Table 1-57: Tonnage of Top 50 U.S. Water Ports, Ranked by Total Tons
Table 1-57: Tonnage of Top 50 U.S. Water Ports, Ranked by Total Tons
| Ports | 2010 | 2009 | 2000 | Percent change 2009-2010 | Percent change 2000-2010 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Total tons (Millions) | Rank | Total tons (Millions) | Rank | Total tons (Millions) | |||
| South Louisiana, LA, Port of | 1 | 236.3 | 1 | 212.6 | 1 | 215.9 | 11.1% | 9.4% |
| Houston, TX | 2 | 227.1 | 2 | 211.3 | 2 | 186.6 | 7.5% | 21.7% |
| New York, NY and NJ | 3 | 139.2 | 3 | 144.7 | 3 | 137.2 | -3.8% | 1.5% |
| Beaumont, TX | 4 | 77.0 | 7 | 67.7 | 6 | 76.9 | 13.6% | 0.1% |
| Long Beach, CA | 5 | 75.4 | 4 | 72.5 | 8 | 69.9 | 4.0% | 8.0% |
| Corpus Christi, TX | 6 | 73.7 | 5 | 68.2 | 5 | 81.3 | 7.9% | -9.4% |
| New Orleans, LA | 7 | 72.4 | 6 | 68.1 | 4 | 90.0 | 6.3% | -19.5% |
| Los Angeles, CA | 8 | 62.4 | 9 | 58.4 | 15 | 48.1 | 6.8% | 29.6% |
| Huntington - Tristate | 9 | 61.5 | 8 | 59.2 | 7 | 76.9 | 4.0% | -20.0% |
| Texas City, TX | 10 | 56.6 | 10 | 52.6 | 11 | 58.1 | 7.5% | -2.6% |
| Plaquemines, LA, Port of | 11 | 55.8 | 14 | 50.9 | 10 | 59.7 | 9.8% | -6.4% |
| Mobile, AL | 12 | 55.7 | 12 | 52.2 | 13 | 53.7 | 6.7% | 3.8% |
| Baton Rouge, LA | 13 | 55.5 | 13 | 51.9 | 9 | 65.2 | 7.0% | -14.8% |
| Lake Charles, LA | 14 | 54.6 | 11 | 52.3 | 14 | 53.0 | 4.5% | 3.0% |
| Norfolk Harbor, VA | 15 | 41.6 | 15 | 40.3 | 18 | 42.3 | 3.1% | -1.8% |
| Baltimore, MD | 16 | 39.6 | 26 | 30.1 | 20 | 40.8 | 31.5% | -2.9% |
| Pascagoula, MS | 17 | 37.3 | 16 | 36.6 | 26 | 28.6 | 1.8% | 30.5% |
| Duluth - Superior, MN and WI | 18 | 36.6 | 25 | 30.2 | 19 | 41.7 | 21.1% | -12.2% |
| Savannah, GA | 19 | 34.7 | 21 | 32.3 | 37 | 19.5 | 7.2% | 77.7% |
| Tampa, FL | 20 | 34.2 | 17 | 34.9 | 17 | 46.5 | -2.0% | -26.4% |
| Philadelphia, PA | 21 | 34.0 | 22 | 31.8 | 21 | 40.8 | 7.2% | -16.6% |
| Pittsburgh, PA | 22 | 33.8 | 20 | 32.9 | 12 | 53.9 | 2.9% | -37.2% |
| Valdez, AK | 23 | 31.9 | 18 | 34.5 | 16 | 48.1 | -7.5% | -33.6% |
| St. Louis, MO and IL | 24 | 30.8 | 23 | 31.3 | 23 | 33.3 | -1.8% | -7.7% |
| Port Arthur, TX | 25 | 30.2 | 19 | 33.8 | 35 | 20.5 | -10.6% | 47.3% |
| Seattle, WA | 26 | 27.2 | 29 | 24.6 | 28 | 24.2 | 10.5% | 12.6% |
| Freeport, TX | 27 | 26.7 | 27 | 27.4 | 24 | 29.0 | -2.5% | -7.9% |
| Portland, OR | 28 | 25.9 | 31 | 23.3 | 22 | 34.3 | 11.3% | -24.4% |
| Richmond, CA | 29 | 24.2 | 28 | 25.4 | 38 | 19.4 | -4.7% | 24.7% |
| Tacoma, WA | 30 | 22.4 | 32 | 23.2 | 31 | 22.3 | -3.3% | 0.5% |
| Marcus Hook, PA | 31 | 21.9 | 30 | 24.6 | 32 | 21.2 | -10.7% | 3.6% |
| Newport News, VA | 32 | 20.8 | 37 | 18.0 | 48 | 13.8 | 15.5% | 51.0% |
| Port Everglades, FL | 33 | 20.2 | 35 | 20.1 | 30 | 22.5 | 0.9% | -10.1% |
| Jacksonville, FL | 34 | 19.1 | 38 | 17.7 | 36 | 19.7 | 8.1% | -3.0% |
| Boston, MA | 35 | 19.1 | 34 | 20.5 | 34 | 20.8 | -6.7% | -8.0% |
| Oakland, CA | 36 | 18.6 | 39 | 17.4 | 52 | 12.2 | 6.9% | 53.0% |
| Chicago, IL | 37 | 18.5 | 36 | 19.2 | 29 | 23.9 | -3.6% | -22.5% |
| Portland, ME | 38 | 18.2 | 33 | 21.0 | 25 | 28.8 | -13.5% | -36.9% |
| Charleston, SC | 39 | 18.0 | 40 | 15.8 | 33 | 21.1 | 13.6% | -14.7% |
| Paulsboro, NJ | 40 | 17.5 | 24 | 30.3 | 27 | 25.0 | -42.2% | -30.0% |
| Galveston, TX | 41 | 13.9 | 47 | 9.8 | 57 | 10.4 | 42.5% | 34.1% |
| Two Harbors, MN | 42 | 13.9 | 56 | 7.1 | 50 | 13.1 | 95.6% | 6.3% |
| Detroit, MI | 43 | 13.4 | 51 | 9.0 | 41 | 17.3 | 48.7% | -22.5% |
| Cincinnati, OH | 44 | 12.7 | 42 | 11.8 | 45 | 14.3 | 8.0% | -11.4% |
| Kalama, WA | 45 | 12.3 | 46 | 9.9 | 72 | 5.8 | 23.6% | 111.6% |
| Memphis, TN | 46 | 12.2 | 41 | 14.0 | 39 | 18.3 | -13.1% | -33.5% |
| San Juan, PR | 47 | 11.4 | 43 | 11.3 | 47 | 13.8 | 0.9% | -17.7% |
| Cleveland, OH | 48 | 10.8 | 64 | 6.1 | 44 | 14.4 | 77.6% | -25.0% |
| Toledo, OH | 49 | 10.7 | 48 | 9.7 | 49 | 13.3 | 10.7% | -19.5% |
| Indiana Harbor, IN | 50 | 10.2 | 52 | 8.2 | 42 | 16.2 | 24.0% | -37.2% |
| Total top 50b | NA | 2,127.8 | NA | 2,025.6 | NA | 2,182.7 | 5.0% | -2.5% |
| All ports | NA | 2,334.4 | NA | 2,210.8 | NA | 2,424.6 | 5.6% | -3.7% |
KEY: NA = not applicable.
a Tonnage totals include both domestic and foreign waterborne trade.
b Data for 2009 and 2000 are based on the top 50 water ports in 2009 and 2000, and are not a summation of the numbers in the table.
NOTE
Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.
SOURCE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 5, National Summaries (New Orleans, LA: Annual Issues), tables 1-1, and 5-2, available at http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/wcsc.htm as of July 5, 2012.