Commodity Movements

The analysis of the MAFC region is heavily reliant on the Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) released by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FAF is based on a 2007 sampling of freight carriers of all modes throughout the United States. FAF also uses the 2007 sampling to forecast future freight demand. Keeping in mind the collection date of FAF data, the majority of the data presented here will be reported from 2007 to show flows as collected in 2007. FAF was chosen for a number of reasons; among those is its availability, its use by US DOT, and many MAFC state freight plans use FAF data.

FAF displays freight flows throughout the United States with origin and destination pairs. The US is split into 143 FAF zones that encompass various geographic extents. Figure 1 displays the distribution of FAF zones throughout the US. Notice that some states are one FAF zone whereas others are split into as many as 8 FAF zones. FAF organizes a freight flow with one origin and one destination. Therefore, the analysis below displays the movement of commodities whose origin and/or destination is a MAFC FAF zone. From a MAFC perspective FAF has three types of freight flows, those that originate outside the MAFC and are destined within the MAFC, those that originate in the MAFC and are destined outside the MAFC, and finally flows that both originate and are destined for the MAFC. While there are freight flows that move through the MAFC, FAF does not provide data on these flows and FHWA does not have a methodology to identify the quantity of freight traffic that transits through a state or FAF zone.

Figure 1: US Map of FAF 3 Zones

The analytical technique used in this section is to split out the importance of different modes and commodities at different geographic extents. The smallest extent possible using the FAF dataset is individual FAF zones in the MAFC. CFIRE has collected and displayed data at the FAF zone level, but displaying tables for all 26 MAFC FAF zones would unnecessarily divert the focus from the region. Therefore, this section will focus on the MAFC as a whole and include state data in the appendix to this section. The process of collecting MAFC data on top trading partners, modal distribution, and commodity flows begins with an examination of each state aggregated up from the composite state FAF zones. Data that presents modal distribution, commodity flows, and top trading partners for individual FAF zones are available for MAFC states upon request.

After aggregating up from the FAF zone level to each MAFC state, states are aggregated up to the MAFC region. The goal of this data presentation method is to display the freight flows in the MAFC region in terms of top trading partners, modal distribution, and commodity flow. Lastly, each geographic extent will be analyzed based on both a tonnage and value basis. Differences in the value and weight of commodities will be shown to contrast differences in modal distribution of commodities.

Table 1 displays the FAF zones for the MAFC. In total the MAFC has 26 FAF zones, ranging from one to five zones per state. Notice how cities such as Chicago and Kansas City are split into zones in two states, therefore it is important to note not only the city but the state where freight activity is taking place. States with more than one FAF zone will have a remainder of the state FAF zone which represents the areas of the state not already accounted for by other in state FAF zones. For instance, Wisconsin is split into Milwaukee and the remainder of that state. Every portion of the state not represented in the Milwaukee FAF zone is in the remainder of Wisconsin FAF zone.

Table 1: MAFC FAF 3 Zones Organized by State

State of FAF Region FAF Regions* Code
Illinois Chicago 171
St. Louis 172
Illinois, Remainder of State 179
Indiana Chicago 181
Indianapolis 182
Indiana, Remainder of State 189
Iowa Iowa 190
Kansas Kansas City 201
Kansas, Remainder of State 209
Kentucky Louisville 211
Kentucky, Remainder of State 219
Michigan Detroit 261
Grand Rapids 262
Michigan, Remainder of State 269
Minnesota Minneapolis 271
Minnesota, Remainder of State 279
Missouri Kansas City 291
St. Louis 292
Missouri, Remainder of State 299
Ohio Cincinnati 391
Cleveland 392
Columbus 393
Dayton 394
Ohio, Remainder of State 399
Wisconsin Milwaukee 551
Wisconsin, Remainder of State 559

Source: FAF 3 Regions Boundary Layer, n.d.

Another note about FAF is the proclivity to double count freight flows when aggregating from the FAF zone to the state level and again from the state to the regional level. Double counting results from adding individual FAF zone origin and destination pairs which double counts all intra-zone trade. If total tonnage is the sum of all freight that originates in the state and all freight that is destined for the state, intrastate movements are counted twice. The same issue arises when aggregating to the MAFC level, but instead of intra-state trade being double counted intra-MAFC flows are double counted. Therefore, in many cases tables will not be totaled unless within trade is analyzed because the total is not a true reporting of total freight flows. Similarly, total MAFC trade will not be equal to the summation of MAFC states.

MAFC Origin and Destination

FAF 3.4 is used for the origin and destination analysis of the MAFC and separate tables are available in the appendix of this section. The appendix includes tables of the top 10 trading partners for each of the MAFC states. The framing of the MAFC origin and destination section of the RFS is around the regions imports and exports by tonnage and value. The framing of this analysis focuses on the MAFC as a region and assesses what moves into, out of, and within the region. Therefore, subsequent tables will only include trading partners that are outside of the MAFC. All freight that originates in the MAFC and is destined for non-MAFC states viewed as an export for the region. Conversely, all freight that originates in a non-MAFC state and is destined for the MAFC is an import for the region. Lastly, movements within the MAFC can be thought of regional self-reliance.

The importance of intra-MAFC trade cannot be understated; because the MAFC’s largest trading partner on an origin and destination basis is itself. Of the 5.8 billion tons of freight with a MAFC origin or destination, 3.92 billion tons or 67.5 percent, was shipped within the MAFC. To put this number into perspective, the top ten non-MAFC state trading partners trade a total of 1.23 billion tons or 21.1 percent of total MAFC freight movements for 2007. The ten MAFC states trade over three times as much with each other as the top ten non-MAFC states. On a value basis, the MAFC trades 52.8 percent of total value of freight shipped with itself.

MAFC Origin

We will begin our analysis of MAFC trade flows with freight that originates in the MAFC and is destined outside of the MAFC. This section can be thought of as exports for the MAFC. Table 2 begins the discussion of where freight that originates in the MAFC is destined. Table 2 lists the top fifteen FAF zones by tonnage where freight is destined.

Table 2: Top Non-MAFC Destinations of Freight Originating in the MAFC by Tonnage (exports)

Rank Destination State Tonnage (‘000 of tons)
1 New Orleans LA 84,931
2 Louisiana LA 45,467
3 Georgia, Remainder of State GA 35,224
4 Tennessee, Remainder of State TN 33,266
5 Houston TX 30,547
6 West Virginia WV 27,923
7 Los Angeles CA 26,035
8 Pennsylvania, Remainder of State PA 25,278
9 Nebraska NE 22,090
10 Texas, Remainder of State TX 21,588
11 Atlanta GA 21,443
12 Dallas TX 20,437
13 Seattle WA 20,257
14 Arkansas AR 19,789
15 Alabama, Remainder of State AL 18,335

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

Table 3 displays the destinations of freight originating in the MAFC similar to Table 2, but uses value instead of tonnage to find the top 15 FAF zones. In total, between Tables 2 and 3 there are at total of 20 unique FAF zones that the MAFC trades heavily with. Generally, the switch from tonnage to value favors Eastern FAF zones and replaces Southern FAF zones. For example, New Orleans, the remainder of Louisiana, Georgia, West Virginia, and Alabama which were top 15 for tonnage where replaced with New York in New Jersey, New York in New York, San Francisco, Buffalo, and Pittsburg. Even more interesting is that New Orleans, Louisiana, Georgia where top three destinations based on tonnage and don’t make the top 15 in value.

Table 3: Top Non-MAFC Destinations of Freight Originating in the MAFC by Value (exports)

Rank Destination State Origin ($millions)
1 Los Angeles CA $83,723
2 Pennsylvania, Remainder of State PA $47,453
3 New York NJ $45,005
4 Dallas TX $43,895
5 Atlanta GA $43,027
6 Houston TX $37,688
7 Texas, Remainder of State TX $33,885
8 Tennessee, Remainder of State TN $29,484
9 San Francisco CA $27,579
10 New York NY $26,493
11 Nebraska NE $25,039
12 Arkansas AR $23,633
13 Buffalo NY $23,571
14 Seattle WA $21,705
15 Pittsburgh PA $20,994

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

The changes in top 15 destinations for MAFC freight is largely explain by differences in commodities shipped to the listed FAF zones. For instance, freight shipped to Los Angeles is valued at $3,216 per ton whereas freight destined for New Orleans is valued at $232 per ton. Intuitively, freight destined for New Orleans is likely low value waterborne bulk commodities. Conversely, goods destined for Los Angeles are likely being exported via the Port of Long Beach and are valued much higher than those destined for New Orleans.

Table 4: Value per Ton of Top Destinations for MAFC Freight

Rank FAF Zone State Value ($‘000) Tons (‘000) $/ton
1 New York NY $26,493,207 5,431 $4,878
2 San Francisco CA $27,578,501 5,851 $4,713
3 New York NJ $45,004,914 12,542 $3,588
4 Los Angeles CA $83,723,280 26,035 $3,216
5 Buffalo NY $23,570,617 10,931 $2,156
6 Dallas TX $43,895,494 20,437 $2,148
7 Atlanta GA $43,026,758 21,443 $2,007
8 Pennsylvania, Remainder of State PA $47,452,938 25,278 $1,877
9 Texas, Remainder of State TX $33,884,790 21,588 $1,570
10 Pittsburgh PA $20,993,800 14,370 $1,461
11 Houston TX $37,687,591 30,547 $1,234
12 Arkansas AR $23,632,945 19,789 $1,194
13 Nebraska NE $25,039,153 22,090 $1,134
14 Seattle WA $21,705,002 20,257 $1,071
15 Alabama, Remainder of State AL $16,961,473 18,335 $925
16 Tennessee, Remainder of State TN $29,483,688 33,266 $886
17 West Virginia WV $20,548,692 27,923 $736
18 Georgia, Remainder of State GA $20,424,140 35,224 $580
19 Louisiana LA $13,585,760 45,467 $299
20 New Orleans LA $19,665,012 84,931 $232

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

MAFC-Destined

The MAFC-destined section outlines the movement of freight into the MAFC from non-MAFC states. This section is the import side of MAFC freight movements, in that the freight originates outside the MAFC and is destined for the MAFC. Table 5 displays the top non-MAFC origins for freight destined for the MAFC by tonnage.

Table 5: Top Non-MAFC Origin of Freight Destined for the MAFC by Tonnage (imports)

Rank Origin State Tonnage(‘000)
1 Wyoming WY 269,282
2 Houston TX 56,702
3 Nashville TN 48,373
4 West Virginia WV 40,812
5 Montana MT 35,364
6 North Dakota ND 33,174
7 Louisiana LA 31,350
8 Texas, Remainder of State TX 30,902
9 Los Angeles CA 20,937
10 Nebraska NE 20,728
11 Colorado, Remainder of State CO 19,978
12 Dallas TX 18,875
13 Arkansas AR 14,936
14 New Orleans LA 14,723
15 Pittsburgh PA 14,698

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

Table 6 displays the top origins of freight destined for the MAFC by value instead of tonnage. Analyzing top origins of MAFC freight from a value perspective returns almost an entirely new top 15 origins. Compared to destinations which had 15 unique FAF zones destinations for MAFC freight, the origins of freight destined for the MAFC has 24 unique values.

Table 6: Top Non-MAFC Origin of Freight Destined for the MAFC by Value (imports)

Rank Origin State Value ($millions)
1 Los Angeles CA $111,814
2 New York NJ $55,575
3 Houston TX $41,722
4 Memphis TN $39,849
5 Seattle WA $37,314
6 Texas, Remainder of State TX $35,224
7 Tennessee, Remainder of State TN $34,015
8 Dallas TX $33,973
9 New York NY $33,250
10 Pennsylvania, Remainder of State PA $32,688
11 Alaska AK $27,084
12 San Francisco CA $26,989
13 Pittsburgh PA $26,272
14 Laredo TX $26,198
15 Nebraska NE $24,313

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

The MAFC has 24 unique FAF zones that are top origins of MAFC destined freight based on either value or tonnage. The difference between value per ton of the top five and the bottom five really displays the difference in the types of goods. The RFS seeks to parse out the FAF data set in multiple ways to display the nuances of freight movements for the MAFC region. When comparing the value per ton of the MAFC’s freight exports to imports the MAFC imports lower value goods and exports higher value goods. The average value per ton of an exported good is $1,427 compared to $1,212 for an imported good. The modal distribution and top commodities of MAFC freight movements will be discussed further in the RFS, but this initial look provides a context for the rest of the analysis.

Top Trading Partner

Table 7 displays the top trading partners for the MAFC. Top trading partners is based on addition of tonnage both originating in and destined for the FAF zone. Table 7 is only non-MAFC FAF zones to show the most important trading partners outside the region. Generally, the top partners are either located West or South of the MAFC. Top trading partners provide an important context to remember when freight corridors are identified in subsequent sections of the RFS.

Table 7: Top Non-MAFC Trading Partners for the MAFC by Tonnage

Rank FAF Zone State Tonnage (‘000)
1 Wyoming WY 271,534
2 New Orleans LA 99,654
3 Houston TX 87,249
4 Louisiana LA 76,816
5 West Virginia WV 68,735
6 Nashville TN 61,094
7 Texas, Remainder of State TX 52,490
8 Los Angeles CA 46,971
9 Tennessee, Remainder of State TN 46,843
10 North Dakota ND 46,683
11 Georgia, Remainder of State GA 43,038
12 Nebraska NE 42,818
13 Pennsylvania, Remainder of State PA 39,950
14 Dallas TX 39,312
15 Montana MT 37,112

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

Table 8 displays the top non-MAFC FAF zones ranked by value. The geographic and modal distribution is much different than the list ranked by tonnage. The top 15 non-MAFC trading partners are more evenly distributed geographically than the list by tonnage.

Table 8: Top Non-MAFC Trading Partners for the MAFC by Value

Rank FAF Zone State Total ($millions)
1 Los Angeles CA $195,537
2 New York NJ $100,580
3 Pennsylvania, Remainder of State PA $80,141
4 Houston TX $79,410
5 Dallas TX $77,868
6 Texas, Remainder of State TX $69,109
7 Atlanta GA $66,242
8 Tennessee, Remainder of State TN $63,499
9 New York NY $59,743
10 Seattle WA $59,019
11 San Francisco CA $54,568
12 Memphis TN $53,522
13 Nebraska NE $49,352
14 Pittsburgh PA $47,266
15 Laredo TX $46,531

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

A noticeable attribute of the top trading partners for the MAFC by both value and tonnage is that a large portion of the top partners are whole states or the remainder of states. As a result, the top trading partners cover a large geographic area. Considering there is a high cost to supply freight access to larger areas, we control for the area of FAF zone and recreate the top trading partner tables. Tables 10 and 11 display the top trading partners by tonnage an value per square mile. Essentially, from a MAFC perspective the land in the listed FAF zones is the most productive land in terms of trade and the supporting infrastructure is that much more important.

Table 9: Top Non-MAFC Trading Partners for the MAFC by Value per Square Mile

Rank FAF Zone State Total Trade per Square Mile ($millions)
1 Memphis TN $27.2
2 New York NJ $24.2
3 El Paso TX $20.1
4 Washington DC $18.5
5 Buffalo NY $14.4
6 Laredo TX $13.8
7 Philadelphia PA $12.7
8 Baltimore MD $11.9
9 New York NY $11.4
10 Norfolk VA $10.3

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

Table 10: Top Non-MAFC Trading Partners for the MAFC by Tonnage per Square Mile

Rank FAF Zone State Total Trade per Square Mile (’000 of tons)
1 New Orleans LA 23.3
2 Nashville TN 9.6
3 Houston TX 7.8
4 Memphis TN 7.6
5 El Paso TX 7.4
6 Buffalo NY 6.6
7 New York NJ 5.6
8 Tampa FL 5.5
9 Beaumont TX 5.1
10 Pittsburgh PA 5.1

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

MAFC Modal Distribution

In addition to the top trading partners, the MAFC supports a multi-modal transportation system that establishes an environment in the region for economic competitiveness. As reported in the overview of the freight system section, the MAFC has tremendous access to maritime transportation for the transport of bulk goods. Similarly, the integration of rail, road, water, and air transportation in key areas such as Chicago allows the region to utilize multiple modes to leverage the competitive advantages of each mode.

Table 11 displays the modal distribution of MAFC freight. Each column speaks to a different freight flow to show differences in freight originating, destined or traveling within the MAFC. The modal distribution column displays the difference in modal choice between goods imported into the region, exported out of the region, and those that travel within the region. Note the similarities between the modal distribution of imports and export. The MAFC clearly utilizes truck and rail transport heavily, as well as water and multi-modal freight transportation. Conversely, note how heavily the MAFC relies on trucking to move goods within the region. 83.4 percent of goods that originate within one MAFC state and are destined for another MAFC state travel by truck. The MAFCs heavy reliance on trucking for intra-MAFC freight movement is likely due to trucks competitive advantage on shorter hauls. The final column of Table 11 displays the MAFCs total modal distribution for all freight by tonnage. Generally, the heavy reliance on trucking for intra-MAFC trade pushes the modal distribution toward trucking. Conversely, the total reliance on rail is heavily influenced by shipments originating or destined outside of the MAFC relying heavily on rail transport.

Table 11: MAFC Modal Distribution by MAFC Imports, Exports, and Internal Movements by Tonnage

MAFC Non-MAFC Origin (‘000) Non-MAFC Origin Modal Distribution Non-MAFC Destination (‘000) Non-MAFC Destination Modal Distribution Within MAFC (‘000) Within MAFC Modal Distribution Total MAFC Trade (‘000) Total Modal Distribution
Truck 321,605 36.3% 313,491 31.4% 3,270,109 83.4% 3,905,204 67.2%
Rail 292,402 33.0% 416,916 41.7% 258,727 6.6% 968,044 16.7%
Water 124,174 14.0% 20,066 2.0% 85,077 2.2% 229,317 3.9%
Air 545 0.1% 640 0.1% 99 0.0% 1,284 0.0%
Multiple. Modes 103,444 11.7% 57,868 5.8% 85,044 2.2% 246,356 4.2%
Pipe 33,689 3.8% 183,752 18.4% 172,330 4.4% 389,770 6.7%
Other/ unknown 10,547 1.2% 6,649 0.7% 51,098 1.3% 68,294 1.2%
No Domestic mode 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total 886,405 100.0% 999,381 100.0% 3,922,484 100.0% 5,808,269 100.0%

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

Table 12 displays the modal distribution based on value rather than tonnage. Value favors air, truck, and multiple modes and diminishes the role of rail and water. That being said, the proportion of freight moved by truck within the MAFC is relatively constant. We would expect trucking to stay relatively constant for within MAFC trade because it is both mover of higher valued goods and the distant between the top MAFC origin and destination pairs favors trucking.

Table 12: MAFC Modal Distribution by MAFC Imports, Exports, and Internal Movements by Value

MAFC Non-MAFC Origin ($millions) Non-MAFC Origin Modal Distribution Non-MAFC Destination ($millions) Non-MAFC Destination Modal Distribution Within MAFC ($millions) Within MAFC Modal Distribution Total MAFC Trade ($millions) Total Modal Distribution
Truck $757,435 59.9% $697,317 57.5% $2,330,511 84.2% $3,785,264 72.2%
Rail $125,693 9.9% $93,945 7.8% $92,322 3.3% $311,960 5.9%
Water $17,833 1.4% $6,463 0.5% $4,193 0.2% $28,489 0.5%
Air $42,062 3.3% $54,576 4.5% $6,097 0.2% $102,735 2.0%
Multiple. Modes $277,395 21.9% $262,624 21.7% $188,312 6.8% $728,331 13.9%
Pipe $15,680 1.2% $74,474 6.1% $86,951 3.1% $177,106 3.4%
Other/ unknown $28,864 2.3% $22,296 1.8% $60,396 2.2% $111,556 2.1%
No Domestic mode $- 0.0% $- 0.0% $- 0.0% $- 0.0%
Total $1,264,963 100.0% $1,211,695 100.0% $2,768,781 100.0% $5,245,439 1

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

Tables 13 and 14 provide a national context for the MAFC’s modal distribution. The overall modal distribution of the MAFC largely follows the national, with a few deviations. In relative terms, the biggest difference in modal distribution is in rail transportation on both value and tonnage measures.

Table 13: MAFC vs. National Modal Distribution by Tonnage

MAFC Total National Tonnage (‘000) National Modal Distribution Total MAFC Trade (‘000) MAFC Modal Distribution
Truck 13,335,623 70.6% 3,905,204 67.2%
Rail 2,024,073 10.7% 968,044 16.7%
Water 654,950 3.5% 229,317 3.9%
Air 4,988 0.0% 1,284 0.0%
Multiple. Modes 568,082 3.0% 246,356 4.2%
Pipe 1,673,839 8.9% 389,770 6.7%
Other/ unknown 317,271 1.7% 68,294 1.2%
No Domestic mode 299,910 1.6% 0.0%
Total 18,878,735 100.0% 5,808,269 100.0%

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

Table 14: MAFC vs. National Modal Distribution by Value

MAFC Total National Value

($millions)

National Modal Distribution Total MAFC Trade ($millions) MAFC Modal Distribution
Truck $12,192,831 73.2% $3,785,264 72.2%
Rail $573,978 3.4% $311,960 5.9%
Water $212,000 1.3% $28,489 0.5%
Air $357,019 2.1% $102,735 2.0%
Multiple. Modes $1,917,122 11.5% $728,331 13.9%
Pipe $795,015 4.8% $177,106 3.4%
Other/ unknown $472,356 2.8% $111,556 2.1%
No Domestic mode $130,274 0.8% $- 0.0%
Total $16,650,594 100.0% $5,245,439 100%

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

Top MAFC Commodities

The top 15 MAFC Commodities by total tonnage and value are presented in Tables 15 and 16. Tables 15 and 16 are sorted by total tonnage and value. Total was used to display the contribution of each commodity to the amount of freight traveling from MAFC origins and/or destinations. The final column of Tables 15 and 16 shows the percentage of total tonnage or value for each commodity that moves between MAFC states. The higher the percentage, the more self-reliant the MAFC is for that commodity. Conversely, a lower number either means the MAFC imports or exports a large percentage of the commodity. In total there are 43 commodities in the SCTG commodity classification, but only the top 15 are included in Tables 15 and 16. The full tables for all two digit SCTG commodity codes are available by tonnage and value in the appendix.

Table 15: Top 15 MAFC Commodities by Total Tonnage

Rank SCTG Commodity SCTG Code Non-MAFC Origin (‘000) Non-MAFC Destination (‘000) MAFC to MAFC (‘000) Total (‘000) MAFC to MAFC as %
1 Cereal grains 2 170,079 21,081 634,391 825,550 77%
2 Coal 15 121,082 331,167 194,578 646,828 30%
3 Gravel and crushed stone 12 44,881 50,407 535,427 630,715 85%
4 Nonmetallic mineral products 31 23,032 15,043 283,200 321,274 88%
5 Coal and petroleum products, n.e.c.* (includes Natural gas) 19 44,839 124,753 147,880 317,472 47%
6 Waste and scrap 41 19,303 9,061 280,668 309,032 91%
7 Base metal in primary or semi-finished forms and in finished basic shapes 32 39,629 36,726 142,080 218,435 65%
8 Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils 7 43,221 25,258 120,376 188,855 64%
9 Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel 17 3,491 5,479 164,321 173,291 95%
10 Natural sands 11 14,910 1,847 150,506 167,264 90%
11 Other agricultural products 3 45,915 15,000 100,218 161,133 62%
12 Crude petroleum 16 5,047 80,136 61,000 146,183 42%
13 Animal feed and products of animal origin, n.e.c. 4 37,238 7,514 84,937 129,688 65%
14 Basic chemicals 20 20,432 35,267 62,190 117,890 53%
15 Fuel oils 18 9,212 5,129 103,056 117,397 88%

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 2013

Table 16 presents the top 15 commodities by value for the MAFC. The commodities are ranked to highest total tonnage and a full list of commodities by value for the MAFC is available in the appendix. The commodities designated as the top 15 by value is almost a completely new list compared to that of tonnage. In fact, there are only 4 duplicate commodities in the list; other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils, gasoline and aviation turbine fuel, coal and petroleum products (includes Natural gas), and base metal in primary or semi-finished forms and in finished basic shapes.

Table 16: Top 15 MAFC Commodities by Total Value

Rank SCTG Commodity SCTG Code Non-MAFC Origin ($millions) Non-MAFC Destination ($millions) MAFC-MACF ($millions) Total ($millions) MAFC to MAFC as %
1 Motorized and other vehicles (including parts) 36 $204,753 $105,727 $325,957 $636,436 51%
2 Machinery 34 $112,988 $103,065 $318,599 $534,651 60%
3 Electronic and other electrical equipment and components and office equipment 35 $113,648 $152,750 $141,359 $407,757 35%
4 Mixed freight 43 $50,582 $34,185 $213,335 $298,102 72%
5 Pharmaceutical products 21 $49,244 $93,337 $125,869 $268,450 47%
6 Base metal in primary or semi-finished forms and in finished basic shapes 32 $54,803 $62,747 $143,614 $261,164 55%
7 Plastics and rubber 24 $61,115 $62,005 $98,141 $221,262 44%
8 Miscellaneous manufactured products 40 $60,098 $59,857 $76,248 $196,203 39%
9 Other prepared foodstuffs and fats and oils 7 $45,369 $35,071 $114,797 $195,236 59%
10 Articles of base metal 33 $43,482 $41,455 $109,255 $194,192 56%
11 Textiles, leather, and articles of textiles or leather 30 $47,979 $61,211 $65,404 $174,594 37%
12 Chemical products and preparations, n.e.c.* 23 $49,340 $34,055 $69,890 $153,285 46%
13 Precision instruments and apparatus 38 $39,784 $43,853 $42,713 $126,349 34%
14 Gasoline and aviation turbine fuel 17 $2,436 $3,975 $113,573 $119,985 95%
15 Coal and petroleum products, n.e.c.* (includes Natural gas) 19 $19,344 $51,849 $47,174 $118,367 40%

Source: Freight Analysis Framework 3.4, 201

Conclusion

The MAFC is clearly a multi-modal region that is heavily reliant on itself as shown by total trade within the region. This section outlines the trade flows of the MAFC by splitting the FAF 3.4 into sub-populations differentiated based on MAFC membership, mode, commodity, value, and tonnage. The freight story of the MAFC is multi-faceted as shown by the definitive differences between the same variables shown in tonnage and value terms. Similarly, the modal distribution of freight moves in the MAFC depends greatly on if the moves are within the MAFC or if they have a non-MAFC origin or destination. This section of the RFS is a high level snapshot of the MAFC and its use of the freight system. Subsequent sections will provide more specific analysis of freight movements.

Note: All of the tables on this page are available for download in a single Excel spreadsheet.

Print Friendly