Bigger not necessarily better for post offices

Posted April 10, 2011, at 12 p.m.

The U.S. Postal Service is taking the wrong approach in planning to decide which post offices to close based on sales, foot traffic, hours of operation and other volume-related statistics. This is biased in favor of big-city, congested post offices that ironically can be within easy driving distance to other postal outlets in the same vicinity.

Not so with rural post offices. If you close one of them down, you deny postal patrons any reasonable access to mail services simply because of their remote locations from the big city.

The postal service announced that as many as 3,000 offices across the country may be reviewed under new criteria that would drop the usual exemptions for small post offices.

“I’m not certain that this is going to lead to wholesale closings,” postal vice president Dean Granholm said. “We still need to make good business decisions.”

The postal service needs to include access as one of the review criteria. After all, big doesn’t necessarily mean better when it comes to providing universal mail services to Americans, urban and rural alike. It’s only fair.

The Pueblo, Colo., Chieftain (April 2)

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/04/10/opinion/bigger-not-necessarily-better-for-post-offices/ printed on August 22, 2014