Build back better proposes 6 billion to electrify post office fleet 70%

[freebeard]

I've been 'lobbying' (lol) my local post office about banking services for some time, and now I find this:

inthesetimes.com/article/postal-banking-post-office-apwu

This is why a new experiment from the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to offer postal banking is so remarkable. In September, the country’s most popular federal agency began offering paycheck-cashing services at several East Coast post offices — in collaboration with the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) and after being pushed by numerous community groups. Now, anyone can redeem paychecks in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Md., Falls Church, Va., and the Bronx in New York City in return for Visa gift cards up to $500. The postal agency expects to expand the program to bill-paying services and ATMs in the future.

This approach is not exactly new — USPS actually offered postal banking from 1911 to 1967. During this period, the program provided a stable alternative to private banks, first for immigrants, then for white farmers during the Great Depression, and then the wealthy in the 1940s, as they sought reasonable returns in the era’s low-interest economy. It was ended in an effort by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to streamline the government.

A new profit center? Banks make out Okay.

[Hersbird]

It may be the perfect application but if so then it should pay for it self. Keep in mind this is 6 billion over and above the previous 6 billion for new trucks. So this is really 12 billion for 200,000 trucks, or $60,000 each.

[redpoint5]

I always wondered how private companies could compete considering the letter carrier comes every single day. How much extra would it cost for a package to be delivered along with the letters compared with a company that doesn't visit daily and delvers no letters?

[freebeard]

Whoever can dispatch delivery drones from the roof of their fleet vehicle wins.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I always wondered how private companies could compete considering the letter carrier comes every single day. How much extra would it cost for a package to be delivered along with the letters compared with a company that doesn't visit daily and delvers no letters?

A few packages here and there no big deal. Say 20 over 700 stops. That's what it used to be. Now it's 150 every 700 stops on a light day and 300+ on a heavy day. UPS drivers don't delivery that many on a daily basis doing only packages in an 8 hour shift. So those days it's more like you have a little mail to deliver with the packages and on a normal day it's 40% packages filling your time. Keep in mind I can do literally 50 letters and maybe 10 stops for just letters as fast as one package. If the package needs a signature double or triple that time.

Without the packages all together they could probably double the length of most routes meaning only 1/2 the workforce would be needed. Cut our labor costs in 1/2 and take out all the parcel revenue and we would be into the black instead of almost 10 billion a year in the red.

[Piotrsko]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Without the packages all together they could probably double the length of most routes meaning only 1/2 the workforce would be needed. Cut our labor costs in 1/2 and take out all the parcel revenue and we would be into the black instead of almost 10 billion a year in the red.

You're a government agency, it is a public benefit service, there should be no need for profit excepting that a poop pot load of people hate having government pay for anything. Make junk mail pay it's way.

[redpoint5]

That explains nothing, because my premise (which is likely flawed), is that someone already stopping at every house can add packages to the route for lower cost than sending out special deliveries everywhere. Not only that, but the USPS is non-profit, so there's no high dollar executives to pay.

If adding packages means less of a route can be completed, that simply means the routes have to be shortened and more carriers added.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That explains nothing, because my premise (which is likely flawed), is that someone already stopping at every house can add packages to the route for lower cost than sending out special deliveries everywhere. Not only that, but the USPS is non-profit, so there's no high dollar executives to pay.

If adding packages means less of a route can be completed, that simply means the routes have to be shortened and more carriers added.

Oh most definitely it's faster to do the mail with the packages than sending 2 trucks over the same territory. Just the travel time alone to and from the hub not delivering anything. Say onbthe average day you would spend 4 hours on parcels if you did them separately and 6 hours on mail for 10 hours for 2 trucks, but one guy does it in 9 combined. Also one guy only has 2 breaks where 2 guys have 4 breaks, and the mentioned travel time. Makes 2 more like 12 hours and one about 10. The parcel rates and deals were set when it was more like a 10% parcel to 90% mail split so they pay 10% of the operating and legacy costs while the rest of the mail pays 90%. The problem is rasing that to say 40% of the costs would put the rates at FedEx and UPS or even higher and the volume would drop back down to more like the 10%.

But that is what's not fair to the competition, we are subsidizing package rates which is not a constitutional public service, with the letter mail which is.

Not directed at you but just throwing it out. If the packages are necessary for the public good why charge anything at all. If profits don't matter, just print money with all the other spending and make mail and packages free to send with the PO. UPS and the others would be out of business overnight. Even moving companies would be effected as people just box their stuff up and mail it to their new home. 1/2 the semis on the road would suddenly be carrying mail paid for by the general population rather than freight paid for by the specific customer that wanted it.

Every peice of mail and packages we carry needs to pay it's own way, including new trucks EV or not. Let the chips fall where they may, if the PO gets smaller and more efficient so be it. We are just not set up to be a package operation and it would take more trucks, more processing plants, a fleet of cargo jets, etc. They are just getting abused by the other companies playing the last mile game because that's all we are capable of handling and it's the biggest money loser for those companies and us too.

[redpoint5]

My allegiance to efficiency simply won't let this one go. Why does the USPS truck pass by, then the FedEx truck, then the UPS truck... why are there at least 3 trucks all sharing the same function; delivering packages (not to mention Amazon deliveries).

From an efficiency standpoint, I want a single truck to deliver the letters and parcels. We don't need 3 or 4 trucks doing what a single one can accomplish.

Perhaps UPS and FedEx should be relegated to delivering between businesses, with residential served by someone else. Either Amazon needs to ship through USPS, or USPS should contract with Amazon to deliver the letters. I tend to think the latter since Amazon has the profit incentive to run as efficiently as possible, though their size is troubling.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I've been 'lobbying' (lol) my local post office about banking services for some time, and now I find this:

inthesetimes.com/article/postal-banking-post-office-apwu


A new profit center? Banks make out Okay.

The post office could do haircuts, and mammograms too, or any number of things. But why? Those services are already provided well by the free market. Why not just let the government run the banks, the grocery stores, the trucking, the housing, etc? It's been tried many times before in many different places always with the same failed outcome in the end.

And about the 3 trucks coming to you house, that's competition. Without it it may be more efficient but it will cost more. Why not just have one company make all the cars and trucks of the world. One small, one medium, one big. Super efficient way to provide vehicles. No competition would make them crap. Workers would have no incentive to build them well or quickly. Again it's been tried and it leads to terrible products and service.