Maybe, it's because they're different "average" numbers, referring to two different things? That may be because one is a "national" average for (the volume or value?) of all imports and exports at all U.S. ports, and the other number is just the number for the Port of Oakland, which is a single data point and subset of the data that goes into that other average?

Just saying, maybe that's why.....?

Or possibly, it could be part of the vast conspiracy by some of those "evil" mathematicians and statisticians to confuse and befuddle us with that damned confusing math, yet again?

Since the increased value of the dollar, with the Federal Reserve trying to "raise" interest rates, over the last year, has been blamed for actually cutting cur export demand and hurt GDP pretty dramatically for the past two quarters, these two sets of numbers aren't really too bad, at least from my many years of experience with this kind of data.

Imports have fallen relative to exports, mainly in "value" due to lower cost energy imports, not so much in volumes..... And, exports have held up better than expected, despite a more valuable dollar making these US products more expensive for those customers to buy.

National rail traffic weekly totals and rolling "averages" (with data reported for all railroads, both up and down...) for those "evil" trains reflect some of this low commodity price/low inflation/slow but steady real economic growth. Almost all losses in carload volumes is due to energy traffic losses (coal, oil, fracking sands) due to declining prices, partially offset by some significant increases in other carload traffic commodities, and a small loss in TEU's, which is partially and effect of cheaper diesel prices, allowing lots more trucks to compete for longer hauls.

Harbingers of coming "end" times, economically? We'll see......

As Rosanna Rosannadanna used to say: "It's always something....."

Oh well.....?