530
Savannah, GAhighlighted122133
Morgan City, LAhighlighted996105
Corpus Christi, TXhighlighted997106
Lake Charles, LAhighlighted9912111
Baton Rouge, LAhighlighted9913112
Mobile, ALhighlighted9914113
Pascagoula, MS9920119
Wilmington, DE9923122
Port Arthur, TX9924123
Notes: 99 = not a contributing facility for the 8% of U.S. total. Highlighted are recommended waterway gateways for FAF purposes.

Selected International Gateways for Airports

Almost all major airports were selected as candidates by the above described procedure are located in FAF MA regions. The only exception is Anchorage, Alaska. Anchorage handles a significant amount of international air freights, although most of them are for transshipments. Based on the quantity of freight processed, the study recommends that Anchorage, Alaska be added as an additional airport for the 2002 FAF.

Foreign Trade Regions

In order to evaluate foreign geography details for FAF needs, a similar procedure as that used in evaluating international gateways is used to identify top international trade partners for the U.S. Because of their large volume of trade, Canada, Mexico, and Latin America must be identified as separate regions. Therefore, this study only needs to address international freight flows via waterway and air. Both weight and value of imports and exports are used in the selection of foreign trade regions.

The study first identified the top trade partners that account for 8% of total U.S. trade (up to 25 countries). This selection was based on weight/value of total imports and exports by air/water. Detailed statistics for these top trade partners are presented in Tables B-1 through B-4 in Appendix B of this document. Corresponding maps displaying the size of imports and exports from each trade partner are depicted in Figures B-1 to B-4. Note that imported and exported freight via water is not concentrated at a few seaports (see maps). The top 25 seaports accounted for slightly less than 8% (78% by weight and 79% by value) of the U.S. total shipped by waterway. International air cargo, on the other hand, is more concentrated (see maps). The top 24 airports by weight, or 18 airports by value, account for over 8% of total U.S. air shipments.

These top trade partners by water and by air are then combined into a single table. Top trade partners are arranged in ascending order based on their combined rankings. Those that are not ranked individually (e.g. not in the top ranking by one of the selection criteria) are set to 99. By doing so, those having higher ranking in all first-step categories will have a higher combined ranking. The top trade partners are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Top Trade Partners by Water and Air
Trade Partners Ranking Order
Waterborne
By Weight		 Ranking Order
Waterborne
By Value		 Ranking Order
Air
By Weight		 Ranking Order
Air
By Value		 Combined ranking
Japan52119
China612211
United Kingdom854320
Korea, South1149529
Germany2133431
Taiwan1566734
Mexico117171641
Canada132051442
Brazil79121745
Italy181181148
Netherlands1914101558
France991278126
Venezuela289928137
Malaysia9917159140
Singapore99241310146
Hong Kong99191119148
Belgium23159913150
Australia25162099160
Saudi Arabia4109999212
Colombia10991499222
Ireland9999216225
Thailand99131999230
Israel99992412234
Russia17229999237
India99211899237
Philippines99992318239
Spain22259999245
Nigeria9999999306
Iraq12999999309
Norway13999999310
Angola14999999311
Trinidad and Tobago16999999313
Chile99991699313
Indonesia99189999315
Algeria20999999317
Switzerland99992299319
Dominican Republic99239999320
Kuwait24999999321
Notes: 99 = not a contributing facility for the 8% of U.S. total
1 Excludes transborder freight

Recommendation

International Gateways

All supporting statistics and maps for international freight gateways are included in Appendix A of this document. Based on the evaluation criteria, 17 additional international freight gateways are recommended for inclusion in the 2002 FAF. These include:

Border Crossings:
Laredo, TX
Blaine, WA
International Falls, MN
Champlain/Rouses Point, NY
Alexandria Bay, NY
El Paso, TX
Brownsville/ Hidalgo, TX

Seaports:
Beaumont, TX
Charleston, SC
Portland, ME
Savannah, GA
Morgan City, LA
Corpus Christi, TX
Lake Charles, LA
Baton Rouge, LA
Mobile, AL

Airport:
Anchorage, AK

Foreign Geography

Supporting statistics and maps per the study's foreign geography evaluation are included in Appendix B of this document. Based on the evaluation criteria, the Middle East is a potential candidate for addition to the 2002 FAF. Note that under the most recent FAF, international freight flows are set to six regions: Canada, Mexico, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Rest of World (ROW).

Appendix A: Detailed Information on International Gateways


Table A-1. Candidate Rail Border Crossings with Canada/Mexico by Value
Name Exports ($) Imports ($) Total Foreign Trade ($) Cumm. % of Total In MA
Laredo, TX$8,142,757,080 $15,797,585,957 $23,940,343,037 25.0%N
Port Huron, MI$4,097,502,274 $18,791,198,548 $22,888,700,822 49.0%Y
Detroit, MI$5,679,845,382 $11,043,473,471 $16,723,318,853 66.5%Y
Buffalo/Niagara Falls, NY$1,762,663,859 $7,364,118,440 $9,126,782,299 76.0%Y
International Falls, MN$746,303,438 $3,861,969,849 $4,608,273,287 80.8%N
Key: MA=metropolitan area identified in the 2002 CFS.

Table A-2. Candidate Rail Border Crossings with Canada/Mexico by Weight
Name Imports (kg) Total Foreign Trade (kg) Cumm. % of Total In MA
International Falls, MN11,901,647,64611,901,647,64616.2%N
Port Huron, MI11,774,665,86811,774,665,86832.3%Y
Portal, ND7,621,744,3387,621,744,33842.7%N
Blaine WA6,734,866,7976,734,866,79751.9%N
Buffalo Niagara Falls, NY5,490,825,0525,490,825,05259.4%Y
Laredo, TX4,673,653,9894,673,653,98965.7%N
Detroit, MI4,401,822,4854,401,822,48571.7%Y
Noyes, MN3,980,610,3153,980,610,31577.2%N
Eastport, ID3,812,125,8593,812,125,85982.4%N
Key: MA=metropolitan area identified in the 2002 CFS.

Table A-3. Ranking of Border Crossing Gateways by Rail
Ranking Order
By $		 Ranking Order
By Kg		 In MA
Buffalo Niagara Falls, NY45Y
Detroit, MI37Y
International Falls, MN51N
Laredo, TX16N
Port Huron, MI22Y
Blaine, WA4N
Eastport, ID9N
Noyes, MN8N
Portal, ND3N
Key: MA=metropolitan area identified in the 2002 CFS.

Table A-4 Candidate Seaports by Value
Name Exports ($) Imports ($) Total Foreign Trade ($) Cumm. % of Total In MA
Los Angeles, CA$16,555,508,545 $98,305,639,355 $114,861,147,900 15.0%Y
Long Beach, CA$15,850,363,930 $78,916,085,571 $94,766,449,501 27.4%Y
New York, NY$23,833,549,822 $70,804,038,596 $94,637,588,418 39.8%Y
Houston, TX$20,257,821,337 $24,759,662,772 $45,017,484,109 45.7%Y
Charleston, SC$11,870,482,705 $22,399,068,899 $34,269,551,604 50.2%N
Norfolk, VA$11,072,896,526 $15,492,283,232 $26,565,179,758 53.7%Y
Seattle, WA$5,378,277,070 $19,316,701,321 $24,694,978,391 56.9%Y
Baltimore, MD$5,260,144,409 $19,068,684,762 $24,328,829,171 60.1%Y
Tacoma, WA$4,719,200,616 $19,410,364,126 $24,129,564,742 63.2%Y
Oakland, CA$7,681,327,851 $15,544,760,270 $23,226,088,121 66.3%Y
Miami, FL$9,359,226,491 $11,701,609,431 $21,060,835,922 69.0%Y
Savannah, GA$7,005,178,055 $13,335,392,421 $20,340,570,476 71.7%N
New Orleans, LA$9,295,765,081 $8,663,309,572 $17,959,074,653 74.0%Y
Jacksonville, FL$2,654,540,712 $8,835,723,617 $11,490,264,329 75.5%Y
Portland, OR$2,710,192,588 $8,615,774,411 $11,325,966,999 77.0%Y
Beaumont, TX$872,311,858 $10,213,184,874 $11,085,496,732 78.5%N
Port Everglades, FL$4,392,421,976 $5,959,636,932 $10,352,058,908 79.8%Y
Port of South LA$6,080,649,428 $3,541,094,070 $9,621,743,498 81.1%Y
Key: MA=metropolitan area identified in the 2002 CFS.

Table A-5 Candidate Seaports by Weight
Name Exports (kg) Imports (kg) Total Foreign Trade (kg) Cumm. % of Total In MA
Houston, TX28,249,096,85171,106,228,90099,355,325,7518.5%Y
New York, NY11,002,142,33959,714,233,97870,716,376,31714.6%Y
Port of South LA43,101,980,59725,872,660,82968,974,641,42620.5%Y
New Orleans, LA38,711,703,35028,251,830,03466,963,533,38426.2%Y
Beaumont, TX4,099,195,00252,234,415,76956,333,610,77131.0%N
Morgan City, LA135,401,69646,726,523,40646,861,925,10235.0%N
Corpus Christi, TX7,555,507,40337,605,222,25745,160,729,66038.9%N
Los Angeles, CA12,125,688,46231,373,520,57943,499,209,04142.6%Y
Long Beach, CA13,717,648,51628,675,509,96542,393,158,48146.3%Y
Texas City, TX3,148,030,23128,577,534,94031,725,565,17149.0%Y
Philadelphia, PA402,595,94226,419,965,76226,822,561,70451.3%Y
Lake Charles, LA3,832,605,21322,438,506,09626,271,111,30953.5%N
Baton Rouge, LA4,445,857,13820,397,723,53324,843,580,67155.7%N
Mobile, AL7,517,851,46515,672,924,50923,190,775,97457.6%N
Portland, ME268,552,44822,810,398,63223,078,951,08059.6%N
Baltimore, MD4,971,668,89216,423,826,06021,395,494,95261.5%Y
Christiansted, VI1,382,507,58318,936,518,10620,319,025,68963.2%N
Norfolk, VA11,982,663,7648,252,474,01520,235,137,77964.9%Y
Freeport, TX1,815,828,23418,087,411,73819,903,239,97266.6%Y
Pascagoula, MS2,190,191,19516,873,782,23019,063,973,42568.3%N
Savannah, GA7,822,618,37710,277,643,32118,100,261,69869.8%N
Charleston, SC5,399,820,63412,209,100,33217,608,920,96671.3%N
Wilmington, DE414,866,79815,365,889,33015,780,756,12872.7%N
Port Arthur, TX2,857,784,82112,839,737,45715,697,522,27874.0%N
Paulsboro, NJ120,758,48115,244,489,73015,365,248,21175.3%Y
Key: MA=metropolitan area identified in the 2002 CFS.

Table A-6 Ranking of Seaport Gateways
Ranking Order
By $		 Ranking Order
By Kg
Baton Rouge, LA13
Beaumont, TX165
Charleston, SC522
Christiansted, VI17
Corpus Christi, TX7
Lake Charles, LA12
Mobile, AL14
Morgan City, LA6
Pascagoula, MS20
Port Arthur, TX24
Portland, ME1515
Savannah, GA1221
Wilmington, DE23
Key: kg=kilogram

Table A-7. Candidate Airports by Weight
Name Exports (kg) Imports (kg) Total Foreign Trade (kg) Cumm. % of Total In MA
ANCHORAGE INTL635,604,6901,360,730,2721,996,334,96226.0%N
MIAMI INTL479,359,424777,323,3151,256,682,73942.4%Y
JOHN F KENNEDY INTL316,339,146493,782,128810,121,27452.9%Y
LOS ANGELES INTL226,854,928335,251,414562,106,34260.3%Y
CHICAGO O'HARE INTL217,986,465254,637,531472,623,99666.4%Y
SAN FRANCISCO INTL119,362,131140,715,880260,078,01169.8%Y
NEWARK INTL92,085,975162,964,659255,050,63473.1%Y
MEMPHIS INTL107,486,076128,093,225235,579,30176.2%Y
THE WILLIAM B HARTSFIELD ATLANTA INTL78,651,898132,788,612211,440,51078.9%Y
GEORGE BUSH INTERCONTINENTAL ARPT/HOUSTON73,777,81567,872,603141,650,41880.8%Y
Key: kg=kilogram; MA=metropolitan area identified in the 2002 CFS.

Map expressing weight of highway imports at 16 U.S. border crossings as circles ranging in size from 3,750,000,000 kilograms to 15,000,000,000 kilograms.

Figure A-1. Candidate Border Crossings by Weight for Highway

Map expressing value of highway imports and exports at 10 U.S. border crossings as circles ranging in size from $25,000,000,000 to $100,000,000,000. Ratio of imports to exports is shown by light or dark shading in circles.

Figure A-2. Candidate Border Crossings by Value for Highway

Map expressing weight of rail imports at 9 U.S. border crossings as circles ranging in size from 2,500,000,000 kilograms to 10,000,000,000 kilograms. Refer to Table A-2 for details illustrated in this graphic.

Figure A-3. Candidate Border Crossings by Weight for Rail

Map expressing value of rail imports and exports at 5 U.S. border crossings as circles ranging in size from $6,250,000,000 to $25,000,000,000. Ratio of imports to exports is shown by light or dark shading in circles. Refer to Table A-1 for details illustrated in this graphic.

Figure A-4. Candidate Border Crossings by Value for Rail

Map expressing weight of imports and exports at 25 U.S. seaports as circles ranging in size from 25,000,000,000 kilograms to 100,000,000,000 kilograms. Ratio of imports to exports is shown by light or dark shading in circles. Refer to Table A-5 for details illustrated in this graphic.

Figure A-5. Candidate Seaports by Weight

Map expressing value of imports and exports at 18 U.S. seaports as circles ranging in size from $25,000,000,000 to $100,000,000,000. Ratio of imports to exports is shown by light or dark shading in circles. Refer to Table A-4 for details illustrated in this graphic.

Figure A-6. Candidate Seaports by Value

Map expressing weight of imports and exports at 10 U.S. airports as circles ranging in size from 1,250,000,000 pounds to 5,000,000,000 pounds. Ratio of imports to exports is shown by light or dark shading in circles. Refer to Table A-7 for details illustrated in this graphic.

Figure A-7. Candidate Airports by Weight

Appendix B: Information on Top International Trade Partners


Table B-1. Top Trade Partners via Water by Weight
Name Exports (kg) Imports (kg) Total Foreign Trade (kg) Cumm. % of Total
Mexico23,061,457,86193,605,502,398116,666,960,25910.3%
Venezuela3,474,773,87195,411,723,23998,886,497,11019.1%
Canada29,085,381,66561,072,470,91290,157,852,57727.0%
Saudi Arabia2,044,710,48276,907,731,71878,952,442,20034.0%
Japan48,806,198,50011,869,385,18460,675,583,68439.4%
China18,226,702,34034,201,408,15452,428,110,49444.0%
Brazil8,593,200,59626,765,225,83935,358,426,43547.1%
United Kingdom6,447,228,84326,803,290,44233,250,519,28550.1%
Nigeria2,229,042,92630,991,500,05333,220,542,97953.0%
Colombia4,645,619,40227,068,050,58031,713,669,98255.8%
Korea, South14,748,553,4949,563,737,74024,312,291,23458.0%
Iraq3,611,02623,668,136,58123,671,747,60760.0%
Norway414,707,97022,555,687,63822,970,395,60862.1%
Angola224,098,78717,549,598,89217,773,697,67963.7%
Taiwan12,538,482,3874,999,698,45317,538,180,84065.2%
Trinidad and Tobago829,441,46116,526,869,81817,356,311,27966.7%
Russia1,255,344,66315,854,373,51917,109,718,18268.2%
Italy8,465,907,9627,679,773,77216,145,681,73469.7%
Netherlands9,407,090,9096,467,661,51315,874,752,42271.1%
Algeria2,298,115,40212,801,854,24315,099,969,64572.4%
Germany4,939,176,3059,844,256,38414,783,432,68973.7%
Spain9,252,988,5764,896,787,29614,149,775,87275.0%
Belgium7,409,632,4305,473,813,84512,883,446,27576.1%
Kuwait190,291,98612,361,971,18212,552,263,16877.2%
Australia2,875,406,9629,470,144,34712,345,551,30978.3%
Key: kg=kilogram

Table B-2. Top Trade Partners via Water by Value
Name Exports ($) Imports ($) Total Foreign Trade ($) Cumm. % of Total
China$10,854,167,400 $102,379,678,514 $113,233,845,914 15.5%
Japan$24,124,038,101 $87,310,362,092 $111,434,400,193 30.8%
Germany$8,907,542,518 $36,358,650,613 $45,266,193,131 37.0%
Korea, South$10,254,683,629 $20,992,546,466 $31,247,230,095 41.3%
United Kingdom$9,494,168,980 $18,188,810,802 $27,682,979,782 45.1%
Taiwan$6,710,848,096 $17,583,538,742 $24,294,386,838 48.4%
Mexico$6,267,724,711 $17,105,870,148 $23,373,594,859 51.6%
Venezuela$3,404,877,678 $14,961,536,008 $18,366,413,686 54.2%
Brazil$6,298,081,751 $10,823,457,236 $17,121,538,987 56.5%
Saudi Arabia$3,465,460,436 $13,023,271,106 $16,488,731,542 58.8%
Italy$3,514,555,808 $12,425,509,209 $15,940,065,017 61.0%
France$3,972,666,626 $9,030,887,457 $13,003,554,083 62.7%
Thailand$2,162,861,788 $10,395,531,080 $12,558,392,868 64.5%
Netherlands$6,836,166,930 $5,218,362,185 $12,054,529,115 66.1%
Belgium$6,721,107,628 $4,290,488,542 $11,011,596,170 67.6%
Australia$5,801,210,060 $4,958,350,799 $10,759,560,859 69.1%
Malaysia$1,612,171,094 $8,680,928,643 $10,293,099,737 70.5%
Indonesia$1,962,625,861 $8,049,346,516 $10,011,972,377 71.9%
Hong Kong$4,550,286,760 $5,434,860,826 $9,985,147,586 73.3%
Canada$2,401,760,871 $6,997,493,038 $9,399,253,909 74.5%
India$1,600,028,978 $6,156,691,960 $7,756,720,938 75.6%
Russia$1,795,927,572 $5,816,101,323 $7,612,028,895 76.7%
Dominican Republic$3,621,050,334 $3,479,789,641 $7,100,839,975 77.6%
Singapore$4,253,295,002 $2,528,481,973 $6,781,776,975 78.6%
Spain$2,984,958,976 $3,664,934,114 $6,649,893,090 79.5%

Table B-3 Top Trade Partners via Air by Weight
Name Exports (kg) Imports (kg) Total Foreign Trade (kg) Cumm. % of Total
Japan296,699,599293,974,454590,674,05310.1%
China76,288,908461,221,258537,510,16619.2%
Germany148,610,177253,821,004402,431,18126.1%
United Kingdom215,798,787185,410,068401,208,85532.9%
Canada197,590,92162,917,460260,508,38137.4%
Taiwan85,815,396145,408,169231,223,56541.3%
France91,153,830121,807,948212,961,77844.9%
Italy52,868,760145,378,568198,247,32848.3%
Korea, South73,049,276119,014,021192,063,29751.6%
Netherlands85,861,88787,650,255173,512,14254.5%
Hong Kong78,606,33870,448,712149,055,05057.1%
Brazil61,065,87087,297,053148,362,92359.6%
Singapore79,342,48368,420,334147,762,81762.1%
Colombia44,802,464102,910,027147,712,49164.6%
Malaysia35,234,20999,790,003135,024,21266.9%
Chile17,242,240116,441,964133,684,20469.2%
Mexico69,327,12954,880,911124,208,04071.3%
India24,509,79876,241,189100,750,98773.0%
Thailand20,111,68866,237,70286,349,39074.5%
Australia51,965,97524,045,91776,011,89275.8%
Ireland36,410,56736,331,01772,741,58477.0%
Switzerland25,728,69045,445,26171,173,95178.3%
Philippines15,037,06654,456,71169,493,77779.4%
Israel23,067,09546,191,71469,258,80980.6%
Key: kg=kilogram

Table B-4. Top Trade Partners via Air by Value
Name Exports ($) Imports ($) Total Foreign Trade ($) Cumm. % of Total
Japan$24,170,183,301 $30,689,165,667 $54,859,348,968 11.0%
United Kingdom$19,894,206,183 $18,893,518,673 $38,787,724,856 18.8%
Germany$15,002,809,470 $18,842,915,170 $33,845,724,640 25.6%
China$7,718,288,442 $18,443,432,568 $26,161,721,010 30.8%
France$12,001,457,018 $13,199,865,749 $25,201,322,767 35.9%
Ireland$4,707,135,047 $20,359,962,439 $25,067,097,486 40.9%
Taiwan$11,105,982,774 $13,529,181,434 $24,635,164,208 45.8%
Korea, South$10,390,562,379 $13,879,772,625 $24,270,335,004 50.7%
Malaysia$7,810,929,223 $14,808,614,252 $22,619,543,475 55.3%
Singapore$9,254,075,725 $11,731,299,118 $20,985,374,843 59.5%
Canada$11,962,140,068 $8,771,445,239 $20,733,585,307 63.6%
Italy$4,989,684,356 $9,697,143,956 $14,686,828,312 66.6%
Israel$4,507,038,037 $9,811,341,826 $14,318,379,863 69.4%
Netherlands$10,223,601,160 $3,772,392,913 $13,995,994,073 72.3%
Switzerland$6,124,309,335 $6,592,602,638 $12,716,911,973 74.8%
Philippines$5,335,166,666 $6,703,744,566 $12,038,911,232 77.2%
Hong Kong$7,576,272,892 $3,470,727,321 $11,047,000,213 79.4%
Belgium$5,097,393,604 $4,960,162,872 $10,057,556,476 81.5%

Map expressing weight of imports and exports for top international trade partners by waterway as circles ranging in size from 25,000,000,000 kilograms to 100,000,000,000 kilograms. Ratio of imports to exports is shown by light or dark shading in circles. Refer to Table B-1 for details illustrated in this graphic.

Figure B-1. Major Trade Partners by Weight via Waterway

Map expressing value of imports and exports for top international trade partners by waterway as circles ranging in size from $25,000,000,000 to $100,000,000,000. Ratio of imports to exports is shown by light or dark shading in circles. Refer to Table B-2 for details illustrated in this graphic.

Figure B-2. Major Trade Partners by Value via Waterway

Map expressing weight of imports and exports for top international trade partners by air as circles ranging in size from 125,000,000 kilograms to 500,000,000 kilograms. Ratio of imports to exports is shown by light or dark shading in circles. Refer to Table B-3 for details illustrated in this graphic.

Figure B-3. Major Trade Partners by Weight via Air

Map expressing value of imports and exports for top international trade partners by air as circles ranging in size from $12,500,000,000 to $50,000,000,000. Ratio of imports to exports is shown by light or dark shading in circles. Refer to Table B-4 for details illustrated in this graphic.

Figure B-4. Major Trade Partners by Value via Air

Office of Operations