More Sprawl, Less Mail
January 29, 2009
Yesterday the Postmaster General told congress that the USPS might have to slash a day of mail delivery to close a large and growing deficit. A lot of explanations for the decline of the Post Office are floating around: The rise of email, decline of letter-writing, and growing competition from private companies are common explanations. On the other hand, the growth of Amazon, Netflix, eBay, and other services that virtually didn't exist more than a decade ago has provided at least decent amount business for the Post Office. In their book, Andres Duany et al describe another theory that typically isn't discussed:
Another organization that has had difficulty coping with sprawl is the U.S. Postal Service. An ex-Postmaster General once explained to us where most of the postage money goes: to those little Jeeps and vans delivering mail on the suburban fringe. These vehicles are the main reason why the post office is perennially hiking its rates, and why aluminum mailboxes at subdivision entries have replaced door-to-door delivery on foot. The main-street post office as a social center has also become an endangered species, as large-scale vehicle-storage requirements lead toward the consolidation of services into regional mega-offices on the suburban fringe.It's sad to see the Post Office in this dilemma; even worse is that the USPS would only continue to delve into the red if this underlying problem is corrected at the source.
You can't simultaneously lament the decline of letter writer while embracing superfluous "communication tools" like Twitter.
Turk, I'm not trying to lament the decline of letter writing; it is what it is. My point is merely that the trouble the Post Office find itself in transcends typical explanations like the death of the personal letter.
That's fair enough. I'm not saying I'm a huge letter writer or anything, it just seemed like an odd stance to take given your fervor for new communication technology. Part of it is my misinterpretation of the post. I guess part of it is my bias against Twitter. I mean, I'm a pretty plugged in guy -- write for two blogs, follow yours and many others on my Google Reader -- but I still can't see the point of Twitter, it just seems so unnecessary.
But that's neither here nor there, thanks for the clarification.
Turk, no problem. If it's any consolation, I seem to like Twitter less and less each passing day and I'm sympathetic to those who don't see much value in it. That said, it was probably worth it to at least give it a try.
Yeah, I've tried it too and it's a nice idea, but really to me, it just seems like anything it can do can be done better by some other service. For instance, one of the local cab companies in DC now has a service where you can Twitter to have a cab pick you up. At that point, why not just, ya know, call the cab company? It just seems like at best, it's a marginally useful tool for updating people about what's going on in your life or business (and a bit narcissistic in the assumption that people will or should care)and, at worst, it's another step towards people being further detached from real human contact.
And I'm not trying to make a debate about old vs. new school. There are clearly newer technologies I find genuinely useful; Twitter has just never been one of them. I mean, isn't that what my Facebook status is for?
Did people really write THAT many personal letters?
I get, on average, three Netflix movies in the mail every week. Back before e-mail I would be lucky to write and receive one personal letter a week.
I wonder how this is going to affect my correspondence tic-tac-toe games.
Coincidentally, I'm running a brainstorming session over at my blog on ways the P.O. can make more money. If any of you want to add to our list, feel free.
Save the U.S. Postal Service.