USPS Complex | Fort Point

From the Globe article: "Postal Service officials said the cuts will slow the delivery of first-class mail, causing average shipping time to take two to three days instead of one."
 
That's not on account of one facility being consolidated in the suburbs - this would be the case whether or not the facility remained. All the articles about the postal service recently have said that the USPS is dropping their 1 day first class shipping time.

Put another way, the postal service nationally is about to get worse irrespective of what happens in Fort Point.

Again I feel bad about the jobs, but this frees up a higher use in Fort Point. In an age of email, we've put too many resources into getting an envelope across the country at great convenience in minimal time at minimal cost to the consumer than it's worth today. Those who still need an envelope in Anchorage tomorrow can do so with FedEx and pay market rate for the service.
 
While the Postal Service had long planned to demolish its current facility along Fort Point Channel to allow for the expansion of train service at South Station, yesterday’s news means it may not replace it with a new building on a 25-acre government-owned parcel further down Summer Street in South Boston. Instead, the Postal Service said it is considering consolidating the Boston operations with existing facilities in Waltham and North Reading.

There you go -- The Seaport Hotel / Casino site is already to go as soon as the PO gives the OK -- in addition to the Massport land that the PO was going to build on -- there is an existing parking lot for PO employees and PO vehicles

This is a major win/win for Boston courtesy of the bankruptcy of the PO
1) room to expand South Station tracks and waiting room for Comuter Rail and Amtrak and also to build some new retail / hotel / office structures
1a) Opportunity to open the bridge for Dorchester Ave and put in a nice wide pedestrian harbor walk
2) Room for a big Hotel for the HQ of the BCEC on the PO parking lots at A St. -- was one site identified by the BCEC Expansion Report
3) Room for the big Seaport / Innovation District Hotel / Casino on the 25 acres that the PO was going to build on further toward the Reserve Channel and the Cruise Terminal

Minimal downside:
The mail processing can be consolidated into the relatively new faciliy in Waltham -- though there might need to be some exit and road work to handle the increased volume -- NIMBYs in South Lexington and Waltham ae already on alert!
 
but shouldn't a mail processing facility be as close to the airport as possible, since that's how most mail gets to and from Boston from anywhere else?
 
whighlander said:
While the Postal Service had long planned to demolish its current facility along Fort Point Channel to allow for the expansion of train service at South Station, yesterday’s news means it may not replace it with a new building on a 25-acre government-owned parcel further down Summer Street in South Boston. Instead, the Postal Service said it is considering consolidating the Boston operations with existing facilities in Waltham and North Reading.

There you go -- The Seaport Hotel / Casino site is already to go as soon as the PO gives the OK -- in addition to the Massport land that the PO was going to build on -- there is an existing parking lot for PO employees and PO vehicles

This is a major win/win for Boston courtesy of the bankruptcy of the PO
1) room to expand South Station tracks and waiting room for Comuter Rail and Amtrak and also to build some new retail / hotel / office structures
1a) Opportunity to open the bridge for Dorchester Ave and put in a nice wide pedestrian harbor walk
2) Room for a big Hotel for the HQ of the BCEC on the PO parking lots at A St. -- was one site identified by the BCEC Expansion Report
3) Room for the big Seaport / Innovation District Hotel / Casino on the 25 acres that the PO was going to build on further toward the Reserve Channel and the Cruise Terminal

Minimal downside:
The mail processing can be consolidated into the relatively new faciliy in Waltham -- though there might need to be some exit and road work to handle the increased volume -- NIMBYs in South Lexington and Waltham ae already on alert!
Click to expand...

Your Plan: A casino and hotels.

My Plan: A mix of uses including 1/3rd residential, office and retail. Plus some decent recreational spaces and throw in some civic uses:

AKA

100 Acre Plan
 
Shepard said:
Article mentions that instead of rebuilding in Southie away from Fort Point they are considering consolidating in Waltham or North Reading. Well, I'm sorry for the loss of jobs, but I tend to agree. Less mail is being processed, and I see little need for a processing facility on prime urban land (unless I'm missing something?)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it make sense to have the facility close to the area with the most customers? (or am I missing something about what this place does?)
 
They should cut back on rural and suburban delivery to just Mon/Wed/Fri. I imagine that alone would save heaps.

The distribution center should be kept where all the population is.
 
The post office has a mandate to serve all Americans equally regardless of location. I don't think you can justify delivering six days a week in Boston but only three times a week in Burlington or Waltham (both of which are full of businesses that need daily service).
 
BostonUrbEx said:
They should cut back on rural and suburban delivery to just Mon/Wed/Fri. I imagine that alone would save heaps.

The distribution center should be kept where all the population is.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I guess my mail isn't as important as yours. With this logic, may I keep all my suburban tax money and stop funding urban housing projects so poor people can live in neighborhoods in which I used to be able to afford to live?
 
JohnCostello said:
Thanks, I guess my mail isn't as important as yours. With this logic, may I keep all my suburban tax money and stop funding urban housing projects so poor people can live in neighborhoods in which I used to be able to afford to live?
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with importance, but everything to do with efficiency. Mail trucks get 15mpg (or less, seeing as they're idling at a mailbox/curb half the time) and need to scoot house-to-house. That mailman gets paid the same wage whether he can walk to 100 units in an hour or scoots his truck to 30 people in an hour. We could be saving alot on those wages and that $3.5/g gas.

Couldn't care less if the projects don't get funded. But Boston is what subsidizes the suburbs anyway, not the other way around.

And who even gets "important mail" these days? If someone truly can't wait one extra day, UPS it. Or go to the PO and pick it up. 99% of your mail is probably junk and spam.
 
It might be cheaper not to distribute water to suburban areas either. They can fill the tub on Mon/Wed/Fri or rent a hotel room downtown.

It's not only about money.

We live in a civilized society.

Everyone pays taxes and contributes resources to make USPS exist so services can be distributed to ALL citizens regardless of their contribution.

If we don't want to live in a civilized society where we identify some common goals for all citizens, we might as well shut down the government and fend for ourselves. I realize this is the political climate lately, but would suggest that there are unintended consequences of living in a citizenry with services tiered only based on a community's ability to pay.

The streets of Newton could be paved monthly and Dorchester could have dirt roads.

It's a political discussion, probably more than necessary for a Fort Point thread.
 
Sicilian said:
It might be cheaper not to distribute water to suburban areas either. They can fill the tub on Mon/Wed/Fri or rent a hotel room downtown.

It's not only about money.

We live in a civilized society.

Everyone pays taxes and contributes resources to make USPS exist so services can be distributed to ALL citizens regardless of their contribution.

If we don't want to live in a civilized society where we identify some common goals for all citizens, we might as well shut down the government and fend for ourselves. I realize this is the political climate lately, but would suggest that there are unintended consequences of living in a citizenry with services tiered only based on a community's ability to pay.

The streets of Newton could be paved monthly and Dorchester could have dirt roads.

It's a political discussion, probably more than necessary for a Fort Point thread.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Just dead wrong. Political opinions are one thing. Facts are another.

No one contributes resources to make the USPS exist. The post office is self-funded from postage.

It should also be noted that USPS are partly in a financial bind because a small shrieking group of nutbags passed a law in 2006 forcing the USPS to pre-pay future pension expenses. The Times quotes a figure as high as $60 billion dollars has been overpaid. It also notes the Republican chair of House Oversight says recovering any of the overpayments would be a "bailout."

Just so that the facts are known. Imagine being legally forced to pay a 30-year mortage in 10 years, even if it mean you would go bankrupt after year 5?

EDIT: I added the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/b...e-struggles-to-stay-solvent-and-relevant.html
 
You're implying the USPS is no different than Fedex, except for the burden we taxpayers impose on it to break even?

Wrong. Just dead wrong.

You sound like the guy who tells me that Massport is a private corporation and should do whatever it wants.

And the other guy who tells me the BCEC pays its way so it should do what it wants.

Did the Postal Service buy its equipment, buildings and property from the prior owner of that property? The owner of that property was the US Gov't (e.g. the taxpayer). Did the U.S. Postal Service reimburse me and other taxpayer for startup expenses before going (quasi) private?

NO.

USPS is not Fedex. Fedex started from scratch and bought the resources it needed.

Consider me, and all taxpayers, the stockholders. Without us USPS would be nothing.
 
Last edited:
Sicilian said:
It might be cheaper not to distribute water to suburban areas either. They can fill the tub on Mon/Wed/Fri or rent a hotel room downtown.
Click to expand...

Clean water is generally considered a need, whereas I don't think many people see mail as necessary...


I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm only 20, but I really don't see mail as being so vital and important these days... I really can't think of anything I've ever received where being a day later or earlier would have mattered at all.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
Clean water is generally considered a need, whereas I don't think many people see mail as necessary...


I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm only 20, but I really don't see mail as being so vital and important these days... I really can't think of anything I've ever received where being a day later or earlier would have mattered at all.
Click to expand...

Spoken as someone who clearly has never held a real job.
 
No it's because you are 20. Has nothing to do with having a real jobs. There are a lot of silly arguments in the last 15-20 posts.

There is a huge portion of the population that is over 50. These people count on the mail much more than you and I may.

These are also the people who, believe it or not, still write letters, and mail all of their checks and bills via. the USPS.

City mail everyday and suburban mail 3 times? Think before typing.

I hate to see people lose jobs, and especially that many. The plain fact is that the writing has been on the wall for years as far as the post office's demise. They also should have started their cutbacks well before they did. The problem is.... it's a government institution, which means it gets to die the slow death, whilte keeping people employed as long as possible. Whether this is seen as admirable or wasteful is up to your own opinions.

Yes the slow death and the continued survival of the post office is at the expense of the citizens of this nation. You say it's fully funded by postage, but who pays postage? Individuals and businesses. And, as postage has tripled since I was born, and gone up 66% in the last 20 years the burden has been placed more on the population to support the PO. The problem is, people were already shifting away from the mail for many things. From communication to paying bills to buying goods and services.

I've known a few mailmen in my time, and I'd hate to see them looking for work again. I also am old school in some ways. I like reading my news and books. I have plenty of things delivered to my home. It's the junk I don't want. I'm all for less distribution centers and smaller post offices, but I don't see them yet completely going away. They just need to be better at adapting.

There are 2 massive post office buildings in my City that I think at least the massive downtown footprint could be bulldozed with 5 or 6 new buildings taking it's place with a small branch located on site. There are still always big lines of people at city post offices believe it or not.
 
Sicilian said:
You're implying the USPS is no different than Fedex, except for the burden we taxpayers impose on it to break even?

Wrong. Just dead wrong.

You sound like the guy who tells me that Massport is a private corporation and should do whatever it wants.

And the other guy who tells me the BCEC pays its way so it should do what it wants.

Did the Postal Service buy its equipment, buildings and property from the prior owner of that property? The owner of that property was the US Gov't (e.g. the taxpayer). Did the U.S. Postal Service reimburse me and other taxpayer for startup expenses before going (quasi) private?

NO.

USPS is not Fedex. Fedex started from scratch and bought the resources it needed.

Consider me, and all taxpayers, the stockholders. Without us USPS would be nothing.
Click to expand...

You're all over the place and edited this, so I don't know what to say. Except that you're still wrong, dead wrong.

WRONG.

We -- the taxpayers -- are not placing a burden on USPS to break even. We -- as a result of the 2006 law -- are placing a burden on it to break even *while* paying future expenses today.

I don't know what that has to do with Massport.

As for buying property or whatever from the prior owner. What? USPS is a constitutional establishment. You want we should pay the Native Americans? What?

You clearly don't understand that USPS is *NOT* privatized. It is an independent establishment of the executive branch (and though exempt from anti-trust and the only authorized carrier of first-class mail, it is not a government agency.)

Read a book or graduate high school or something.

EDIT: deleted redundant reference to Sherman anti-trust.
 
bbfen said:
You're all over the place and edited this, so I don't know what to say. Except that you're still wrong, dead wrong.

WRONG.

We -- the taxpayers -- are not placing a burden on USPS to break even. We -- as a result of the 2006 law -- are placing a burden on it to break even *while* paying future expenses today.

I don't know what that has to do with Massport.

As for buying property or whatever from the prior owner. What? USPS is a constitutional establishment. You want we should pay the Native Americans? What?

You clearly don't understand that USPS is *NOT* privatized. It is an independent establishment of the executive branch (and though exempt from anti-trust and the only authorized carrier of first-class mail, it is not a government agency.)

Read a book or graduate high school or something.

EDIT: deleted redundant reference to Sherman anti-trust.
Click to expand...

A) You brought up the pension issue. EVERYONE ELSE was discussing whether delivery should or shouldn't be to rural areas with the same frequency of urban areas. Get your facts straight.

B) I didn't say the USPS was private, you suggested as much by claiming that USPS should have no obligations beyond those of any private carrier. I refuted that, citing the public investment in USPS that binds it to serve some public service. Or it should cease to exist completely.

C) Thanks for this tortured definition: "It is an independent establishment of the executive branch (and though exempt from anti-trust and the only authorized carrier of first-class mail, it is not a government agency.)" I assume that means (quasi) private or (quasi) public but USPS is neither a truly public nor a truly private entity.

I won't get into personal attacks. Not my style (yet).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top