Public policy debates about solving the Postal Service’s financial crisis have largely focused on reducing costs by cutting service such as Saturday delivery, transitioning from brick and mortar post offices to alternative retail sales channels, or limiting other functions performed by the Postal Service. There has been less talk about the costs of meeting delivery service standards, which were reviewed following the passage of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006.

Can the Postal Service relax some of its requirements to save money in transportation or processing costs? Right now, its goals are to deliver First-Class Mail in 1 to 3 days and Standard Mail in 3 to 10 days. A slight adjustment of these standards in particular areas might make it possible to save a great deal of costs. Instead of developing the goal first and trying to reach those levels, no matter how costly it is, maybe the Postal Service should closely analyze its infrastructure and develop goals that allow for reaching the greatest efficiencies.

[poll id="92"]

[poll id="93"]

For example, if the service standards for bulk mail from Chicago to Los Angeles were given an additional day the Postal Service could avoid the expense of trucks and instead utilize economical rail transportation. A First-Class Mail package that currently travels by air could be carried by truck if given another day.

By relaxing service standards, the Postal Service can move further towards a hub and spoke network, which could result in substantial savings. Currently, plants may have lots of half-empty, smaller trucks fanning out to a multiplicity of plants only once or twice a day. Under this new strategy, many trucks would go to a mail consolidation facility, which consolidates the mail and ships it on larger, fuller trucks to the destination facilities throughout the day. This design has the additional benefits of network stability and is capable of scaling up or down with changing mail volume.

The bottom line is that the Postal Service and its stakeholders need to decide what service standards are worth the cost. The Postal Service should have an honest and informed discussion about the cost savings that it can pass on to the public by relaxing some of the present delivery service standards.

Do you think the Postal Service should adjust its delivery standards to cut its costs?

This topic is hosted by the OIG’s Risk Analysis Research Center (RARC).

Comments (153)

  • anon

    As someone who has worked with Periodicals for over 20 years for every kind of publication I think that people in our industry tend to want to separate service and cost. Many with freqencies of Monthly or less should be happy with a day or two longer time in transit as long as there was consistency (keeping costs down) Others with time sensitive material and freqiencies of weekly or more need fast and predictable The publishers who have both situations must demand service. I will now commit blasphemy and suggest that we be willing to split the periodical rate into expedited and normal and let those publishers who need it pay for it. Time was one of the first publishers to demand that we all pay for the amount of service the USPS provides based on the sortation we are able to achieve. However that publisher never suggested that weekly magazines pay more for service than a montly. No surprise here.

    Apr 19, 2010
  • anon

    One large problem is too much money being paid to retires and current workers. The wages and benefits are higher that most private companies. Get real and lower wages and retirement payouts. That is what big business must also do (and to some extent is doing).

    Apr 19, 2010
  • anon

    If the USPS were to adjust the delivery date by 1 or 2 days most mailers such as publishers would make adjustments to their schedules to accomadate the changes. For the most part I don't think most people would really notice if it took one more day or not. If it would reduce the overall cost of mailing or put off some postage increases in the future then I'm for it

    Apr 19, 2010


Share this post

Recent Comments

Monthly Archive