U.S. Postal Service Revenue Grows on Shipping Volume, Pricing
Source: The Wall Street Journal.
USPS says controllable income increases to $576 million; Operating expenses increased 7.4%
By Tess Stynes
tess.stynes@wsj.com
@TessStynes
May 10, 2016 9:37 a.m. ET
The U.S. Postal Service said its revenue rose 4.7% in the latest quarter thanks to stronger shipping volume and price increases. ... For the three months ended March 31, USPS said revenue increased to $17.73 billion from $16.95 billion a year earlier. Overall volume rose 1.4%, driven by 11% growth in shipping and package volume.
The USPS has been striving to increase its share in an e-commerce market long dominated by United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx Corp. However, the growth in USPS’s shipping volume also has contributed to rising costs, including an increase in hours worked and transportation expenses. During the latest quarter, operating expenses increased 7.4%.
Excluding special items, such as prepaying retiree health benefits and certain changes in workers’ compensation expenses, USPS reported that its controllable income rose to $576 million from $313 million a year earlier. ... But over all, USPS reported a loss of $2.04 billion, compared with a year-earlier loss of $1.47 billion.
....
Looking ahead, USPS has been anticipating added pressure on results with the April 10 expiration of an exigent surcharge, which contributed $519 million to operating revenue in the March quarter.
Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-postal-service-revenue-grows-on-shipping-volume-pricing-1462887477
This is a subscription article. For some reason, I can read the whole thing if I get to it by way of Google News. If I go to The Wall Street Journal. directly, I can read only the first two sentences.
Make sure to read this:
But over all, USPS reported a loss of $2.04 billion, compared with a year-earlier loss of $1.47 billion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
One of the problems with electric trucks is batteries really do NOT hold that much power, roughly about 15 to 30 minutes worth. With electric vehicles, You quickly run into a dilemma, to get extended range, you need more batteries, but more batteries means more weight and thus you need more power. In simple terms to double the range, you have to quad the electricity being stored.
In automobiles this is NOT that much of a problem, Automobiles tend to be lighter then trucks and carry less of a load, and generally are used on trips shorter then 20 miles (Your Typical County East of the Rockies is 20 miles east to west and 20 miles north to south, thus 20 mile range is generally sufficient for automobiles).
Now the Tesla 3 has a range of 300 miles,
http://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-3
On the other hand most electric cars have range less then 100 miles (and many less then 20):
http://www.plugincars.com/cars
Now, I question the Tesla 300 miles range, for I lived in the 1970s and remember the mileage claims made by the big three for their vehicles before Congress crack down on them and forced them to use the EPA test for mileage. One Commercial I remember said a land yacht of time period did over 30 miles per gallon on a trip. It was later revealed, that was true, they took the car on road that generally rolled downhill between two cities. On top of that they ran the car up to about 25 mph, and then turn the engine off and drifted till it almost stopped, and then restarted the engine back up to 25, and turned the engine off again. Thus an Automobile that the EPA later said did about 12 mpg, did over 30 mpg.
I am NOT Accusing Tesla of doing a similar stunt, but battery technology is NOT that advance at the present time, that 300 mile range is WAY in excess of most other claims as to range.
At present the EPA is only giving mpg measurements NOT range. THE EPA includes MPG equivalent if the vehicle has any electric components but NO RANGE. So take any RANGE measurement with a grain of salt.
As to the Five cities I mentioned, all use Trolley-buses (and are the ONLY cities using Trolley Buses at the present time). It is possible to hook up trucks to use those same overhead wires for trucks (This was done in the past in the US, and more recently in Eastern Europe). With a decent size battery system, the electric truck can go 15 minutes away from those wires and then return to them and recharge their own batteries while using the same power source to propel them on the road.
San Francisco Trolley buses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_San_Francisco
Trolley Buses in Greater Boston:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Greater_Boston
Trolley buses in Dayton Ohio:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Dayton
In Philadelphia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Philadelphia
In Seattle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Seattle
2012 Electric Truck in Canada (Experimental):
?w=300&h=200
https://gallondaily.com/2012/05/30/electric-trolley-trucks-may-come-soon-to-north-american-highways/
The biggest problem is the present electric trolley-bus routes MAY not be the best fit for Postal trucks, but the use of the overhead wires would provide enough electric power to propel such trucks all day, provided the trucks never get more then 15 minutes from the wires. The biggest problem would be reconnecting the poles to the wires. Generally this would have to be done by hand, by pulling the poles down and then connecting them to the wires (Which is how Trolley lines were connected to overhead wires). Trolley-buses have two overhead wires, one for power and one for the return line. In any electric system you MUST always have a complete circuit, thus the power line and the return line for Trolley buses.
Please note, such trucks are NOT compatible with actual Streetcars. In Streetcars you have one wire overhead, the "return" path for the electric current is through one of the rails. Thus unless some sort of "shoe" is fitted to the truck to attach to the rail, Streetcars overhead wires can NOT be used.
The use of such overhead wires would greatly extend the range of any truck, the down side is such trucks must be close to such wires (and generally attached to the overhead wires). Fee for the actual charge can be metered in each truck, and the Postal Service paying for electric power it uses.
Side Note: Electric drive provides more POWER to trucks than diesel engines, for on steep hills the electric drive can keep on calling for more power from the overhead wires. This is the primary reason San Francisco and Seattle retained their electric Trolley bus systems. Philadelphia, Boston and Dayton do NOT have the steep hills of San Francisco and Seattle and retained electric Trolley buses for other reasons.
A variation would be to adopt a "Flash Charge" system presently under development. In that system, the bus is recharged every time it makes a normal stop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSA_Flash_Mobility,_Clean_City,_Smart_Bus
?size=d
More photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/abb_schweiz/sets/72157633570470269
http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2015/08/worlds-fastest-charging-electric-bus.html
As to trucks, this could cover vehicles picking up mail. You would have to install a "Flash Charge" at every location such vehicles stop (Such as each Postal Box) and while the driver picks up the mail, the battery for the truck is recharged. This is new Technology, being tested only since 2013 in one location world wide (Geneva Switzerland), but it is interesting (China has its own system but still experimental).
