Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

OP 403JHOP

Authors

OP 403JHOP

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "OP_403JHOP.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "4241554" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(51126) "Occasional Papers Imports, Exports, and Shipping Services: The Balance Between California and Other States Jon D. Haveman Research Fellow Public Policy Institute of California This material was requested by the California Congressional Delegation staff and prepared as background for a briefing in April 2003. Public Policy Institute of California The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Summary Congress is in the process of allocating more than $200 billion over the next five years for improvements in the U.S. surface transportation system. This process will update federal transportation laws such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998. These laws distribute federal expenditures to states and other local administering entities via formulas called apportionments. In 2002, California received $2.7 billion, less than 9 percent of the nation’s total apportionments. This amount is also less than California’s contributions to the system through fuel tax payments, making California a net donor state.1 This donor status is inconsistent with the increased burden on California’s infrastructure that is the result of growing international trade. California’s position on the western coast of the United States provides it with important portals through which imports and exports flow. In 2000, almost $440 billion in internationally traded goods flowed through California. Of this, $149 billion was made up of U.S. exports, and $290 billion was made up of imported products. More than $49 billion in exports passed through California on their way from some other mainland states to their ultimate destination. In addition, as much as $248 billion worth of imports may have entered the United States through California for ultimate use in some other state. Once California’s shipments through other states are accounted for, $177 billion worth of goods, weighing 32 billion kilograms, are transshipped through California by other states in excess of what California ships through other states. The size of this surplus is equivalent to approximately 9.3 percent of the value of all freight shipments in and through California and 1.8 percent of the weight of these shipments. Because most of these goods are shipped by truck on California’s highways, this traffic places a heavy burden on the state’s roads, increases congestion, and poses significant safety issues for state residents who make use of the these same roads. These findings may help outline a case for additional benefits for California in the forthcoming reauthorization of the TEA-21 Act. ____________ 1 Ransdell and Boloorian, 2003. -1- Contents SUMMARY INTRODUCTION OVERALL SHIPPING SERVICES BALANCE EXPORTS IMPORTS RECAPITULATION REFERENCES Appendix A. Methodology Exports Imports Mode Data Issues Appendix B. Complete Tables 1 3 5 11 15 19 21 23 23 23 24 24 25 -2- Introduction The efficient movement of goods is essential to the smooth functioning of the U.S. economy. As international production-sharing, outsourcing, and joint ventures, become increasingly commonplace, goods movement both across and within borders increases. Accordingly, the role played by California and other coastal states in terms of moving goods to and from foreign countries is also growing in importance. In 2000, almost $400 billion in internationally traded goods flowed through California. Of this, $149 billion was made up of exported goods from throughout the continental United States. The majority, $244 billion, was made up of goods imported for use throughout the continental United States. Exporting and importing often require that goods travel through other states on their way to and from foreign shores. This transshipment of goods through other states imposes a cost on these other states. To the extent that California is a state through which imports or exports of other states frequently travel, it bears a significant burden in providing and maintaining sufficient transportation infrastructure. This paper attempts to measure that burden by providing an account of the shipping services surplus or deficit between California and the other states in the continental United States.2 The term “shipping services surplus” refers to the extent to which one state provides more shipping services to another state than it demands in return. The tabulation of this surplus considers both imports and exports, implying four components to the calculation. From California’s perspective, these components include: • Exports flowing through California that originate in some other state, • Exports flowing out of California, but leaving U.S. shores from a portal in another state, • Imports arriving in California that are ultimately destined for use in another state, and • Imports destined for use in California, but that first arrived on U.S. shores in another state. ____________ 2 Because is unlikely that imports and exports for Hawaii, Alaska, and other U.S. territories travel through California, or that California’s imports and exports travel through these states, we have omitted them from the analysis. -3- This calculation omits both California exports that go abroad without traveling through another state and imports into California that are absorbed by consumers and producers in California. A surplus in the above account represents a transfer of resources from California to other states. In what follows, we present an overview of California’s international freight-related shipping services balance. This is followed by separate presentations of the contribution of exports and imports to the services balance. In each case, we present evidence on the balance by value and weight. The balance by value provides an indication of the level of economic activity that is supported by this trade, whereas the balance by weight is a better indicator of the actual burden placed on resources in shipping these goods. -4- Overall Shipping Services Balance In total, California services some $177 billion worth of goods weighing in at over 32 billion kilograms in excess of what Californians demand from other states (Table 1). The majority of this shipping surplus arises from the transshipment of imported products. Almost 90 percent, or $156 billion, of the $177 billion surplus is the result of a higher value of imports coming through California for use in other states than arrives in other states for use in California. By weight, imported products account for two-thirds, or some 22 billion kilograms of the 32 billion kilogram imbalance. Table 1 California’s Aggregate International Trade-Related Shipping Services Surplus in 2000 Billions of Dollars Exports Imports Total Shipments for California Through Other States* 29.1 91.8 120.9 Shipments for Other States Through California** 49.4 248.0 297.4 Shipping Services Surplus 20.3 156.2 176.5 Billions of KG Exports Imports Total 9.9 68.2 78.1 20.5 90.0 110.5 10.6 21.8 32.4 *These figures include both imports for Californians that arrive on U.S. shores in other states and California exports that depart from U.S. shores via port facilities in other states. **Similarly, the figures in this column also account for both imports arriving in California and exports departing through California ports. To put this surplus in perspective, we compare the flows presented above to total freight shipments in California. From U.S. Department of Transportation (2002), we are able to generate figures for both the total value and weight of all freight shipments making use of California’s infrastructure. The data there indicate total shipments originating in and destined for California in 1997. These figures are not directly comparable to those in Table 1, which are for 2000. Instead, we assume that freight shipments involving California grow at the same rate as Gross State Product for the United States as a whole between 1997 and 2000. After making this adjustment, we find that total freight shipments through California totaled $1,908 billion and weighed a total of 1,757 billion kilograms. Accordingly, the shipping services surplus for California amounts to 9.3 percent of the total value and 1.8 percent of the weight of all goods placing demand on California’s infrastructure. -5- Table 2 Shipping Services by Mode of Transportation Mode Total By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipments for Shipments for Shipments for Shipments for California Other States Shipping California Other States Shipping Through Through Services Through Through Services Other States California Surplus Other States California Surplus 121,021 297,509 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 Air Rail Truck Parcel Water Pipeline Rail & Water Truck & Rail Truck & Water Other Multiple Mode Other Unknown 6,337 5,899 81,607 17,600 1,176 695 59 1,584 65 11 5,988 16,006 9,554 201,985 50,192 1,451 714 37 3,263 121 12 14,173 9,669 3,655 120,378 32,592 275 19 -22 1,679 56 1 8,185 4 3,816 73,116 68 425 246 56 7 0 0 358 12 3,147 106,151 200 397 216 34 12 0 0 369 8 -669 33,035 132 -28 -30 -22 5 0 0 11 Servicing this volume of goods is costly to California, particularly when the modes of transportation employed are financed in large part from state resources. Table 2 presents a decomposition of the surplus by mode of transportation. Both by value and by weight, the majority of the surplus is shipped by truck. Trucking is likely to be the most costly form of transport for a state to bear, given that it is the most heavily supported by state resources. 3 A larger proportion of air transportation infrastructure is borne by the federal government, and the rail system is largely privately owned and operated. Likewise, the costs of intrastate transportation by water are largely borne by those engaged in the activity rather than by the state. Given the composition of the shipping surplus by mode, this service to other states is likely to be very costly for California. As all states are not uniformly engaged in international trade, it is important to assess the sources of the imbalance on a state-by-state basis. Table 3 presents the states with which California has the largest surpluses and deficits, by weight. In all, there are ____________ 3 U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001, provides great detail on transportation expenditures by mode and by state. On a ton-mile basis, trucking received 200 times the government expenditures than did rail. Data on relative expenditures for the other modes are much more difficult to come by. By ton shipped, highway expenditures were five times those for in support if water transportation. A comparison by air is complicated by expenditures on passenger travel facilities. -6- 38 states with which California maintains a surplus. This surplus is particularly significant for five states: Ohio, North Carolina, New Jersey, Illinois, and Indiana. The imbalances with these states are largely the result of an imbalance with respect to imports. As three of these are large inland states, the flow of imports that enter through California and find their way to these states is substantial. Conversely, both the value and weight of imports that are used by California that first arrive in these states are very small. Table 3 Selected Shipping Services Balances by State4 State Total By Value ($ Millions) Shipments Shipments for for Other California States Through Through Other States California 121,021 297,509 By Weight Shipping Services Surplus (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for for Other California States Shipping Through Through Services Other States California Surplus 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 Ohio North Carolina New Jersey Illinois Indiana Montana Michigan Washington Texas Louisiana New York 5,574 324 1,231 4,699 615 1,075 14,726 9,331 19,502 7,959 26,989 14,362 9,238 9,850 16,192 8,489 568 14,504 7,060 30,718 4,323 21,091 8,788 8,914 8,619 11,493 7,873 -507 -221 -2,271 11,217 -3,636 -5,898 1,012 254 626 2,282 100 1,509 6,085 5,197 15,472 8,955 14,777 5,315 3,933 3,844 5,285 3,081 292 4,675 2,502 12,733 3,134 6,675 4,302 3,679 3,218 3,002 2,981 -1,217 -1,410 -2,695 -2,739 -5,821 -8,102 California runs a deficit with the remaining ten states in the continental United States. The deficits with two states in particular are sizable. Louisiana and New York combined account for almost 14 billion kilograms of deficit, implying that they service substantially more trade for California than California services for them. These states both receive significant volumes of imports, which is the driving force behind this imbalance. ____________ 4 Appendix B provides tables with data for all states and sectors. -7- By weight, exports make up almost 90 percent of California’s surplus. Table 4 lists the six two-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) sectors in which California has the largest shipping surplus and those two in which California has the largest shipping deficit with other states. Shipments of products in the Stone, Clay, and Glass sector account for more than 40 percent of the total surplus in shipping weight. Note that these products, accounting for almost half of the weight surplus, are also very cheap, valued at roughly $0.15 per kilogram. Accordingly, they contribute only $2 billion to the $177 billion surplus in the value of goods shipped. Food and kindred products also average just under $1 per kilogram. In contrast, industrial machinery and equipment, which contributes significantly to the value shipping services balance, are priced at $11.19 per kilogram. Those products offsetting the surplus, Petroleum and Mining, are also low-value products, valued at approximately $0.12 per kilogram. Table 4 Selected Shipping Services Balance by Sector Sector All Sectors By Value By Weight ($ Millions) (Millions of KG) Shipments for Shipments California for Other Through States Other Through States California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for Shipments California for Other Through States Other Through States California Shipping Services Surplus 121,021 297,509 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Food and Kindred Products Industrial Machinery and Equipment Miscellaneous Manufacturing Apparel and Other Textile Products Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Petroleoum and Coal Products Mining Products 1,513 3,713 18,491 4,362 6,016 25,157 2,450 2,040 3,637 7,504 58,039 15,341 19,871 86,109 1,989 1,249 2,123 3,790 39,548 10,978 13,855 60,951 -461 -791 9,964 3,929 1,652 1,334 1,140 1,048 7,221 23,711 23,945 7,940 5,185 4,691 3,765 3,588 5,862 14,515 13,981 4,011 3,533 3,357 2,625 2,540 -1,359 -9,195 -8- The rest of this paper will shed additional light on these patterns by decomposing the shipments into their export and import components.5 In each case, the state-to-state relationships are disaggregated by mode of transport. ____________ 5 See Appendix A for a brief description of the methods used for calculating both the import and export shipping services balances. -9- - 10 - Exports This section discusses the extent to which California provides more in the way of export transportation services to other states than it requires in return. This exercise takes into account both goods exported by other states through California and goods exported by California through other states. In fact, a significant proportion of California’s exports do not flow directly through a California port. Approximately one quarter of California’s 2001 exports, by value, left U.S. soil by way of a port in some other state. Both by weight and by value, California is running a significant trade surplus in the provision of export freight transportation services (Table 5). On a value basis, exports account for only 12 percent of the total trade shipping surplus, account almost a third of the weight-based surplus. Table 5 California’s Export Shipping Trade Balance By Value ($ B) By Weight (B KG) California’s Exports Through other States 29.1 9.9 Other States’ Exports Through California 49.4 20.5 California’s Shipping Surplus 20.3 10.6 By value, more than $20 billion more exports flow through California on their way to foreign shores than California ships through other states.6 Given California’s position on the western coast of the United States, this result is not surprising. Regardless of their state of origin, most goods destined for Asia or the South Pacific by ship will travel through California. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (1), the $49 billion figure represents approximately 16 percent of all goods shipped to California from other states. Reflecting this significant excess of goods flowing through California over those shipped by California through other states, the surplus is almost 11 billion kilograms by weight. ____________ 6 This number may actually understate California’s surplus. These statistics are based on a series maintained by the Census bureau that is referred to as the Origin of Movement series. This series records the location where goods started their export journey rather, which is often not the same as where they were produced. There is a tendency for shipments to be attributed to California when in fact the goods were manufactured in other states. The same problem arises when calculating the value of California’s exports through other states. However, if the same proportion of goods are misclassified regardless of their state of origin, the figures for California are understated by a smaller amount than are the figures for other U.S. exports through California and the surplus is understated. - 11 - Table 6 Export Balance by Mode Mode Total By Value By Weight ($ Millions) Shipments Shipments for Other for California States Through Through Other States California Shipping Services Surplus (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for Other for California States Shipping Through Through Services Other States California Surplus 29,185 49,492 20,308 9,898 20,490 10,592 Air Rail Truck Parcel Water Pipeline Rail & Water Truck & Rail Truck & Water Other Multiple Mode Other Unknown 1,690 943 19,249 5,264 226 85 2 306 15 2 1,404 2,647 1,898 33,318 8,142 409 210 6 529 28 3 2,302 957 955 14,069 2,878 183 125 5 223 13 2 898 1 263 9,475 20 70 28 1 1 0 0 39 2 752 19,470 30 108 49 6 2 0 0 72 1 489 9,995 10 38 20 5 1 0 0 33 Table 6 provides detail on California’s export shipping surplus by mode of transportation. Of a shipping surplus in excess of $20 billion, just under three-quarters is accounted for by truck, the mode that imposes the greatest cost on a hosting state. Parcel is a distant second, followed by air and rail.7 Other modes, or mode combinations, are rare relative to those four, with correspondingly small trade balances, but all are nonetheless positive. This is also true on a weight basis, with trucking accounting for more than 95 percent of the surplus. California is a net provider of shipping services to exporters in 39 of the 48 continental United States. The surplus is quite evenly distributed across states. In fact, California runs a trade surplus of over $1 billion with only one state (Texas), and runs a deficit of the same size with only one other (Louisiana). Table 7 presents greater detail on California’s state-to-state export freight balances for those states with the largest surplus’ and deficits. By far, the largest amount of state-to-state export swapping is undertaken with Texas. Total export flows between the two states amount to almost $14 billion. Texas is also the state to which California is the largest net provider of ____________ 7 Goods shipped by parcel also travel by truck, air, and rail. As such, the other categories are to some extent understated. - 12 - export shipping services. The excess of Texas’ exports through California over California’s exports through Texas accounts for one-third of California’s surplus by value and almost one-quarter of the surplus by weight, more than twice as much as any other state. Table 7 Selected California Export Freight Balances by State State Total By Value ($ Millions) Shipments Shipments for for Other California States Through Through Other States California 29,185 49,492 By Weight Shipping Services Surplus (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for for Other California States Shipping Through Through Services Other States California Surplus 20,308 9,898 20,490 10,592 Texas Oregon Utah Arizona Virginia North Carolina 3,987 354 1 388 78 36 9,868 2,943 1,200 4,761 1,154 1,155 5,881 2,589 1,200 4,373 1,076 1,119 1,407 308 0 84 46 63 3,699 1,153 792 857 812 821 2,291 844 792 773 766 758 Washington New York Michigan Louisiana 2,055 4,519 4,434 4,312 988 1,480 1,538 849 -1,067 -3,039 -2,897 -3,463 950 1,303 1,446 2,242 420 -530 523 -780 566 -880 962 -1,280 By sector, the export surplus is concentrated in four sectors when considering weight (Table 8). These sectors account for more than three-quarters of the shipping services surplus. In a very small number of sectors—Agricultural Production is the only significant one—California runs a deficit in shipping services with other continental states. By value, the surplus is more widely distributed, with five sectors each contributing more than $1 billion to the surplus. Note that the Stone, Clay and Glass Products category contributes very little to the surplus by value. - 13 - Table 8 Selected California Export Freight Balances by Sector Mode Total By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 29,185 49,492 20,308 9,898 20,490 10,592 Food and Kindred Products Chemicals and Allied Products Mining Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Agricultural Production 953 1,101 43 197 1,511 3,274 3,753 211 414 1,183 2,322 2,652 168 217 -328 1,008 984 499 1,296 1,925 3,465 3,355 2,456 2,726 1,508 2,457 2,371 1,957 1,430 -417 - 14 - Imports Imports are the other side of the trade equation. In 2000, California was a net provider of shipping services, in the amount of $156 billion, or almost 22 billion kilograms of imports (Table 9). Imports are responsible for the majority of California’s overall surplus both by value and by weight. Comparing the import figures by value with shipping data in U.S. Department of Transportation (2002), the $156 billion in imports handled by California for other states accounts for almost 17 percent of the value, but only 3.8 percent of the weight of all goods shipped from California to other states. Table 9 California’s Import Shipping Trade Balance By Value ($ B) By Weight (B KG) California’s Imports Through other States 91.8 68.2 Other States’ Imports Through California 248.0 90.0 California’s Trade Surplus 156.2 21.8 As with exports, imports are primarily shipped by truck. By value, trucking accounts for a little over two-thirds of the shipping services surplus that California holds over other states. By weight, however, trucking makes up the vast majority of imports shipped and is equal to 115 percent of California’s import related shipping services surplus. This surplus in trucking is primarily offset by a deficit in the rail category equal to about 5 percent of the surplus in trucking. Four other categories also have small deficits. Compared to other states’ shipments of imported goods, California’s imports are more commonly shipped by rail and less commonly shipped by truck. - 15 - Table 10 Import Balance by Mode Mode Total By Value By Weight ($ Millions) (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for Other for California States Through Through Other States California Shipments Shipping for California Services Through Surplus Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 91,836 248,017 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 Air Rail Truck Parcel Water Pipeline Rail & Water Truck & Rail Truck & Water Other Multiple Mode Other Unknown 4,647 4,956 62,358 12,336 950 610 57 1,278 50 9 4,584 13,359 7,656 168,667 42,050 1,042 504 31 2,734 93 9 11,871 8,711 2,700 106,309 29,713 92 -106 -26 1,457 43 0 7,287 3 3,553 63,641 48 355 218 55 6 0 0 319 10 2,395 86,681 170 289 167 28 10 0 0 297 6 -1,158 23,040 122 -66 -52 -26 5 0 0 -22 The distribution of the surplus resulting from the shipment of imported goods is much more even that is the case for exports (Table 11). California has a significant surplus with several states and a significant deficit with several others. Comparing the states listed in Table 11 with those in Table 3, it is clear that the shipment of imports is driving the overall freight shipping balances between California and other states. The same states are listed here as having the largest import freight shipping surplus as were listed in Table 3. In addition, five of the six states listed in Table 3 are listed here as having the largest freight shipping deficits with California. North Dakota replaces Michigan in this table, indicating that Michigan services a greater volume of exports for California than does North Dakota. - 16 - Table 11 Selected California Import Freight Balances by State State Total By Value ($ Millions) Shipments Shipments for Other for California States Through Through Other States California 91,836 248,017 By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 Ohio North Carolina New Jersey Indiana Illinois 1,924 287 961 84 4,209 12,721 8,083 9,096 7,433 13,565 10,797 7,795 8,135 7,349 9,357 470 191 564 21 2,202 4,558 3,112 3,479 2,705 4,519 4,088 2,920 2,914 2,684 2,317 North Dakota Montana Washington Louisiana Texas New York 995 550 7,276 3,647 15,515 22,470 504 537 6,072 3,473 20,851 19,611 -491 -12 -1,204 -173 5,336 -2,859 1,099 1,330 4,247 6,713 14,064 13,473 198 256 2,082 2,173 9,035 6,152 -901 -1,074 -2,165 -4,541 -5,030 -7,322 By sector, the surplus is also distributed evenly. Six sectors appear with a surplus by weight of more than 2 billion kilograms, but only two have a deficit of more than $1 billion. Mining Products have a significant deficit of more than 11 billion kilograms. - 17 - Table 12 Selected California Import Freight Balances by Sector Sector Total By Value By Weight ($ Millions) (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for Shipments for Shipments California for Other California for Other Through States Shipping Through States Shipping Other Through Services Other Through Services States California Surplus States California Surplus 91,836 248,017 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 Stone, Clay and Glass Products Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industrial Machinery and Equipment Apparel and Other Textile Products Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Agricultural Services, Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping 1,316 3,849 11,364 5,769 16,061 737 3,223 1,906 14,824 46,265 19,568 71,483 10,975 34,900 13,799 55,422 2,738 2,000 8,668 1,177 1,015 1,093 669 767 21,219 12,551 4,533 4,133 3,707 2,979 3,356 3,118 2,614 2,310 2,847 2,080 Petroleoum and Coal Products Mining Products 2,167 1,628 -540 6,389 4,799 -1,591 1,997 1,038 -959 23,212 12,060 -11,152 - 18 - Recapitulation California provides shipping services on $177 billion worth of traded goods for other states in excess of what other states provide for California’s international trade activities. Of perhaps greater importance is the finding that when measured by weight, this surplus amounts to more than 32 billion kilograms of goods shipped via California’s transportation facilities. Further, California’s highways support a surplus of 33 billion kilograms with other states. Although both the value and weight of trade with Texas dwarfs the totals of any of California’s other bilateral relationships, it is with inland states (such as Ohio, Illinois and Indiana) that California has a significant shipping surplus. These large states have important industrial sectors and demand significant quantities of imports, much of which enter the United States through ports in California. The surplus is large because none of these states is likely to be the first point of contact for imports to California or the point of departure for exports from California. By value and weight, imports contributed the most significantly to the surplus. This surplus, along with the fact that most intra-continental shipping takes place on highways, is very important for California. The provision of infrastructure for trucking is, by a significant margin, the most costly in terms of wear and tear on California’s infrastructure investments. It is also very costly in terms of the pollution and congestion problems plaguing much of California. At the same time, however, it must be recognized that this surplus represents a relatively small share, 1.8 percent by weight, of all shipping that takes place in California. - 19 - - 20 - References Ransdell, Tim and Shervin Boloorian, Federal Formula Grants and California: Federal Highway Programs, Public Policy Institute of California, 2003. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (1999), “United States: Exports,” 1997 Economic Census, Transportation, 1997 Commodity Flow Survey. http://www.bts.gov/Ntda/cfs/97cfexp.pdf U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2001), “Government Transportation Financial Statistics 2001.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2002), “California: Transportation Profile.” - 21 - - 22 - Appendix A. Methodology The data for exports are more complete than are those for imports. As a result, the methods employed for producing the international freight shipping surplus differ. This appendix first outlines the calculation of the export surplus and then turns to imports. Exports The published data for exports provide an excellent starting point for analyzing California’s shipping surplus. The published data provide: 1. Each state’s exports by state of departure 2. Exports produced in each state by sector 3. The industrial composition of the exports flowing through each state. The overall shipping surplus by value is readily obtained from (2002). However, to generate the surplus by weight, it is necessary to compute the surplus by sector. The weight of exports varies considerably across sectors. The procedure for calculating the weight of goods shipped by each state through every other state begins by allocating each state’s exports by sector (as in 2) to one of the other states. This allocation is carried out according to the sector composition of exports passing through each state (3). This allocation is then adjusted so that it is consistent with each of the values in 1. The result of this procedure is a matrix that contains the distribution of each state’s exports by state and by sector. The weight of each states exports through other state’s is then calculated with the use of statistics on the weight of U.S. aggregate exports by sector. Imports The published data for imports are much less conducive to this type of analysis. Of the three components listed above, we know only the composition of imports flowing into each state by 2-digit SIC sector. However, it is possible to estimate number 2 above by using import use statistics by sector from the United States as a whole. These data are available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) as part of its input output accounts. The BEA also collects statistics on industrial production by state. Combining these data provides an estimate of each state’s import use by sector, the second component. Once we have each state’s import use by sector, those imports are distributed across entry points according to their distribution of sector imports by state. This - 23 - distribution yields the value of imports by state according to the state in which those imports first arrive on U.S. shores. From this point, the weight of imports is calculated by the average weight of import shipments through each state, by sector. Mode Data from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey are used to estimate the mode of transportation used for exports and imports from one state to another. In particular, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics has published a report detailing the mode by which exported goods commonly flow.8 It was assumed that the shipments for each state, from each state, by sector, match those of the total for all shipments in 1997. Data Issues As there are no specific data that cover the direction, sector, and mode of traded goods, we have pieced together this picture of U.S. freight shipping services with data from several sources. To isolate these patterns, we have made several assumptions, including the following: 1. Shipments by firms in the continental United States do not travel through extra-continental territories. Data for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have been excluded. 2. Each state’s imports of a particular commodity are assumed to enter the United States in the same distribution as all imports of that commodity enter the United States. 3. We have excluded all data for the Petroleum and Coal Products industry. This affects primarily the import side of the equation. The first assumption results in the omission of a small amount of goods that are presumably unrelated to surface transportation issues in the continental United States. The second assumption likely results in an overstatement of the absolute size of the shipment of imports for other states through California, but as it exaggerates the shipment of California’s imports through other states by the same amount, the calculated surplus is not affected. Finally, the third assumption is made because we have information from other sources that the imports in support of this industry arrive almost entirely in California via ocean liner or pipeline. When this sector is included in the calculation of the surplus, it results in a severe understatement of California’s shipping services surplus by weight. ____________ 8 See U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (1999). - 24 - Appendix B. Complete Tables Table B.1 Surplus by State By Value ($ Millions) State Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Alabama 264 4,049 Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist. of Col. Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey 1,769 52 177 206 219 583 5,559 3,004 196 4,699 615 2 31 98 7,959 764 1,850 1,245 14,726 890 334 84 1,075 3 446 55 1,231 9,659 2,516 6,692 4,777 955 814 12,830 9,623 2,701 16,192 8,489 3,573 3,451 5,051 4,323 1,152 4,876 8,605 14,504 6,491 2,199 6,162 568 2,408 2,066 1,747 9,850 By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 3,784 7,889 2,464 6,515 4,572 736 230 7,270 6,619 2,504 11,493 7,873 3,572 3,420 4,953 -3,636 388 3,027 7,360 -221 5,601 1,865 6,077 -507 2,405 1,619 1,692 8,619 504 556 96 315 193 416 194 2,527 1,452 358 2,282 100 1 18 21 8,955 923 972 1,106 6,085 1,778 661 45 1,509 2 112 67 626 1,803 2,361 1,142 2,195 1,460 357 218 4,281 3,872 782 5,285 3,081 1,428 1,436 1,898 3,134 505 1,686 2,462 4,675 2,239 1,032 2,185 292 1,074 844 514 3,844 1,299 1,805 1,046 1,880 1,267 -58 24 1,754 2,419 425 3,002 2,981 1,427 1,417 1,876 -5,821 -418 714 1,356 -1,410 461 371 2,140 -1,217 1,072 733 447 3,218 - 25 - Table B.1 Surplus by State (continued) State New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Shipments for California Through Other States 123 26,989 324 1,152 5,574 4 1,384 2,136 73 2,599 2 562 19,502 3 1,052 1,975 9,331 0 98 1 By Value ($ Millions) Shipments for Other States Through California 3,132 21,091 9,238 508 14,362 3,144 7,463 12,413 975 3,734 709 6,494 30,718 2,995 574 7,990 7,060 1,428 6,724 437 By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 3,009 21 852 831 -5,898 14,777 6,675 -8,102 8,914 254 3,933 3,679 -644 1,179 200 -980 8,788 1,012 5,315 4,302 3,140 0 1,257 1,257 6,079 584 2,567 1,983 10,277 3,322 5,039 1,716 903 165 335 170 1,135 1,294 1,455 161 707 2 239 237 5,932 594 2,430 1,835 11,217 15,472 12,733 -2,739 2,992 4 1,487 1,482 -479 789 201 -587 6,015 1,435 3,177 1,742 -2,271 5,197 2,502 -2,695 1,428 0 1,326 1,326 6,626 120 2,334 2,214 436 3 397 395 Total 121,021 297,509 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 - 26 - Table B.2 Surplus by Sector By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Sector Agricultural Production Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 3,080 3,062 -18 3,925 3,902 -23 Agricultural Services, Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping Mining Products Food and Kindred Products Tobacco Manufacturers Textile Mill Products Apparel and Other Textile Products Lumber and Wood Products Furniture and Fixtures Paper and Allied Products Printing and Publishing Chemical and Allied Products Petroleoum and Coal Products Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products Leather and Leather Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Primary Metal Industries Fabricated Metal Products 776 2,040 3,713 52 1,135 6,016 1,704 1,024 1,917 559 7,500 2,450 2,089 1,452 1,513 4,907 3,294 2,807 1,249 7,504 705 2,616 19,871 2,045 4,546 2,127 1,264 9,688 1,989 6,541 9,018 3,637 4,816 8,251 2,032 -791 3,790 653 1,481 13,855 341 3,521 210 705 2,188 -461 4,451 7,566 2,123 -92 4,957 807 23,711 3,929 37 427 1,140 6,125 214 1,344 106 6,705 7,221 1,006 125 9,964 4,258 909 2,919 14,515 7,940 495 985 3,765 7,352 951 1,492 239 8,661 5,862 3,151 775 23,945 4,179 2,277 2,113 -9,195 4,011 458 557 2,625 1,227 737 147 133 1,956 -1,359 2,144 650 13,981 -79 1,368 Industrial Machinery and Equipment Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Transportation Equipment Instruments and Related Products 18,491 25,157 20,852 6,935 58,039 86,109 32,040 14,246 39,548 60,951 11,188 7,311 1,652 1,048 1,282 827 5,185 3,588 1,970 1,699 3,533 2,540 688 872 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 4,362 15,341 10,978 1,334 4,691 3,357 ALL SECTORS 121,021 297,509 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 - 27 - Table B.3 Export Surplus By State By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Mode Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Alabama 24 441 417 16 311 295 Arizona 388 4,761 4,373 84 857 773 Arkansas 0 423 423 0 267 267 Colorado 54 2,177 2,123 19 604 585 Connecticut 3 187 184 0 57 57 Delaware 7 54 47 2 33 31 Dist. of Col. 137 45 -92 21 10 -10 Florida 1,148 565 -583 258 164 -94 Georgia 284 1,234 950 128 799 670 Idaho 57 1,377 1,320 19 321 302 Illinois 491 2,626 2,136 81 766 685 Indiana 531 1,055 524 79 376 297 Iowa 0 667 667 0 309 309 Kansas 0 890 890 0 550 550 Kentucky 27 672 645 4 313 309 Louisiana 4,312 849 -3,463 2,242 962 -1,280 Maine 22 169 148 15 127 112 Maryland 55 184 129 27 71 44 Massachusetts 92 594 501 13 111 98 Michigan 4,434 1,538 -2,897 1,446 566 -880 Minnesota 49 821 772 23 328 305 Mississippi 13 248 235 8 173 164 Missouri 11 536 525 1 228 227 Montana 525 30 -495 179 36 -143 Nebraska 0 717 717 0 517 517 Nevada 431 451 20 106 128 22 New Hampshire 0 115 114 0 29 29 New Jersey 269 754 484 62 366 303 New Mexico 3 1,404 1,400 1 158 157 - 28 - Table B.3 Export Surplus By State (continued) By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Mode Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus New York 4,519 1,480 -3,039 1,303 523 -780 North Carolina 36 1,155 1,119 63 821 758 North Dakota 157 3 -153 80 2 -79 Ohio 3,651 1,641 -2,010 542 757 215 Oklahoma 0 321 321 0 104 104 Oregon 354 2,943 2,589 308 1,153 844 Pennsylvania 501 731 230 124 390 266 Rhode Island 0 78 78 0 24 24 South Carolina 111 236 125 59 116 57 South Dakota 0 21 21 0 9 9 Tennessee 333 913 580 173 400 227 Texas 3,987 9,868 5,881 1,407 3,699 2,291 Utah 1 1,200 1,200 0 792 792 Vermont 29 20 -10 5 3 -2 Virginia 78 1,154 1,076 46 812 766 Washington 2,055 988 -1,067 950 420 -530 West Virginia 0 312 312 0 660 660 Wisconsin 2 839 836 3 259 257 Wyoming 0 8 8 0 11 11 Total 29,185 49,492 20,308 9,898 20,490 10,592 - 29 - Table B.4 Export Shipping Services by Sector Sector Agricultural Production Agricultural Services, Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping Mining Products Food and Kindred Products Tobacco Manufacturers Textile Mill Products Apparel and Other Textile Products Lumber and Wood Products Furniture and Fixtures Paper and Allied Products Printing and Publishing Chemical and Allied Products Petroleoum and Coal Products Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products Leather and Leather Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Primary Metal Industries Fabricated Metal Products Industrial Machinery and Equipment Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Transportation Equipment Instruments and Related Products Miscellaneous Manufacturing Total By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipments Shipments Shipping for for Other Services California States Surplus Through Through Other States California Shipping Services Surplus 1,511 1,183 -328 1,925 1,508 -417 38 43 953 19 127 247 126 72 248 170 1,101 282 456 52 197 491 595 7,127 9,096 2,398 3,323 513 29,185 70 211 3,274 650 218 303 232 112 559 227 3,753 361 905 213 414 779 939 11,774 14,626 3,967 4,204 517 49,492 31 168 2,322 631 90 56 106 39 311 57 2,652 79 450 162 217 289 344 4,648 5,529 1,569 881 4 20,308 40 499 1,008 14 48 47 454 15 174 32 984 832 220 4 1,296 426 164 637 379 147 396 157 9,898 72 2,456 3,465 457 82 57 835 23 392 43 3,355 1,064 436 18 2,726 676 259 1,052 609 244 501 158 20,490 33 1,957 2,457 443 34 11 381 8 218 11 2,371 232 217 14 1,430 250 95 415 230 96 105 1 10,592 - 30 - Table B.5 Import Shipping Services by State By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) State Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Alabama 240 3,608 3,368 488 1,492 1,004 Arizona 1,382 4,898 3,516 472 1,504 1,032 Arkansas 52 2,093 2,041 96 875 779 Colorado 122 4,515 4,392 296 1,591 1,295 Connecticut 203 4,591 4,388 192 1,402 1,210 Delaware 211 901 689 414 325 -89 Dist. of Col. 447 769 322 174 208 34 Florida 4,411 12,265 7,854 2,269 4,117 1,847 Georgia 2,720 8,389 5,669 1,324 3,073 1,749 Idaho 140 1,324 1,184 338 462 123 Illinois 4,209 13,565 9,357 2,202 4,519 2,317 Indiana 84 7,433 7,349 21 2,705 2,684 Iowa 2 2,906 2,905 1 1,119 1,118 Kansas 31 2,561 2,530 18 885 867 Kentucky 71 4,379 4,308 17 1,585 1,567 Louisiana 3,647 3,473 -173 6,713 2,173 -4,541 Maine 742 982 240 908 378 -530 Maryland 1,794 4,692 2,898 946 1,615 670 Massachusetts 1,152 8,011 6,859 1,092 2,351 1,258 Michigan 10,291 12,967 2,675 4,638 4,109 -529 Minnesota 841 5,670 4,828 1,754 1,911 156 Mississippi 321 1,952 1,631 653 859 206 Missouri 74 5,626 5,552 44 1,957 1,913 Montana 550 537 -12 1,330 256 -1,074 Nebraska 3 1,691 1,688 2 557 556 Nevada 16 1,615 1,600 5 716 711 New Hampshire 55 1,632 1,578 67 485 418 New Jersey 961 9,096 8,135 564 3,479 2,914 New Mexico 120 1,729 1,609 20 694 674 - 31 - Table B.5 Import Shipping Services by State (continued) By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 22,470 287 995 1,924 4 1,030 1,635 73 2,488 2 229 15,515 2 1,023 1,896 7,276 0 95 1 19,611 8,083 504 12,721 2,824 4,520 11,682 897 3,498 688 5,581 20,851 1,794 554 6,835 6,072 1,117 5,885 429 -2,859 7,795 -491 10,797 2,820 3,490 10,047 825 1,010 686 5,353 5,336 1,792 -469 4,939 -1,204 1,116 5,790 428 13,473 191 1,099 470 0 276 3,198 165 1,235 2 421 14,064 4 784 1,389 4,247 0 118 3 6,152 3,112 198 4,558 1,154 1,414 4,649 310 1,339 230 2,030 9,035 694 199 2,365 2,082 666 2,075 387 -7,322 2,920 -901 4,088 1,153 1,139 1,451 145 104 228 1,608 -5,030 690 -585 976 -2,165 666 1,958 384 Total 91,836 248,017 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 - 32 - Table B.6 Import Shipping Services by Sector Sector Agricultural Production Agricultural Services, Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping Mining Products Food and Kindred Products Tobacco Manufacturers Textile Mill Products Apparel and Other Textile Products Lumber and Wood Products Furniture and Fixtures Paper and Allied Products Printing and Publishing Chemical and Allied Products Petroleoum and Coal Products Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products Leather and Leather Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Primary Metal Industries Fabricated Metal Products Industrial Machinery and Equipment Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Transportation Equipment Instruments and Related Products Miscellaneous Manufacturing By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments Shipments for Other Shipping for States Services California Through Surplus Through California Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 1,570 1,879 309 2,000 2,394 394 737 1,997 2,761 33 1,007 5,769 1,577 952 1,670 389 6,399 2,167 1,633 1,400 1,316 4,416 2,700 11,364 16,061 18,454 3,613 3,849 2,738 1,038 4,229 54 2,398 19,568 1,813 4,434 1,569 1,036 5,935 1,628 5,635 8,805 3,223 4,036 7,312 46,265 71,483 28,072 10,042 14,824 2,000 -959 1,469 22 1,391 13,799 235 3,482 -101 648 -464 -540 4,002 7,405 1,906 -380 4,613 34,900 55,422 9,618 6,429 10,975 767 23,212 2,921 23 379 1,093 5,671 199 1,171 74 5,721 6,389 787 120 8,668 3,832 745 1,015 669 1,134 431 1,177 2,847 12,060 4,475 38 903 3,707 6,517 928 1,100 196 5,306 4,799 2,714 756 21,219 3,503 2,018 4,133 2,979 1,726 1,198 4,533 2,080 -11,152 1,554 15 523 2,614 846 729 -71 122 -415 -1,591 1,928 636 12,551 -330 1,273 3,118 2,310 591 767 3,356 Total 91,836 248,017 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 - 33 - - 34 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(106) "

OP 403JHOP

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(130) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/imports-exports-and-shipping-services-the-balance-between-california-and-other-states/op_403jhop/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8326) ["ID"]=> int(8326) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:38" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3510) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(10) "OP 403JHOP" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(10) "op_403jhop" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "OP_403JHOP.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(7) "4241554" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(51126) "Occasional Papers Imports, Exports, and Shipping Services: The Balance Between California and Other States Jon D. Haveman Research Fellow Public Policy Institute of California This material was requested by the California Congressional Delegation staff and prepared as background for a briefing in April 2003. Public Policy Institute of California The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens – William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller – recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 • San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-4400 • Fax: (415) 291-4401 info@ppic.org • www.ppic.org Summary Congress is in the process of allocating more than $200 billion over the next five years for improvements in the U.S. surface transportation system. This process will update federal transportation laws such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998. These laws distribute federal expenditures to states and other local administering entities via formulas called apportionments. In 2002, California received $2.7 billion, less than 9 percent of the nation’s total apportionments. This amount is also less than California’s contributions to the system through fuel tax payments, making California a net donor state.1 This donor status is inconsistent with the increased burden on California’s infrastructure that is the result of growing international trade. California’s position on the western coast of the United States provides it with important portals through which imports and exports flow. In 2000, almost $440 billion in internationally traded goods flowed through California. Of this, $149 billion was made up of U.S. exports, and $290 billion was made up of imported products. More than $49 billion in exports passed through California on their way from some other mainland states to their ultimate destination. In addition, as much as $248 billion worth of imports may have entered the United States through California for ultimate use in some other state. Once California’s shipments through other states are accounted for, $177 billion worth of goods, weighing 32 billion kilograms, are transshipped through California by other states in excess of what California ships through other states. The size of this surplus is equivalent to approximately 9.3 percent of the value of all freight shipments in and through California and 1.8 percent of the weight of these shipments. Because most of these goods are shipped by truck on California’s highways, this traffic places a heavy burden on the state’s roads, increases congestion, and poses significant safety issues for state residents who make use of the these same roads. These findings may help outline a case for additional benefits for California in the forthcoming reauthorization of the TEA-21 Act. ____________ 1 Ransdell and Boloorian, 2003. -1- Contents SUMMARY INTRODUCTION OVERALL SHIPPING SERVICES BALANCE EXPORTS IMPORTS RECAPITULATION REFERENCES Appendix A. Methodology Exports Imports Mode Data Issues Appendix B. Complete Tables 1 3 5 11 15 19 21 23 23 23 24 24 25 -2- Introduction The efficient movement of goods is essential to the smooth functioning of the U.S. economy. As international production-sharing, outsourcing, and joint ventures, become increasingly commonplace, goods movement both across and within borders increases. Accordingly, the role played by California and other coastal states in terms of moving goods to and from foreign countries is also growing in importance. In 2000, almost $400 billion in internationally traded goods flowed through California. Of this, $149 billion was made up of exported goods from throughout the continental United States. The majority, $244 billion, was made up of goods imported for use throughout the continental United States. Exporting and importing often require that goods travel through other states on their way to and from foreign shores. This transshipment of goods through other states imposes a cost on these other states. To the extent that California is a state through which imports or exports of other states frequently travel, it bears a significant burden in providing and maintaining sufficient transportation infrastructure. This paper attempts to measure that burden by providing an account of the shipping services surplus or deficit between California and the other states in the continental United States.2 The term “shipping services surplus” refers to the extent to which one state provides more shipping services to another state than it demands in return. The tabulation of this surplus considers both imports and exports, implying four components to the calculation. From California’s perspective, these components include: • Exports flowing through California that originate in some other state, • Exports flowing out of California, but leaving U.S. shores from a portal in another state, • Imports arriving in California that are ultimately destined for use in another state, and • Imports destined for use in California, but that first arrived on U.S. shores in another state. ____________ 2 Because is unlikely that imports and exports for Hawaii, Alaska, and other U.S. territories travel through California, or that California’s imports and exports travel through these states, we have omitted them from the analysis. -3- This calculation omits both California exports that go abroad without traveling through another state and imports into California that are absorbed by consumers and producers in California. A surplus in the above account represents a transfer of resources from California to other states. In what follows, we present an overview of California’s international freight-related shipping services balance. This is followed by separate presentations of the contribution of exports and imports to the services balance. In each case, we present evidence on the balance by value and weight. The balance by value provides an indication of the level of economic activity that is supported by this trade, whereas the balance by weight is a better indicator of the actual burden placed on resources in shipping these goods. -4- Overall Shipping Services Balance In total, California services some $177 billion worth of goods weighing in at over 32 billion kilograms in excess of what Californians demand from other states (Table 1). The majority of this shipping surplus arises from the transshipment of imported products. Almost 90 percent, or $156 billion, of the $177 billion surplus is the result of a higher value of imports coming through California for use in other states than arrives in other states for use in California. By weight, imported products account for two-thirds, or some 22 billion kilograms of the 32 billion kilogram imbalance. Table 1 California’s Aggregate International Trade-Related Shipping Services Surplus in 2000 Billions of Dollars Exports Imports Total Shipments for California Through Other States* 29.1 91.8 120.9 Shipments for Other States Through California** 49.4 248.0 297.4 Shipping Services Surplus 20.3 156.2 176.5 Billions of KG Exports Imports Total 9.9 68.2 78.1 20.5 90.0 110.5 10.6 21.8 32.4 *These figures include both imports for Californians that arrive on U.S. shores in other states and California exports that depart from U.S. shores via port facilities in other states. **Similarly, the figures in this column also account for both imports arriving in California and exports departing through California ports. To put this surplus in perspective, we compare the flows presented above to total freight shipments in California. From U.S. Department of Transportation (2002), we are able to generate figures for both the total value and weight of all freight shipments making use of California’s infrastructure. The data there indicate total shipments originating in and destined for California in 1997. These figures are not directly comparable to those in Table 1, which are for 2000. Instead, we assume that freight shipments involving California grow at the same rate as Gross State Product for the United States as a whole between 1997 and 2000. After making this adjustment, we find that total freight shipments through California totaled $1,908 billion and weighed a total of 1,757 billion kilograms. Accordingly, the shipping services surplus for California amounts to 9.3 percent of the total value and 1.8 percent of the weight of all goods placing demand on California’s infrastructure. -5- Table 2 Shipping Services by Mode of Transportation Mode Total By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipments for Shipments for Shipments for Shipments for California Other States Shipping California Other States Shipping Through Through Services Through Through Services Other States California Surplus Other States California Surplus 121,021 297,509 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 Air Rail Truck Parcel Water Pipeline Rail & Water Truck & Rail Truck & Water Other Multiple Mode Other Unknown 6,337 5,899 81,607 17,600 1,176 695 59 1,584 65 11 5,988 16,006 9,554 201,985 50,192 1,451 714 37 3,263 121 12 14,173 9,669 3,655 120,378 32,592 275 19 -22 1,679 56 1 8,185 4 3,816 73,116 68 425 246 56 7 0 0 358 12 3,147 106,151 200 397 216 34 12 0 0 369 8 -669 33,035 132 -28 -30 -22 5 0 0 11 Servicing this volume of goods is costly to California, particularly when the modes of transportation employed are financed in large part from state resources. Table 2 presents a decomposition of the surplus by mode of transportation. Both by value and by weight, the majority of the surplus is shipped by truck. Trucking is likely to be the most costly form of transport for a state to bear, given that it is the most heavily supported by state resources. 3 A larger proportion of air transportation infrastructure is borne by the federal government, and the rail system is largely privately owned and operated. Likewise, the costs of intrastate transportation by water are largely borne by those engaged in the activity rather than by the state. Given the composition of the shipping surplus by mode, this service to other states is likely to be very costly for California. As all states are not uniformly engaged in international trade, it is important to assess the sources of the imbalance on a state-by-state basis. Table 3 presents the states with which California has the largest surpluses and deficits, by weight. In all, there are ____________ 3 U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001, provides great detail on transportation expenditures by mode and by state. On a ton-mile basis, trucking received 200 times the government expenditures than did rail. Data on relative expenditures for the other modes are much more difficult to come by. By ton shipped, highway expenditures were five times those for in support if water transportation. A comparison by air is complicated by expenditures on passenger travel facilities. -6- 38 states with which California maintains a surplus. This surplus is particularly significant for five states: Ohio, North Carolina, New Jersey, Illinois, and Indiana. The imbalances with these states are largely the result of an imbalance with respect to imports. As three of these are large inland states, the flow of imports that enter through California and find their way to these states is substantial. Conversely, both the value and weight of imports that are used by California that first arrive in these states are very small. Table 3 Selected Shipping Services Balances by State4 State Total By Value ($ Millions) Shipments Shipments for for Other California States Through Through Other States California 121,021 297,509 By Weight Shipping Services Surplus (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for for Other California States Shipping Through Through Services Other States California Surplus 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 Ohio North Carolina New Jersey Illinois Indiana Montana Michigan Washington Texas Louisiana New York 5,574 324 1,231 4,699 615 1,075 14,726 9,331 19,502 7,959 26,989 14,362 9,238 9,850 16,192 8,489 568 14,504 7,060 30,718 4,323 21,091 8,788 8,914 8,619 11,493 7,873 -507 -221 -2,271 11,217 -3,636 -5,898 1,012 254 626 2,282 100 1,509 6,085 5,197 15,472 8,955 14,777 5,315 3,933 3,844 5,285 3,081 292 4,675 2,502 12,733 3,134 6,675 4,302 3,679 3,218 3,002 2,981 -1,217 -1,410 -2,695 -2,739 -5,821 -8,102 California runs a deficit with the remaining ten states in the continental United States. The deficits with two states in particular are sizable. Louisiana and New York combined account for almost 14 billion kilograms of deficit, implying that they service substantially more trade for California than California services for them. These states both receive significant volumes of imports, which is the driving force behind this imbalance. ____________ 4 Appendix B provides tables with data for all states and sectors. -7- By weight, exports make up almost 90 percent of California’s surplus. Table 4 lists the six two-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) sectors in which California has the largest shipping surplus and those two in which California has the largest shipping deficit with other states. Shipments of products in the Stone, Clay, and Glass sector account for more than 40 percent of the total surplus in shipping weight. Note that these products, accounting for almost half of the weight surplus, are also very cheap, valued at roughly $0.15 per kilogram. Accordingly, they contribute only $2 billion to the $177 billion surplus in the value of goods shipped. Food and kindred products also average just under $1 per kilogram. In contrast, industrial machinery and equipment, which contributes significantly to the value shipping services balance, are priced at $11.19 per kilogram. Those products offsetting the surplus, Petroleum and Mining, are also low-value products, valued at approximately $0.12 per kilogram. Table 4 Selected Shipping Services Balance by Sector Sector All Sectors By Value By Weight ($ Millions) (Millions of KG) Shipments for Shipments California for Other Through States Other Through States California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for Shipments California for Other Through States Other Through States California Shipping Services Surplus 121,021 297,509 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Food and Kindred Products Industrial Machinery and Equipment Miscellaneous Manufacturing Apparel and Other Textile Products Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Petroleoum and Coal Products Mining Products 1,513 3,713 18,491 4,362 6,016 25,157 2,450 2,040 3,637 7,504 58,039 15,341 19,871 86,109 1,989 1,249 2,123 3,790 39,548 10,978 13,855 60,951 -461 -791 9,964 3,929 1,652 1,334 1,140 1,048 7,221 23,711 23,945 7,940 5,185 4,691 3,765 3,588 5,862 14,515 13,981 4,011 3,533 3,357 2,625 2,540 -1,359 -9,195 -8- The rest of this paper will shed additional light on these patterns by decomposing the shipments into their export and import components.5 In each case, the state-to-state relationships are disaggregated by mode of transport. ____________ 5 See Appendix A for a brief description of the methods used for calculating both the import and export shipping services balances. -9- - 10 - Exports This section discusses the extent to which California provides more in the way of export transportation services to other states than it requires in return. This exercise takes into account both goods exported by other states through California and goods exported by California through other states. In fact, a significant proportion of California’s exports do not flow directly through a California port. Approximately one quarter of California’s 2001 exports, by value, left U.S. soil by way of a port in some other state. Both by weight and by value, California is running a significant trade surplus in the provision of export freight transportation services (Table 5). On a value basis, exports account for only 12 percent of the total trade shipping surplus, account almost a third of the weight-based surplus. Table 5 California’s Export Shipping Trade Balance By Value ($ B) By Weight (B KG) California’s Exports Through other States 29.1 9.9 Other States’ Exports Through California 49.4 20.5 California’s Shipping Surplus 20.3 10.6 By value, more than $20 billion more exports flow through California on their way to foreign shores than California ships through other states.6 Given California’s position on the western coast of the United States, this result is not surprising. Regardless of their state of origin, most goods destined for Asia or the South Pacific by ship will travel through California. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (1), the $49 billion figure represents approximately 16 percent of all goods shipped to California from other states. Reflecting this significant excess of goods flowing through California over those shipped by California through other states, the surplus is almost 11 billion kilograms by weight. ____________ 6 This number may actually understate California’s surplus. These statistics are based on a series maintained by the Census bureau that is referred to as the Origin of Movement series. This series records the location where goods started their export journey rather, which is often not the same as where they were produced. There is a tendency for shipments to be attributed to California when in fact the goods were manufactured in other states. The same problem arises when calculating the value of California’s exports through other states. However, if the same proportion of goods are misclassified regardless of their state of origin, the figures for California are understated by a smaller amount than are the figures for other U.S. exports through California and the surplus is understated. - 11 - Table 6 Export Balance by Mode Mode Total By Value By Weight ($ Millions) Shipments Shipments for Other for California States Through Through Other States California Shipping Services Surplus (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for Other for California States Shipping Through Through Services Other States California Surplus 29,185 49,492 20,308 9,898 20,490 10,592 Air Rail Truck Parcel Water Pipeline Rail & Water Truck & Rail Truck & Water Other Multiple Mode Other Unknown 1,690 943 19,249 5,264 226 85 2 306 15 2 1,404 2,647 1,898 33,318 8,142 409 210 6 529 28 3 2,302 957 955 14,069 2,878 183 125 5 223 13 2 898 1 263 9,475 20 70 28 1 1 0 0 39 2 752 19,470 30 108 49 6 2 0 0 72 1 489 9,995 10 38 20 5 1 0 0 33 Table 6 provides detail on California’s export shipping surplus by mode of transportation. Of a shipping surplus in excess of $20 billion, just under three-quarters is accounted for by truck, the mode that imposes the greatest cost on a hosting state. Parcel is a distant second, followed by air and rail.7 Other modes, or mode combinations, are rare relative to those four, with correspondingly small trade balances, but all are nonetheless positive. This is also true on a weight basis, with trucking accounting for more than 95 percent of the surplus. California is a net provider of shipping services to exporters in 39 of the 48 continental United States. The surplus is quite evenly distributed across states. In fact, California runs a trade surplus of over $1 billion with only one state (Texas), and runs a deficit of the same size with only one other (Louisiana). Table 7 presents greater detail on California’s state-to-state export freight balances for those states with the largest surplus’ and deficits. By far, the largest amount of state-to-state export swapping is undertaken with Texas. Total export flows between the two states amount to almost $14 billion. Texas is also the state to which California is the largest net provider of ____________ 7 Goods shipped by parcel also travel by truck, air, and rail. As such, the other categories are to some extent understated. - 12 - export shipping services. The excess of Texas’ exports through California over California’s exports through Texas accounts for one-third of California’s surplus by value and almost one-quarter of the surplus by weight, more than twice as much as any other state. Table 7 Selected California Export Freight Balances by State State Total By Value ($ Millions) Shipments Shipments for for Other California States Through Through Other States California 29,185 49,492 By Weight Shipping Services Surplus (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for for Other California States Shipping Through Through Services Other States California Surplus 20,308 9,898 20,490 10,592 Texas Oregon Utah Arizona Virginia North Carolina 3,987 354 1 388 78 36 9,868 2,943 1,200 4,761 1,154 1,155 5,881 2,589 1,200 4,373 1,076 1,119 1,407 308 0 84 46 63 3,699 1,153 792 857 812 821 2,291 844 792 773 766 758 Washington New York Michigan Louisiana 2,055 4,519 4,434 4,312 988 1,480 1,538 849 -1,067 -3,039 -2,897 -3,463 950 1,303 1,446 2,242 420 -530 523 -780 566 -880 962 -1,280 By sector, the export surplus is concentrated in four sectors when considering weight (Table 8). These sectors account for more than three-quarters of the shipping services surplus. In a very small number of sectors—Agricultural Production is the only significant one—California runs a deficit in shipping services with other continental states. By value, the surplus is more widely distributed, with five sectors each contributing more than $1 billion to the surplus. Note that the Stone, Clay and Glass Products category contributes very little to the surplus by value. - 13 - Table 8 Selected California Export Freight Balances by Sector Mode Total By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 29,185 49,492 20,308 9,898 20,490 10,592 Food and Kindred Products Chemicals and Allied Products Mining Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Agricultural Production 953 1,101 43 197 1,511 3,274 3,753 211 414 1,183 2,322 2,652 168 217 -328 1,008 984 499 1,296 1,925 3,465 3,355 2,456 2,726 1,508 2,457 2,371 1,957 1,430 -417 - 14 - Imports Imports are the other side of the trade equation. In 2000, California was a net provider of shipping services, in the amount of $156 billion, or almost 22 billion kilograms of imports (Table 9). Imports are responsible for the majority of California’s overall surplus both by value and by weight. Comparing the import figures by value with shipping data in U.S. Department of Transportation (2002), the $156 billion in imports handled by California for other states accounts for almost 17 percent of the value, but only 3.8 percent of the weight of all goods shipped from California to other states. Table 9 California’s Import Shipping Trade Balance By Value ($ B) By Weight (B KG) California’s Imports Through other States 91.8 68.2 Other States’ Imports Through California 248.0 90.0 California’s Trade Surplus 156.2 21.8 As with exports, imports are primarily shipped by truck. By value, trucking accounts for a little over two-thirds of the shipping services surplus that California holds over other states. By weight, however, trucking makes up the vast majority of imports shipped and is equal to 115 percent of California’s import related shipping services surplus. This surplus in trucking is primarily offset by a deficit in the rail category equal to about 5 percent of the surplus in trucking. Four other categories also have small deficits. Compared to other states’ shipments of imported goods, California’s imports are more commonly shipped by rail and less commonly shipped by truck. - 15 - Table 10 Import Balance by Mode Mode Total By Value By Weight ($ Millions) (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for Other for California States Through Through Other States California Shipments Shipping for California Services Through Surplus Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 91,836 248,017 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 Air Rail Truck Parcel Water Pipeline Rail & Water Truck & Rail Truck & Water Other Multiple Mode Other Unknown 4,647 4,956 62,358 12,336 950 610 57 1,278 50 9 4,584 13,359 7,656 168,667 42,050 1,042 504 31 2,734 93 9 11,871 8,711 2,700 106,309 29,713 92 -106 -26 1,457 43 0 7,287 3 3,553 63,641 48 355 218 55 6 0 0 319 10 2,395 86,681 170 289 167 28 10 0 0 297 6 -1,158 23,040 122 -66 -52 -26 5 0 0 -22 The distribution of the surplus resulting from the shipment of imported goods is much more even that is the case for exports (Table 11). California has a significant surplus with several states and a significant deficit with several others. Comparing the states listed in Table 11 with those in Table 3, it is clear that the shipment of imports is driving the overall freight shipping balances between California and other states. The same states are listed here as having the largest import freight shipping surplus as were listed in Table 3. In addition, five of the six states listed in Table 3 are listed here as having the largest freight shipping deficits with California. North Dakota replaces Michigan in this table, indicating that Michigan services a greater volume of exports for California than does North Dakota. - 16 - Table 11 Selected California Import Freight Balances by State State Total By Value ($ Millions) Shipments Shipments for Other for California States Through Through Other States California 91,836 248,017 By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 Ohio North Carolina New Jersey Indiana Illinois 1,924 287 961 84 4,209 12,721 8,083 9,096 7,433 13,565 10,797 7,795 8,135 7,349 9,357 470 191 564 21 2,202 4,558 3,112 3,479 2,705 4,519 4,088 2,920 2,914 2,684 2,317 North Dakota Montana Washington Louisiana Texas New York 995 550 7,276 3,647 15,515 22,470 504 537 6,072 3,473 20,851 19,611 -491 -12 -1,204 -173 5,336 -2,859 1,099 1,330 4,247 6,713 14,064 13,473 198 256 2,082 2,173 9,035 6,152 -901 -1,074 -2,165 -4,541 -5,030 -7,322 By sector, the surplus is also distributed evenly. Six sectors appear with a surplus by weight of more than 2 billion kilograms, but only two have a deficit of more than $1 billion. Mining Products have a significant deficit of more than 11 billion kilograms. - 17 - Table 12 Selected California Import Freight Balances by Sector Sector Total By Value By Weight ($ Millions) (Millions of KG) Shipments Shipments for Shipments for Shipments California for Other California for Other Through States Shipping Through States Shipping Other Through Services Other Through Services States California Surplus States California Surplus 91,836 248,017 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 Stone, Clay and Glass Products Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industrial Machinery and Equipment Apparel and Other Textile Products Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Agricultural Services, Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping 1,316 3,849 11,364 5,769 16,061 737 3,223 1,906 14,824 46,265 19,568 71,483 10,975 34,900 13,799 55,422 2,738 2,000 8,668 1,177 1,015 1,093 669 767 21,219 12,551 4,533 4,133 3,707 2,979 3,356 3,118 2,614 2,310 2,847 2,080 Petroleoum and Coal Products Mining Products 2,167 1,628 -540 6,389 4,799 -1,591 1,997 1,038 -959 23,212 12,060 -11,152 - 18 - Recapitulation California provides shipping services on $177 billion worth of traded goods for other states in excess of what other states provide for California’s international trade activities. Of perhaps greater importance is the finding that when measured by weight, this surplus amounts to more than 32 billion kilograms of goods shipped via California’s transportation facilities. Further, California’s highways support a surplus of 33 billion kilograms with other states. Although both the value and weight of trade with Texas dwarfs the totals of any of California’s other bilateral relationships, it is with inland states (such as Ohio, Illinois and Indiana) that California has a significant shipping surplus. These large states have important industrial sectors and demand significant quantities of imports, much of which enter the United States through ports in California. The surplus is large because none of these states is likely to be the first point of contact for imports to California or the point of departure for exports from California. By value and weight, imports contributed the most significantly to the surplus. This surplus, along with the fact that most intra-continental shipping takes place on highways, is very important for California. The provision of infrastructure for trucking is, by a significant margin, the most costly in terms of wear and tear on California’s infrastructure investments. It is also very costly in terms of the pollution and congestion problems plaguing much of California. At the same time, however, it must be recognized that this surplus represents a relatively small share, 1.8 percent by weight, of all shipping that takes place in California. - 19 - - 20 - References Ransdell, Tim and Shervin Boloorian, Federal Formula Grants and California: Federal Highway Programs, Public Policy Institute of California, 2003. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (1999), “United States: Exports,” 1997 Economic Census, Transportation, 1997 Commodity Flow Survey. http://www.bts.gov/Ntda/cfs/97cfexp.pdf U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2001), “Government Transportation Financial Statistics 2001.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2002), “California: Transportation Profile.” - 21 - - 22 - Appendix A. Methodology The data for exports are more complete than are those for imports. As a result, the methods employed for producing the international freight shipping surplus differ. This appendix first outlines the calculation of the export surplus and then turns to imports. Exports The published data for exports provide an excellent starting point for analyzing California’s shipping surplus. The published data provide: 1. Each state’s exports by state of departure 2. Exports produced in each state by sector 3. The industrial composition of the exports flowing through each state. The overall shipping surplus by value is readily obtained from (2002). However, to generate the surplus by weight, it is necessary to compute the surplus by sector. The weight of exports varies considerably across sectors. The procedure for calculating the weight of goods shipped by each state through every other state begins by allocating each state’s exports by sector (as in 2) to one of the other states. This allocation is carried out according to the sector composition of exports passing through each state (3). This allocation is then adjusted so that it is consistent with each of the values in 1. The result of this procedure is a matrix that contains the distribution of each state’s exports by state and by sector. The weight of each states exports through other state’s is then calculated with the use of statistics on the weight of U.S. aggregate exports by sector. Imports The published data for imports are much less conducive to this type of analysis. Of the three components listed above, we know only the composition of imports flowing into each state by 2-digit SIC sector. However, it is possible to estimate number 2 above by using import use statistics by sector from the United States as a whole. These data are available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) as part of its input output accounts. The BEA also collects statistics on industrial production by state. Combining these data provides an estimate of each state’s import use by sector, the second component. Once we have each state’s import use by sector, those imports are distributed across entry points according to their distribution of sector imports by state. This - 23 - distribution yields the value of imports by state according to the state in which those imports first arrive on U.S. shores. From this point, the weight of imports is calculated by the average weight of import shipments through each state, by sector. Mode Data from the 1997 Commodity Flow Survey are used to estimate the mode of transportation used for exports and imports from one state to another. In particular, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics has published a report detailing the mode by which exported goods commonly flow.8 It was assumed that the shipments for each state, from each state, by sector, match those of the total for all shipments in 1997. Data Issues As there are no specific data that cover the direction, sector, and mode of traded goods, we have pieced together this picture of U.S. freight shipping services with data from several sources. To isolate these patterns, we have made several assumptions, including the following: 1. Shipments by firms in the continental United States do not travel through extra-continental territories. Data for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have been excluded. 2. Each state’s imports of a particular commodity are assumed to enter the United States in the same distribution as all imports of that commodity enter the United States. 3. We have excluded all data for the Petroleum and Coal Products industry. This affects primarily the import side of the equation. The first assumption results in the omission of a small amount of goods that are presumably unrelated to surface transportation issues in the continental United States. The second assumption likely results in an overstatement of the absolute size of the shipment of imports for other states through California, but as it exaggerates the shipment of California’s imports through other states by the same amount, the calculated surplus is not affected. Finally, the third assumption is made because we have information from other sources that the imports in support of this industry arrive almost entirely in California via ocean liner or pipeline. When this sector is included in the calculation of the surplus, it results in a severe understatement of California’s shipping services surplus by weight. ____________ 8 See U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (1999). - 24 - Appendix B. Complete Tables Table B.1 Surplus by State By Value ($ Millions) State Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Alabama 264 4,049 Arizona Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist. of Col. Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey 1,769 52 177 206 219 583 5,559 3,004 196 4,699 615 2 31 98 7,959 764 1,850 1,245 14,726 890 334 84 1,075 3 446 55 1,231 9,659 2,516 6,692 4,777 955 814 12,830 9,623 2,701 16,192 8,489 3,573 3,451 5,051 4,323 1,152 4,876 8,605 14,504 6,491 2,199 6,162 568 2,408 2,066 1,747 9,850 By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 3,784 7,889 2,464 6,515 4,572 736 230 7,270 6,619 2,504 11,493 7,873 3,572 3,420 4,953 -3,636 388 3,027 7,360 -221 5,601 1,865 6,077 -507 2,405 1,619 1,692 8,619 504 556 96 315 193 416 194 2,527 1,452 358 2,282 100 1 18 21 8,955 923 972 1,106 6,085 1,778 661 45 1,509 2 112 67 626 1,803 2,361 1,142 2,195 1,460 357 218 4,281 3,872 782 5,285 3,081 1,428 1,436 1,898 3,134 505 1,686 2,462 4,675 2,239 1,032 2,185 292 1,074 844 514 3,844 1,299 1,805 1,046 1,880 1,267 -58 24 1,754 2,419 425 3,002 2,981 1,427 1,417 1,876 -5,821 -418 714 1,356 -1,410 461 371 2,140 -1,217 1,072 733 447 3,218 - 25 - Table B.1 Surplus by State (continued) State New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Shipments for California Through Other States 123 26,989 324 1,152 5,574 4 1,384 2,136 73 2,599 2 562 19,502 3 1,052 1,975 9,331 0 98 1 By Value ($ Millions) Shipments for Other States Through California 3,132 21,091 9,238 508 14,362 3,144 7,463 12,413 975 3,734 709 6,494 30,718 2,995 574 7,990 7,060 1,428 6,724 437 By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 3,009 21 852 831 -5,898 14,777 6,675 -8,102 8,914 254 3,933 3,679 -644 1,179 200 -980 8,788 1,012 5,315 4,302 3,140 0 1,257 1,257 6,079 584 2,567 1,983 10,277 3,322 5,039 1,716 903 165 335 170 1,135 1,294 1,455 161 707 2 239 237 5,932 594 2,430 1,835 11,217 15,472 12,733 -2,739 2,992 4 1,487 1,482 -479 789 201 -587 6,015 1,435 3,177 1,742 -2,271 5,197 2,502 -2,695 1,428 0 1,326 1,326 6,626 120 2,334 2,214 436 3 397 395 Total 121,021 297,509 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 - 26 - Table B.2 Surplus by Sector By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Sector Agricultural Production Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 3,080 3,062 -18 3,925 3,902 -23 Agricultural Services, Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping Mining Products Food and Kindred Products Tobacco Manufacturers Textile Mill Products Apparel and Other Textile Products Lumber and Wood Products Furniture and Fixtures Paper and Allied Products Printing and Publishing Chemical and Allied Products Petroleoum and Coal Products Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products Leather and Leather Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Primary Metal Industries Fabricated Metal Products 776 2,040 3,713 52 1,135 6,016 1,704 1,024 1,917 559 7,500 2,450 2,089 1,452 1,513 4,907 3,294 2,807 1,249 7,504 705 2,616 19,871 2,045 4,546 2,127 1,264 9,688 1,989 6,541 9,018 3,637 4,816 8,251 2,032 -791 3,790 653 1,481 13,855 341 3,521 210 705 2,188 -461 4,451 7,566 2,123 -92 4,957 807 23,711 3,929 37 427 1,140 6,125 214 1,344 106 6,705 7,221 1,006 125 9,964 4,258 909 2,919 14,515 7,940 495 985 3,765 7,352 951 1,492 239 8,661 5,862 3,151 775 23,945 4,179 2,277 2,113 -9,195 4,011 458 557 2,625 1,227 737 147 133 1,956 -1,359 2,144 650 13,981 -79 1,368 Industrial Machinery and Equipment Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Transportation Equipment Instruments and Related Products 18,491 25,157 20,852 6,935 58,039 86,109 32,040 14,246 39,548 60,951 11,188 7,311 1,652 1,048 1,282 827 5,185 3,588 1,970 1,699 3,533 2,540 688 872 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 4,362 15,341 10,978 1,334 4,691 3,357 ALL SECTORS 121,021 297,509 176,488 78,097 110,537 32,440 - 27 - Table B.3 Export Surplus By State By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Mode Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Alabama 24 441 417 16 311 295 Arizona 388 4,761 4,373 84 857 773 Arkansas 0 423 423 0 267 267 Colorado 54 2,177 2,123 19 604 585 Connecticut 3 187 184 0 57 57 Delaware 7 54 47 2 33 31 Dist. of Col. 137 45 -92 21 10 -10 Florida 1,148 565 -583 258 164 -94 Georgia 284 1,234 950 128 799 670 Idaho 57 1,377 1,320 19 321 302 Illinois 491 2,626 2,136 81 766 685 Indiana 531 1,055 524 79 376 297 Iowa 0 667 667 0 309 309 Kansas 0 890 890 0 550 550 Kentucky 27 672 645 4 313 309 Louisiana 4,312 849 -3,463 2,242 962 -1,280 Maine 22 169 148 15 127 112 Maryland 55 184 129 27 71 44 Massachusetts 92 594 501 13 111 98 Michigan 4,434 1,538 -2,897 1,446 566 -880 Minnesota 49 821 772 23 328 305 Mississippi 13 248 235 8 173 164 Missouri 11 536 525 1 228 227 Montana 525 30 -495 179 36 -143 Nebraska 0 717 717 0 517 517 Nevada 431 451 20 106 128 22 New Hampshire 0 115 114 0 29 29 New Jersey 269 754 484 62 366 303 New Mexico 3 1,404 1,400 1 158 157 - 28 - Table B.3 Export Surplus By State (continued) By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Mode Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus New York 4,519 1,480 -3,039 1,303 523 -780 North Carolina 36 1,155 1,119 63 821 758 North Dakota 157 3 -153 80 2 -79 Ohio 3,651 1,641 -2,010 542 757 215 Oklahoma 0 321 321 0 104 104 Oregon 354 2,943 2,589 308 1,153 844 Pennsylvania 501 731 230 124 390 266 Rhode Island 0 78 78 0 24 24 South Carolina 111 236 125 59 116 57 South Dakota 0 21 21 0 9 9 Tennessee 333 913 580 173 400 227 Texas 3,987 9,868 5,881 1,407 3,699 2,291 Utah 1 1,200 1,200 0 792 792 Vermont 29 20 -10 5 3 -2 Virginia 78 1,154 1,076 46 812 766 Washington 2,055 988 -1,067 950 420 -530 West Virginia 0 312 312 0 660 660 Wisconsin 2 839 836 3 259 257 Wyoming 0 8 8 0 11 11 Total 29,185 49,492 20,308 9,898 20,490 10,592 - 29 - Table B.4 Export Shipping Services by Sector Sector Agricultural Production Agricultural Services, Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping Mining Products Food and Kindred Products Tobacco Manufacturers Textile Mill Products Apparel and Other Textile Products Lumber and Wood Products Furniture and Fixtures Paper and Allied Products Printing and Publishing Chemical and Allied Products Petroleoum and Coal Products Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products Leather and Leather Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Primary Metal Industries Fabricated Metal Products Industrial Machinery and Equipment Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Transportation Equipment Instruments and Related Products Miscellaneous Manufacturing Total By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipments Shipments Shipping for for Other Services California States Surplus Through Through Other States California Shipping Services Surplus 1,511 1,183 -328 1,925 1,508 -417 38 43 953 19 127 247 126 72 248 170 1,101 282 456 52 197 491 595 7,127 9,096 2,398 3,323 513 29,185 70 211 3,274 650 218 303 232 112 559 227 3,753 361 905 213 414 779 939 11,774 14,626 3,967 4,204 517 49,492 31 168 2,322 631 90 56 106 39 311 57 2,652 79 450 162 217 289 344 4,648 5,529 1,569 881 4 20,308 40 499 1,008 14 48 47 454 15 174 32 984 832 220 4 1,296 426 164 637 379 147 396 157 9,898 72 2,456 3,465 457 82 57 835 23 392 43 3,355 1,064 436 18 2,726 676 259 1,052 609 244 501 158 20,490 33 1,957 2,457 443 34 11 381 8 218 11 2,371 232 217 14 1,430 250 95 415 230 96 105 1 10,592 - 30 - Table B.5 Import Shipping Services by State By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) State Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Alabama 240 3,608 3,368 488 1,492 1,004 Arizona 1,382 4,898 3,516 472 1,504 1,032 Arkansas 52 2,093 2,041 96 875 779 Colorado 122 4,515 4,392 296 1,591 1,295 Connecticut 203 4,591 4,388 192 1,402 1,210 Delaware 211 901 689 414 325 -89 Dist. of Col. 447 769 322 174 208 34 Florida 4,411 12,265 7,854 2,269 4,117 1,847 Georgia 2,720 8,389 5,669 1,324 3,073 1,749 Idaho 140 1,324 1,184 338 462 123 Illinois 4,209 13,565 9,357 2,202 4,519 2,317 Indiana 84 7,433 7,349 21 2,705 2,684 Iowa 2 2,906 2,905 1 1,119 1,118 Kansas 31 2,561 2,530 18 885 867 Kentucky 71 4,379 4,308 17 1,585 1,567 Louisiana 3,647 3,473 -173 6,713 2,173 -4,541 Maine 742 982 240 908 378 -530 Maryland 1,794 4,692 2,898 946 1,615 670 Massachusetts 1,152 8,011 6,859 1,092 2,351 1,258 Michigan 10,291 12,967 2,675 4,638 4,109 -529 Minnesota 841 5,670 4,828 1,754 1,911 156 Mississippi 321 1,952 1,631 653 859 206 Missouri 74 5,626 5,552 44 1,957 1,913 Montana 550 537 -12 1,330 256 -1,074 Nebraska 3 1,691 1,688 2 557 556 Nevada 16 1,615 1,600 5 716 711 New Hampshire 55 1,632 1,578 67 485 418 New Jersey 961 9,096 8,135 564 3,479 2,914 New Mexico 120 1,729 1,609 20 694 674 - 31 - Table B.5 Import Shipping Services by State (continued) By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) State New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 22,470 287 995 1,924 4 1,030 1,635 73 2,488 2 229 15,515 2 1,023 1,896 7,276 0 95 1 19,611 8,083 504 12,721 2,824 4,520 11,682 897 3,498 688 5,581 20,851 1,794 554 6,835 6,072 1,117 5,885 429 -2,859 7,795 -491 10,797 2,820 3,490 10,047 825 1,010 686 5,353 5,336 1,792 -469 4,939 -1,204 1,116 5,790 428 13,473 191 1,099 470 0 276 3,198 165 1,235 2 421 14,064 4 784 1,389 4,247 0 118 3 6,152 3,112 198 4,558 1,154 1,414 4,649 310 1,339 230 2,030 9,035 694 199 2,365 2,082 666 2,075 387 -7,322 2,920 -901 4,088 1,153 1,139 1,451 145 104 228 1,608 -5,030 690 -585 976 -2,165 666 1,958 384 Total 91,836 248,017 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 - 32 - Table B.6 Import Shipping Services by Sector Sector Agricultural Production Agricultural Services, Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping Mining Products Food and Kindred Products Tobacco Manufacturers Textile Mill Products Apparel and Other Textile Products Lumber and Wood Products Furniture and Fixtures Paper and Allied Products Printing and Publishing Chemical and Allied Products Petroleoum and Coal Products Rubber and Misc. Plastics Products Leather and Leather Products Stone, Clay, and Glass Products Primary Metal Industries Fabricated Metal Products Industrial Machinery and Equipment Electronic and Other Electric Equipment Transportation Equipment Instruments and Related Products Miscellaneous Manufacturing By Value ($ Millions) By Weight (Millions of KG) Shipments for California Through Other States Shipments Shipments for Other Shipping for States Services California Through Surplus Through California Other States Shipments for Other States Through California Shipping Services Surplus 1,570 1,879 309 2,000 2,394 394 737 1,997 2,761 33 1,007 5,769 1,577 952 1,670 389 6,399 2,167 1,633 1,400 1,316 4,416 2,700 11,364 16,061 18,454 3,613 3,849 2,738 1,038 4,229 54 2,398 19,568 1,813 4,434 1,569 1,036 5,935 1,628 5,635 8,805 3,223 4,036 7,312 46,265 71,483 28,072 10,042 14,824 2,000 -959 1,469 22 1,391 13,799 235 3,482 -101 648 -464 -540 4,002 7,405 1,906 -380 4,613 34,900 55,422 9,618 6,429 10,975 767 23,212 2,921 23 379 1,093 5,671 199 1,171 74 5,721 6,389 787 120 8,668 3,832 745 1,015 669 1,134 431 1,177 2,847 12,060 4,475 38 903 3,707 6,517 928 1,100 196 5,306 4,799 2,714 756 21,219 3,503 2,018 4,133 2,979 1,726 1,198 4,533 2,080 -11,152 1,554 15 523 2,614 846 729 -71 122 -415 -1,591 1,928 636 12,551 -330 1,273 3,118 2,310 591 767 3,356 Total 91,836 248,017 156,180 68,199 90,047 21,848 - 33 - - 34 - PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Board of Directors Raymond L. Watson, Chairman Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates William K. Coblentz Senior Partner Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP A. Alan Post Former State Legislative Analyst State of California Edward K. Hamilton Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Walter B. Hewlett Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities David W. Lyon President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California Cheryl White Mason Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Arjay Miller Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University Thomas C. Sutton Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company Cynthia A. Telles Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine Carol Whiteside President Great Valley Center Harold M. Williams President Emeritus The J. Paul Getty Trust and Of Counsel Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Advisory Council Mary C. Daly Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Clifford W. Graves General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles Elizabeth G. Hill Legislative Analyst State of California Hilary W. Hoynes Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis Andrés E. Jiménez Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President Daniel A. Mazmanian C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California Dean Misczynski Director California Research Bureau Rudolf Nothenberg Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco Manuel Pastor Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz Peter Schrag Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee James P. Smith Senior Economist RAND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 291-4400 Fax: (415) 291-4401 www.ppic.org info@ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:38" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(10) "op_403jhop" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:36:38" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:36:38" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(52) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/OP_403JHOP.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }