Sunday, July 08, 2007

Postal ills and solutions

Over the last several years, there have been numerous proposals to restructure or totally reinvent our country's postal system. Our future postal system will probably be vastly different from the system that we have today. Read Will the postal system as we know it be stamped out?

I would postulate that majority of the mail that is handled by the U.S. Postal Service falls into two categories: advertisements and periodicals. At least that's what it seems like by reviewing the snail mail that arrives at our house. Most of what arrives in people's mail boxes ends up in their trash cans in less than a week's time (if not on the same day it arrives). What about the fuel used to deliver the mail? What is this doing to our environment? What is the production and disposal of so much paper doing to our Earth?

With the costs of delivering mail continuing to rise due to growth of delivery points and increasing fuel costs, a number of solutions have been offered to keep costs in check. Privatizing the entire system or outsourcing portions of it may both seem viable solutions, neither directly addresses those two factors or the coincidental environmental issues (more paper in the system and more fuel burned to deliver it).

Here are some of the solutions that I like:


  1. Stop offering "bulk mail" rates. The "bulk" is killing us. If businesses put a lot of mail into the system, they should pay at least what it actually costs to deliver it.
  2. Allow addressees to "Return to Sender" any unwanted unopened mail, and charge the original sender for the full cost of return postage. This would financially inspire businesses to remove addresses from their mailing lists. Official government mail would be exempt.
  3. Stop delivering regular U.S.P.S. mail for free. Everyone would have to pick up their mail at centralized locations (the local post office or p.o. box location). These locations would provide convenient recycling bins, as well as "Return to Sender" drop boxes (see #2 above). Anyone wanting their mail delivered to their door would pay a periodic fee for the privilege (and the fuel and personnel cost) of having their mail delivered to their door. The elderly, disabled, and certain lower-income groups would be have their home delivery subsidized.
  4. Treat periodicals as third class mail. Deliver it as low priority and charge its delivery by weight. If a publisher wants their product delivered more quickly, they would pay first class postage, including being charged by weight.
  5. Charge appropriately for first class mail delivery. The .41 we pay now does not cover the cost of delivering a piece of mail to your door. The Federal Government is subsidizing the Postal Service. (If you don't believe me consider the recent bill to bail out the U.S.P.S. health care fund.) Privatizing the Service would put an end to that, but so would treating the Service as a fully self-funded self-sustaining enterprise within the Federal Government infrastructure.
  6. Continue to offer subsidized mail rates to non-profits. However, they too should be subject to the full costs of the "Return to Sender" service I postulated in #2 above. This would encourage non-profits to carefully vet their mailing lists too.
  7. End Saturday delivery as a free service of the U.S.P.S. Post offices could still be open on Saturday mornings for pick-ups and counter service. However, mail should only be delivered on Saturdays as a premium service that the sender pays for.


While businesses and non-profits would argue that some of the above solutions would cause them great difficulty and expense, I believe they all need to be considered. Would these 'solutions' increase the incidence of unwanted electronic communications (spam) and the nuisance of telemarketing? Yes. But, as a nation, we are also in the process of addressing these issues. Businesses spend a great deal of money on mass advertising that usually has a low return. Perhaps it is time for all those folks with Marketing degrees to show how useful their degrees can be. I'm sure there are a number of bright stars in the field that can offer creative ways to reach fertile target audiences for specific product and service offerings.

In addition, the above policies would encourage businesses and consumers to utilize electronic and automated payment to a much higher degree.

We live in a great country. Our postal system is one of the best in the world. However, we can still have a great postal system without fiscal and environmental waste. We need to stop driving the postal equivalent of a Mercedes SUV and start driving a hybrid.

2 comments:

kayakero said...

Lot's of food for thought there. I detect a blogger cruising for some comments :)

We've not opted for electronic delivery of bills (and certainly not for automated payment of bills) so about a quarter or a bit less of our mail is bills.

To some extent UPS and FedEx are already offering private mail service -- but the surcharge is a bit steep for most uses. I've recently sent several packages around (I know, not the same as letters) and while I found the convenience of the local UPS store nice, the cost was considerably higher than USPS (that subsidy you mentioned).

I wonder how much of the burden of actually paying what it costs to send a letter (or a bill payment) would seem to be unfairly placed on lower income folks who just barely have a checking account to pay bills, but are not willing or ready to pay them electronically?

Point 3 needs, I think, clarification: at least with home delivery there is one person driving into a neighborhood and delivering mail to several houses at one time. Without that, you likely end up with each person driving to the post office at least every other day to get mail. I think that would actually do more harm than good to the environment. I've heard complaints from new subdivision residents that the home mail box is being increasingly replaced by the bigger block mail box (they had a better term, cluster boxes, in Post article). That seems like the compromise you need -- especially if you convince the Hummer owners not to make a special trip down the block to pick up their mail.

Finally, I like point point 7, no Saturday delivery, if you can get an extra day to pay your bills that arrive in the mail. (And can stop by the post office to pick up your Netflix.)

-David

Kitten Herder said...

Thanks for the feedback, David.

I did momentarily consider the burden on lower income folks when it comes to bill paying. For the REALLY low income folks, perhaps we can include "postage stamps" in with food stamps. Also, I have noticed that a lot of super markets and banks that will accept utility payments. And, I have actually witnessed people (usually of seemingly low income) paying their utility bills this way.

As to the overall environmental friendliness of point 3, I concur that it would be less friendly to have multiple people drive to the post office than have one person make the rounds. Ultimately, I think my goal is to see less paper mail in the system, so that the need to go pick it up isn't all that urgent. Plus, it is doubtful that people would make a special trip out to pick the mail up. Like grocery shopping and the like, errands would get combined. And finally, I foresee a lot of lazy self-indulgent suburbanites paying for the delivery. While this would not improve the environmental profile, it would help make the U.S.P.S. more self-sustaining.

One other solution comes to mind on the environmental front. I think the U.S.P.S. needs to switch to hybrid delivery vehicles. Their stop-and-go driving is perfect for the feedback design efficiency of those vehicles. I love that NYC's mayor has dictated that the City's cab fleet needs to convert within a few years in order to continue to operate within the City.

Wouldn't it be great if the U.S.P.S., as a Fedearl agency, became an environmental leader instead of an environmental defeater?