West Coast Trade Context for December 2023
By Jock O’Connell
We note that the National Retail Federation’s collaboration with Global Port Tracker (NRF/GPT) reported on February 9 that the thirteen major U.S. ports it monitors had processed 1.87 million inbound loads in December, up 8.3% from a year earlier. That brought the total of inbound loads for CY2023 to 22.3 million. Although that represented a 12.8% fall-off from the year before, it did constitute a 3.2% increase over the 21.6 million inbound loads those same ports handled in CY2019.
As usual, we start our port-by-port accounting in Southern California, where the nation’s two busiest container ports announced huge year-over-year increases in December, albeit over a relatively slow month for inbound loads last year.
The Port of Los Angeles posted a 3.6% year-over-year gain in inbound loads to 364,661 in December. Still, that was down 2.4% from December 2019. For the year as a whole, inbound loads totaled 4,441,330, down 10.7% from the preceding year and 5.8% below the 4,714,266 inbound loads the port handled in 2019. Outbound loads in December (121,575) jumped by 26.0% from a year earlier but were nonetheless 6.6% below the mark set in December 2019. For the year, outbound loads (1,291,997) were down 26.4% from 2019. Total container traffic through the port in 2023 (8,629,681) was down by 7.6% from 2019.
Next door at the Port of Long Beach, inbound loads in December (333,329) surged by 37.9% over the previous December and exceeded December 2019’s volume by 3.1%. Total inbound loads in 2023 (3,804,356) topped the number of inbound loads in 2019 by 1.2%. Outbound loads in December (103,688) were down 10.4% from a year earlier and off by 17.3% from December 2019. Outbound loads in 2023 (1,282,437) were down 12.9% from 2019. Total container traffic through the port in 2023 (8,018,668) was up by 5.1% from 2019.
Together, the two San Pedro Bay ports handled 16,648,349 loads and empties in 2023, 1.9% below the total volume the ports handled in 2019. Inbound loads (8,245,686) in 2023 were down 2.7% from 2019, while outbound loads (2,574,434) were off by 20.3% from 2019.
At the Port of Oakland, inbound loads (76,347) in December were up 16.4% y/y but still 6.1% below December 2019. For the entire year, inbound loads (838,231) were down 14.0% from 2019. Meanwhile, outbound loads in December (65,801) rose 12.9% y/y but were down 11.8% from the last month of 2019. For all of 2023, outbound loads (736,213) were down 20.9% from 2019. Total container traffic through the Northern California port in 2023 (2,065,709) was not merely down 17.4% from 2019, it was the smallest number of containers handled by the Northern California port since the depth of the Great Recession in 2009.
Up in Washington State, the Northwest Seaport Alliance Ports of Tacoma and Seattle saw year-over-year increases in their December container volumes. Inbound loads (88,101) edged up 3.4% from the same month a year earlier, while outbound loads soared by 44.6% to 67,622. Even so, the ports finished the year well shy of their 2019 numbers. Last year, 1,078,005 inbound loads came through the two ports, down by 21.3% from 2019’s volume. Similarly, outbound loads in 2023 (588,744) were off by 35.5% from 2019.
Collectively, the seven USWC ports we monitor handled 10,354,990 inbound loads during 2023, down 12.2% y/y and off by 5.4% from 2019. Outbound loads meanwhile totaled 3,931,983 last year, 22.8% below the volume in 2019.
Across the border in British Columbia, the Port of Vancouver inbound loads in December (144,504) jumped by 46.8% from an especially sluggish last month of 2022. Still, this December was up 2.8% over December 2019. For the whole year, inbound loads totaled 1,601,949, off by 6.3% from 2019. However, outbound loads in 2023 (588,744) were down 35.5% from 2019. For the entire year, total container traffic (3,125,559) at Canada’s largest container port was 8.0% below the volume the port handled in 2019.
The Port of Prince Rupert continued to see declining container volumes in December. Inbound loads (32,217) were down y/y by 25.2% and by 47.9% from December 2019. For the year, inbound loads (369,464) were 45.6% below the 678,699 recorded in 2019. The port’s traffic in outbound loads in 2023 (125,254) trailed 2019 by 34.8%. Total container trade in 2023 (704,248) was down 41.8% from 2019.
Back East, the nation’s third busiest container port, the Port of New York/New Jersey, recorded 326,412 inbound loads in December, up 7.5% year-over-year as well as 13.0% higher than December 2019. For the year, 3.990,270 inbound loads were discharged at the top Atlantic Coast maritime gateway, 5.8% more than in 2019. Outbound loads last year (1,284,976) were down by 12.0% from 2019. Total container traffic in 2023 (7,810.005) was 4.5% ahead of 2019.
The Port of Virginia reported 121,630 inbound loads in December, a 3.3% fall-off from a year earlier but a 17.3% gain over December 2019. For the year, inbound loads (1,525,900) were up 11.7% from 2019. Outbound loads in 2023 were up 14.0% over 2019. Total container traffic through the port this year (3,287,546) represented an increase of 11.9% over 2019.
Further south, the Port of Charleston saw a flattening of its overall container traffic. To be sure, December brought 103,556 inbound loads, a 26.6% bump over December 2019. That also gave the South Carolina maritime gateway a full-year total of 1,220,384 inbound loads, 14.4% more than the annual volume of inbound loads it had handled in 2019. But outbound traffic in 2023 was off by 9.1% from 2019. So, despite the hubbub about rising container volumes through ports in the Southeastern quadrant of the nation, total traffic of loads and empties (2,482,080) in 2023 was just 1.9% higher than the volume the port handled in 2019.
At the Port of Savannah, the 208,382 inbound loads discharged in December represented a 26.6% bump from December 2019, while total inbound loads for all of 2023 (2,402,328) were up 8.3% over 2019. Outbound loads from the Georgia gateway amounted to 1,336,121 in 2023. But that was down 9.1% from 2019.
Along the Gulf of Mexico, Port Houston handled 150,648 inbound loads in December and 1,787,539 inbound loads for the year, a gain of 46.3% over 2019. The Texas port handled 1,388,044 outbound loads in 2023, an increase of 9.7% over 2019.
Looking at shifts in coastal shares of the nation’s container trade, December saw USWC ports handle 46.8% of all inbound loads in December but a more modest 44.9% for the year. Both represented gains from the preceding year, but both were significantly below the shares USWC ports enjoyed in 2019 when 52.0% of all inbound loads passed through America’s Pacific Coast ports.
The USWC share of America’s containerized export trade actually contracted in 2023 to 34.8% from 35.3% in 2022 and from 39.6% in 2019. December, though, did see an uptick in the USWC export share from a year earlier.
We acknowledge that the maritime industry prefers to count containers. Some in the industry may even regard our routine reporting of the declared weights and values of containerized shipments as just so much pandering to economists. Still, as we shall see, there’s a good reason for publishing the numbers in Exhibits 4 and 5.
We remind readers that both exhibits display the USWC shares of the nation’s containerized trade through all mainland U.S. ports. The underlying data are derived from import/export documents shippers file with Customs and Border Protection. For a broader perspective, we compare the most recent month for which data are available with the same month in the preceding year, in pre-pandemic 2019, and a decade earlier.
Exhibit 4 shows a significant uptick in the USWC share of all containerized import tonnage flowing into the mainland U.S. ports with which USWC directly compete. Nearly all of the net gain can be attributed to increased volumes of imports through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Still, the latest USWC shares remain well below the historical benchmarks.
Exhibit 5 focuses on the USWC shares of U.S. containerized trade involving trading partners in East Asia. Again, the numbers indicate that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are capturing a significantly larger share of the containerized import trade as well as an appreciably bigger share of containerized exports to East Asia. The latest shares, however, remain sharply down from the historic benchmarks.
So why do we fuss about measuring the weight and dollar value of the nation’s containerized trade? Here’s one reason.
Earlier this month, we saw a report from a normally reputable source in the logistics industry claiming, contrary to all the bad economic news coming out of China lately, that “China is currently sending the highest volume of ocean container freight to the United States since May 2022”.
Regrettably, the only statistical evidence the author presented to support that statement was a graph showing container volumes leaving China for U.S. ports in January, a month in which such shipments normally surge in the run-up to the Lunar New Year.
But that’s not the whole story. For, even if TEU numbers are rising, data on the weight and actual value of the merchandise in those TEUs paint a much different picture of America’s recent imports from China. Viewing the data presented in Exhibits 6 and 7, we’re hard-pressed to identify much of a surge.
We came across a report from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics that could have been written yesterday. Except the date on its cover is December 2011. Here’s the key takeaway: “The U.S. population movement to the west and south has changed the ultimate destination for many imported consumer goods. Shippers are routing more cargo through U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, placing inland points and nearby consumers in easy reach.”
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “The Changing Tide of U.S.-International Container Trade: Differences Among the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific Coasts” (December 2011).
We couldn’t help but be amused by the Almond Board of California’s decision to counter the Super Bowl glamour of Taylor Swift by blowing a presumably huge wad of its marketing budget on a series of promotions featuring a celebrity of their own.
Celebrity endorsements are often ironed out months in advance. In this case, the Almond Board announced last summer that Deon “Coach Prime” Sanders would be promoting its products. That was on August 23 when Coach Prime and his University of Colorado Buffaloes football team were being excessively hyped by sports journalists. It was also before the Buffaloes took to the field and won their first three games. But bling apparently soon tarnishes in the mountain air. The Buffaloes went on to lose eight of their next nine games, finishing the season with a 4-8 record.
Some might be wondering whether the almond folks have been having any second thoughts about associating their brand with a high-profile college football coach with a losing record or whether they regret not cozying up instead with a California franchise that just happens to have played in this year’s Super Bowl.
While on the subject of nuts, the latest report from the Almond Board of California states that almond export tonnage in the current crop year, which began on August 1, is up 12.2% from a year earlier. Domestic shipments, by contrast, were down by 0.6%. Some 73.8% of all almond shipments between August 1 and January 31 went to foreign markets, where Coach Prime may not exactly be a known commodity.
The current crop year for walnuts and pistachios both started on September 1.
The California Walnut Board reports that exports of inshell walnuts through January were up 30.3% over the previous crop year. 96.7% of those inshell walnut shipments were exported. Shelled walnut exports meanwhile were up 18.5% year-over-year. 52.2% of all shelled walnut shipments in the current crop year went to foreign markets.
The latest data from the Administrative Committee for Pistachios, the marketing organization that supervises pistachio growers and shippers, show a 97.2% jump in exports in the current crop year through January. Foreign markets accounted for 82.8% of all pistachio shipments in the past five months.
Almost all of the commercially grown almonds, walnuts, and pistachios come from California and adjacent regions of Nevada and Arizona. But Oregon’s Willamette Valley accounts for 99% of the nation's hazelnuts. About half the crop is exported to Europe and Asia. Over 90% of exports are shipped in shell.
Not surprisingly, almost three-quarters of all hazelnut exports depart from the Northwest Seaport Alliance Ports of Tacoma and Seattle and the Port of Portland on the Columbia River.
The Hazelnut Industry Office in Aurora, Oregon claims that “filbert” is the correct name for the fruit of the Corylus avellana tree. However, the Oregon Filbert Commission insists on using “hazelnut”. The Oregon state law that established the fruit as the official state nut says that either is acceptable.
That may be so, but there’s possibly an intriguing twist to the history of the hazelnut/filbert in the Willamette Valley. It turns out that a French immigrant named David Gernot planted the first filbert trees in the valley around 1880. Being French, he likely would have pronounced filbert in the French manner, dropping the “t” and emphasizing the second syllable. Have we been mispronouncing the hazelnut’s alternate name all these years?