Granted, I only have two data points.

From Biden Mocks Freedom in Twisted Train Wreck of a Town Hall by Nick Arama, a brutal review of Joe Biden's town hall last night.  

At one point, Biden makes the statement that "40% of all products coming into the United States of America on the West Coast, go through Los Angeles and, uh, . . ."

He loses his train of thought and Cooper Anderson has to step in and suggest Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors.

Yes, his constant errors and repeated inability to form a sentence were both distressing and alarming.

I, however, am focused on that claim.  40% of all seaborne traffic comes through Los Angeles and Long Beach?  I know they are big operations but I didn't know that they were the plurality of all shipping.  The US is blessed with multiple huge ports (San Francisco, Chicago, Houston, NYC, Boston, etc.)  Is the 40% figure true? 

True enough.  According to this report, 34.2% of all seaborne trade is carried through LA/Long Beach.  

So I am surprised by that.

But doubly surprised.  Last week I was in the UK where they are also facing supply chain issues and port congestion problems.  Listening to a news report and then reading a news account, they both alluded to Felixstowe as the port carrying the plurality of seaborne trade, 36%.  I have been to Felixstowe; it is a big port.  But 36%?  What about London, Liverpool, Bristol, Portsmouth, Southampton, Hull, etc.?  All historically huge ports.  They have been surpassed by Felixstowe?

Checked, and the answer was yes.  The largest port in England is indeed Felixstowe.

So two port surprises in the space of a week or so.

Now I am left wondering, For countries with large coastlines and multiple viable ports, is there some sort of logistical law whereby the largest port will handle 35-40% of all seaborne trade?  Granted, I only have two data points to support my hypothesis.