Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
Printable Version

Table C-17
Top 50 U.S. International Freight Gateways by Shipment Value: 2001

(Millions of current dollars)

Excel | CSV

Rank in 2001 Port Mode Total Exports Imports
  Total, airports   518,602 251,494 267,107
  Total, maritime ports   718,448 198,841 519,607
  Total, surface ports   547,312 234,588 312,724
1 JFK Internatl. Airport, NY Air 116,581 50,079 66,502
2 Los Angeles, CA Waterborne 104,193 17,436 86,757
3 Long Beach, CA Waterborne 94,699 16,716 77,984
4 Detroit, MI Surface 91,982 49,205 42,776
5 NY/NJ Waterborne 85,918 22,673 63,245
6 Laredo, TX Surface 79,607 34,706 44,901
7 Los Angeles Internatl. Airport, CA Air 63,882 34,030 29,853
8 San Francisco Internatl. Airport, CA Air 61,953 32,320 29,633
9 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Surface 60,478 29,375 31,103
10 Port Huron, MI Surface 55,648 17,276 38,372
11 Chicago, IL Air 44,916 19,918 24,998
12 Houston, TX Waterborne 44,489 19,522 24,967
13 El Paso, TX Surface 37,931 15,918 22,013
14 Charleston, SC Waterborne 33,411 12,483 20,928
15 Seattle, WA Waterborne 28,595 5,298 23,298
16 New Orleans, LA Air 27,353 13,810 13,544
17 Oakland, CA Waterborne 24,985 7,739 17,245
18 Norfolk, VA Waterborne 24,864 11,260 13,604
19 Miami Internatl. Airport, FL Air 22,565 15,403 7,162
20 Anchorage, AK Air 21,874 5,109 16,765
21 Baltimore, MD Waterborne 20,820 5,131 15,689
22 Cleveland, OH Airport 19,679 9,213 10,467
23 Otay Mesa, CA Surface 19,401 8,232 11,169
24 Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Air 18,797 8,836 9,961
25 Tacoma, WA Waterborne 18,650 4,256 14,394
26 Savannah, GA Waterborne 17,158 6,421 10,737
27 New Orleans, LA Waterborne 16,976 8,134 8,842
28 Miami, FL Waterborne 16,600 8,487 8,113
29 Champlain-Rouses Pt., NY Surface 16,163 5,929 10,234
30 Atlanta, GA Air 15,848 7,562 8,286
31 Nogales, AZ Surface 12,509 4,619 7,890
32 Hidalgo, TX Surface 12,423 5,715 6,708
33 Blaine, WA Surface 11,687 5,079 6,608
34 Brownsville-Cameron, TX Surface 10,911 5,813 5,098
35 Jacksonville, FL Waterborne 10,807 1,991 8,817
36 Portland, OR Waterborne 10,713 2,690 8,023
37 Alexandria Bay, NY Surface 10,621 4,051 6,570
38 Port Everglades, FL Waterborne 10,283 4,433 5,851
39 Philadelphia, PA Waterborne 9,971 556 9,414
40 Newark, NJ Air 9,414 3,245 6,170
41 Boston, MA Air 9,216 5,664 3,552
42 Pembina, ND Surface 8,886 4,428 4,458
43 Seattle-Tacoma Internatl., WA Air 8,849 3,546 5,303
44 Philadelphia Internatl. Airport, PA Air 8,799 4,945 3,854
45 Sweetgrass, MT Surface 8,269 3,834 4,435
46 Morgan City, LA Waterborne 7,830 144 7,687
47 San Juan Internatl. Airport, PR Air 7,779 3,686 4,093
48 Houston Internatl. Airport, TX Air 7,690 4,824 2,866
49 Corpus Christie, TX Waterborne 7,679 1,227 6,452
50 Beaumont, TX Waterborne 7,669 824 6,845

NOTES: All data-Trade levels reflect the mode of transportation as a shipment enters or exits a border port. Flows through individual ports are based on reported data collected from U.S. trade documents. Trade does not include low-value shipments. (In general, these are imports valued at less than $1,250 and exports valued at less than $2,500.) Air-Data for all air gateways include a low level (generally less than 2%-3% of the total value) of small user-fee airports located in the same region. Air gateways not identified by airport name (e.g., Chicago, IL) include major airport(s) in that geographic area in addition to small regional airports. In addition, due to Census Bureau confidentiality regulations, data for courier operations are included in the airport totals for JFK International Airport, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, and Anchorage. Water-Data are preliminary.

SOURCES: Air-U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, special tabulation, May 2002. Water-U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Office of Statistical and Economic Analysis, personal communication, May 2002. Land-U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data, 2002.



RITA's privacy policies and procedures do not necessarily apply to external web sites. We suggest contacting these sites directly for information on their data collection and distribution policies.