BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20268-0001
l--J
cj~>
;n
SC-i
r)
w
~I
c?
-~I
:n
TJ
n
_,
5
:
c
g
POSTAL RATE AND FEE CHANGES,
1997
DOCKET NIO. R97-1
FLORIDA GIFT FRUIT SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION
NOTICE OF ERRATA TO DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LEONARD
FGFSA-T-1
The testimony
of Leonard
Merewitz,
FGFSA-T-1,
contains
many errors
which require correction.
A detailed
attached Errata summary.
Since there are so many pages requiring revision, the
entire testimony,
Exhibits, has been prepared to reflect the Errata and
including
listing of the changes
MEREWITZ
are rset forth in the
is attached hereto
Maxwell W. Wells, Jr.,
Post Office Box 3628
Orlando, Florida 32802
Attorney for Florida Gift Fruit
Shippers Association
FLORIDA GIFT FRUIT SHIPPERS
ASSOCIATION
ERRATA TO
DIRECT TESTIMONY
OF LEONARD
MEREWITZ,
FGFSA-T-1
Page
Line
2
10
price-Waterhouse
3
9
In purchased transportation - change to - of InterBMC: and
IntraBMC purchased transportation
3
10
“We include all modes
Delete entirely.
3
12
Inter B - change to - InterBMC
4
5
to CFM of capacity - change to - to cubic foot miles(CFM)
capacity
5
1
Exhibit LAM-5 - change to Exhibit LAM-6
5
11
5
12
Last incomplete sentence, correct to read as follows:
When those pieces are converted to pounds, the dec:rease goes to
12.8% as shown in the final column of the first panel.
Standard (B)(p.2) - change to read - Standard (B)
6
14
Parameter.
6
12
quantity (1 + r) - change to - quantity (1 + b)
6
16
change “less” to “greater”
6
17
change 13.1 to 16.0
6
18
change 13.7 to 10.8
7
4
change 1990 to 1991
7
7
10.4% of this increase
8
8
proceeding.
- change to - Price Waterhouse
InterBMC higheay transportation.”
- change to read - parameter b.
- change to - 13.1% of this
R77-1 - change to - proceeding,
R77-1
of
9
3
econometrician”
tools - change to - econometrician’s
tools
9
6
H-82,84 - change to H-82 and H-84
9
9
6
17
use it despite - change to - use these data despite
response - change to - responds
10
5
volume increases real - change to - volume increases
10
fn5
change to read: Really the “rate relevant” run of about three years.
11
3
24 cents - change to - 31.5 cents
11
21
ever now - change to - every now
11
21
case - change to - cases
13
12
after LaLonde,
14
5
discussed
14
14
after transportation,
14
15
on outbound and inbound - change to - on both outbound
inbound trips
100% real
insert: (see below, p. 22)
- change to - discuss
add: starting at p. 21.
15
delete reference to 9b
15
change to: In-bound SCF
15
change to: In-bound other
15
change to: out-bound
SCF
15
change to: Out-bound
other
and
9-10 change to: Outbound and inbound runs are compared in LAM-9a.
-_ __.
-15
Parcel Post is 33.9% of the CFM in quarter 1 for inbound runs but is only 23.9%
for outbound runs.
15
13
characteristic of minimum variance”. - change to read characteristics of minimum variance.
When asked if mail to be mail to be - change
18
25
Panzar was asked if mail to be
to - When
Prof.
18
28
house. Did - change to - house, did
19
1
mean - change to means
21
22
17
18
in all of them 5. - delete the 5.
delete the and This
23
9
LAM-l - change to - LAM-l 1
23
16
indices - change to - indications
24
1
1.112-changeto-1.08
24
2
(y96812) - change to - LAM-13 (See, Lib Ref FGFSA-H-2)
24
2
delete: (also see LAM-4a, p. 1 of 6)
24
5
insert “of” between make and a.
change “the following” to “these contradictory”
24
18
outbound
25
10
because of the finding DBMC mail on - change to because (among other things) of finding DBMC parcel post on
leg - change to - inbound leg
estimates of PP cubic feet - change to - estimates
12
25
between parcel post and Standard A cubic feet.
26
16
delete - “try to”
26
19
change “topology” to “typology” - 2 places
27
4
caste - change to - cast
27
15
delete the “for” in available for
Change first sentence
27
22
bound samples more frequently?
of the relation
to read: Why did PW and PS collect in-
28
6
are - change to - or
28
7
delete “or’
28
11
that sample - change to - that the sample
29
7
BOUND Variables).our
- change to BOUND Variable).
Our
29
8
lAM-4a.
Complete
LAM-3
inbound and outbound.
4b 5 - change to - LAM-3
revision - original erroneously
included
Revision correctly reflects only outbound.
combined
LAM-4b
Revision to clarify and correct source references
Lam-13
New, as correction to testimony (page 24) reference to (y96812)
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document
all parties of record in this proceeding
on this date in accordance
12 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Dated : January 26, 1998
upon
with Section
FGFSA-T-1
BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20268-0001
POSTAL RATE AND FEE CHANGES,
1997
FLORIDA GIFT FRUIT SHIPPERS
DOCKET NO. R97-1
ASSOCIATION
TESTIMONY
OF
LEONARD MEREWITZ
(Revised per errata)
In Behalf Of
FLORIDA GIFT FRUIT SHIPPERS
ASSOCIATION
Maxwell W. Wells, jr.
Maxwell W. Wells, Jr., PA.
P. 0. Box 3628
Orlando, FL 32802
January 26, 1998
I. Qualifications
My name is Leonard Merewitz. 1 am a Principal in LAMA Consulting and have testified
before this commission four times before: in R80-1, and R84-1, on behalf of USPS and direct and
rebuttaltestimonyfor the National Association of Presort Mailers in MC951. In this testimony the
Florida Gift Fruit ShippersAssociation askedme to do studieson purchasedtransportation and its
distribution over classesand subclassesof mail.
My education in economicswas at Harvard College where I received a Bachelor of Arts
8
degree magna cum laude in 1964 and at University of California at Berkeley where I receivedthe
9
Ph.D. in 1969 I beganteachingasan Acting AssistantProfessorat the sameUlniversityin 1968 and
10
remained as assistantprofessor at what is now the Haas School of Business Administration at
11
Berkeley. I taught quantitative methods and transportation there until 1975 ,whenI moved to the
12
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the US (Now American Automobile Manufacturers
13
Association) in Detroit. There I did researchon autos and trucks and their regulation. In 1976, I
14
moved to becomeDirector of Transportation Studies at J. W. Wilson Associatesin Washington. 1
15
joined the federal governmentin 1977 as a Senior Economist at the National Transportation Policy
16
Study Commission, a temporary agencycomposedof Congressmen,Senatorsand membersof the
17
public who hired a staff to do studiesand write a Report
18
In 1979the Postal Servicehired me as SpecialAssistantto the Senior .4ssistantPostmaster
19
General-Finance I remainedat the PS as a memberof Postal CareerExecutive Servicefrom 1979
20
until 1986. At that time I joined the PRC as Special Assistantto Commission Crutcher and Staff
21
Assistant. In late 1993,I left the US government’semploy and I startedLAMA Consulting in 1995.
22
Between 1994and 1996 I had af5liationswith JackFaucett Associates,Symbiotic Technologiesand
1
1
Whitfield RussellAssociatesand participated in a trucking privatization project in Ukraine in 1994.
2
I havepublishedthree books and about 17 articles in referreedjournals or books including two in a
3
series on postal matters edited by Professors Crew and Kleindorfer and published by Kluwer
4
AcademicPublishersin 1993and 1997. I havebeena memberof the TransportationResearchForum
5
since1970. In additionto postaltestimony,I haveenteredexpertwitness testimsonybefore the South
6
Dakota, North Dakota, andMontanaPublic Utility Commissionsand the Superior Court of Alameda
7
County, California. I am a member of Phi Beta Kappa, the Transportation ResearchForum, the
8
American Economics Association and the National EconomistsClub.
9
The purposeof my testimony is to review the work of Bradley USPS T- 13 on attribution of
10
purchased highway transportation costs. I then review the TRACS system of Price Waterhouse
11
sponsored by witness Nieto USPS T-16. I evaluate methods of allocating attributable costs and
12
suggestone of my own. I then review someof the specialeconomicsrelating to transportation. These
13
principles help us articulate criteria for judging cost allocation methods. From the errors of theory
14
and data we find in TRACS. We tind that we are unable to derive a distribution key for highway
15
purchasedtransportation.In course of making thesepoints we voice someopinions on the methods
16
of TRACS, unfortunately many negative..
II. What PurchasedTransportation Do We Study?
The Florida Gift Fruit ShippersAssociation asked me to study purchasedtransportation over the
period 1988 to 1996, concentrating on highway transportation and the TRACS system.
A.
6
The PS purchasedsome $3,730 million worth of transportation in FY~19%. Air, rail and
water accountedfor $1,538million. Highway in total was almostexactlyhalf the purchasedtransport
budgetat $1,540million. Ofthis $1540million, IntraBMC was about $260 and InterBMC was about
$230 million. Source:comorehensive Sta-I
C&rations p.20 (1996).
We have provided an Exhibit on recent history of Inter and Intra BMC purchasedtransportation.
10
That is Exhib LAM-I.
11
Sinceparcelpost is nonpreferential mail, and part of Standard(B) it uses(when Inter BMC and in
12
certainother circumstances)the nonpreferentialtransportationsystemwhich usesthe BMC’s as hubs.
13
It is collectedfrom AssociateOf&es ( AO’s) to the extent it is enteredthere anclthen shippedto the
14
rest ofthe countryby InterBMC transportation. From there it is distributed to SCF’s and AO’s
1s
in their distribution area.
16
17
18
B. Bradley’s regession analysis.
3
1
Professor Bradley describesan elaboratemodel. Much in it is correct and much is clever.
2
A “scrub”is a logical term for dataediting. Unfortunately the theoretical basisof the model is weak
3
He would not disagree that measurementwithout theory is a poor methodology. His main
4
independentvariable appearsto be output but in the final analysiswhat he has measuredis capacity
5
and not volume. There is a close fit of cost to cubic foot-miles CPM of capacity. There is no
6
showingof a closefn to volumevariations,a necessarycondition to infer “varia,bility” or attribution.
7
Attributable costs are those costs demonstrablyrelated to volume. seeLib. Ref. H-I.
8
Prof Bradley hasfoistedon this Commissiona very cleverlittle trick. He correlatescontainer
9
capacityrequiredandcontainercost. That is a theoretical relationship. His good tits are deceptive.
10
That is like a correlationbetweenplant size and expectedoutput. Industrial cost analysisfocuseson
11
cost per actual unit of eventuated output. Actual output is a random variable and as such is
12
stochastic.High costsmay eventuatehorn badplanning. In Bradley’s model bad planning can never
13
show. He neverdiscussesactualoutput, discussinginsteadceiling output whether he mentions it up-
14
front or not. The history of capacity utilization as recounted in my Exhibit LAM-10 shows that
15
capacityis a poor measureof true output or throughput. Effective managementin transportation is
16
not achieved by simply contracting for capacity. Developing good load factors is the key to that
17
businessasit is in the airlinebusinesswhich is well-known to consumers. Entrepreneursgo to great
18
lengths to favorably affect their load factors.
4
1
Exhibit LAM-6 through LAM-8 show the impact of drop-ship rules new in 1991 and rates
2
in third-classand Standard(A) on the traffic in the two accountsof purchasedtransportation which
3
we study. Basically, the conclusion is that traffic is down while expenditureson transportation are
4
up. Traffic is down becausemailers, especially Standard(A) mailers are taking advantageof work
5
sharing opportunities and doing more of their own transportation.
6
The top panelof LAM-6 is a summaryshowing a 12.8 percent drop in Standard(A) traffic
7
between1991and 1996 and a 24% increasein Standard(B) traffic. Since Standard(A) is a bigger
8
classin volume -- 13% of the larger group is greater than 24% of Standard(B).
9
Panel2 concernsStandard(A) and showsthat mail subjectto nationwideentry or BMC entry’
10
was 41.9 billion in 1991and is only 33.1 biion in 1996 The changein workload measuredby pieces
11
in a -21 percent. When those piecesare convertedto pounds the decreasegoes to 12.8 percent as
12
shown in the final column of the first panel
13
Panel3 @. 2 ) concernsStandard(B). Here we havelargelynatural growth taking place with
14
one exception. There hasbeen considerablework sharingproceedingapacein the rate category of
15
Destination-BMC parcel post, This phenomenonsubstitutesfor Inter BMC transportation but not
16
for Intra BMC. Destination BMC parcels still require transportation to their destination SCF’s and
17
AO’s. Our solution is to claim one half the savedpounds as a workload saving sincethese two
‘This mail is ‘mail not drop-shippedbeyond [i.e. deeperinto the systemthan] the BMC.”
5
1
accounts(in&a BMC andinter BMC) are roughly equal in magnitude. Line 8 shows the full savings
2
and line 9 accountsfor half the savings. The result when both Standard(A) and Standard(B) are
3
brought together is a 2.7 percent decreasein traffic.
4
We may now compare this small decreasein traffic to an apparent healthy increase in
5
transportation expendituresand explore the meaning of those changes. First we must obtain an
6
estimateof real increasein the useof transportationservices. Expenditures alone will not tell the full
7
story becausethey include the results of price change,usually increases.When we have taken out
8
those price increases,we will have the real increasein transportation servicespurchased.
9
From LAM-7 andLAM-8 we may infer that price changein the over-the-roadtrucking sector
10
was no greaterthan 2.5 per centper year (in fact the current estimateis 2.25 per cent per year) over
11
the period 1991to 19%. The exhibitsshow the price index for trucking nonlocal between June 1992
12
and November 1997. Exhibit LAM-8 performs a regressionanalysison the model
13
InY=
A+
b*
t
14
Where In is natural logarithm and t is time in months. Time differentiation shows that the rate of
15
growth is the parameterb. The b we estimateis a monthly rate of growth. The cluantity (l+b) raised
16
to the power 12 gives the annualrate of growth which is here estimatedto be :2.25per cent. Since
17
I do not have the complete seriesI need for my analysisI have to say that price growth was no
18
greaterthan 2.5 per cent per year Thereforein the period of our comparisonprice increasewas 16.0
6
1
per centwhile contractexpendituresincreased26.8 per cent. The result was a 10.8 per cent increase
2
in real purchasedhighway transportation services. One can say this was real in the senseof cubic
3
foot-miles abstractingfrom price level change.
4
5
Thus, between1991and 1996volume in the nonpreferential highway transportation system
6
declinedfrom 7181 million poundsto 6989 or by some 3% mainly becauseof drop shipping.
7
PleaseseeLAM-6. During the sameperiod, purchasedhighway transportation increased27
8
% Not more than 13.1% of this increasewas price increase becausethe price index,
9
“Trucking excludinglocal” showsa 2.25 per cent averagerate of growth in truck rental costs
10
over that period). So, during this period there was a 16% real increasein the purchaseof
11
highway transportation servicesby the postal service.To summarize,we have a 16 % real
12
increasein the faceof a 3 % decreasein volume demandingtransportation.’ What should we
2Eventhough this is the non-pref transportation system,designedfor third-class and
fourth-class (with the preferential designedfor first-classand second-class)periodicals are seenin
the traffic. One might object that traffic was increasedover the period from the second-classor
periodicals direction. But, the YQ!UQ&by which I meancube and not pieces(of periodicals has
not changedover this time period). In millions of cubic feet, it was 242 in 1991 and only 240 in
1996.
Zoning
Zoning has existed in periodicals for a long time and this is analogousto dropship
discounts. There is a premium for delivering mail and depositing it into the systemcloser to the
destination, There is simply lesstragic on those trucks and yet the amount of purchased
transportation servicesis up about 15.8% in real terms. Volume (whether cube or pieces) alone
does not drive the amount of purchasedtransportation input.
7
1
makeof this? It certainly seemsthat the volume growth and spendinggrowth are inversely
2
correlated.As one goes down the other goesup. We do not seriouslyconcludethis but the
3
simplisticd
4
13 testimonyis surely brought into question. It also appearsthat transportation is related to
5
servicestandardneedsaswell as to volumes. Schedulesare madeto meNetservicestandards.
6
Trucks are consistentlybetween5O?hand 300/oempty Volume alone does not drive capacity;
7
the need to meet schedulesand serve volume drives capacity. Dr. Bradley has not taken
8
into account service standardsat all in any of his analysis:what has been called Service
9
Related Costs in an earlier PRC proceeding,R77-1
increasein purchasedtransportationas volume increasesof Bradley’s T-
10
Mr. Bradley hastold us that actual volume would be preferableto capacity.
11
As he wrote in an article in 1988:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
In purchasedtransportation, the “output” is the transportation of mail and the appropriate
variableshouldinclude both distanceand weight (or cube). In purchasedair transportation,
payment is madeon the basisof actual shipments,so data is availablefor the actual poundmilesof mail transportation. In purchasedhighway and rail transportation, however, data is
not availableon the actuallevel of volume, becausecontracts are specifiedand paymentsare
madeon the basisof capacity Therefore,a proxy for actualvolume is required and the proxy
that was used was cubic foot-miles of capacity.’
The TRACS sampling processactually yields volume data for proper
20
Capacity is just a proxy
21
econometricanalysisto find the impact of additionalpieceson purchasedtransportation costs without
‘Michael D. Bradley and Alan Robinson, Determirring ihe Mur@?1 Cost ofParchased
TransportuN’orr,-1
of the Transportation ResearchForum, p. I72
8
1
the dubiousinterventionofthe relationshipbetween capacity and volume. The relationship between
2
capacity and volume may not be that simple.
3
Bradleyvery neatlyandvery intenselystudiedthe wrong subject He has done an engineering
cost analysiswith the econometrician’stools. We need an economic or econometric cost analysis
with real world data. He ought to be very pleasedto know that the data now exist to do his analysis.
Bradley had availableto him through TRACS real actualizedvolume from actual truck runs with live
7
mail. Theseare availablein L.R. H-82 and 84. He failedto usethesedata despitethe fact that he said
8
in his own writings that real volumes were preferableto a proxy for volume. LEnfortunatelyBradley
9
must be rejected as a well-executed, poorly conceivedproject He has made precise estimatesof
10
parameterswhich unfortunately have little relevanceto regulation. Mr. Bradlley has told us that
11
actual volume would be preferable to capacity. Capacity is just a proxy
12
sampling process actually yields volume data’ for proper investigation and.to find the impact
13
of additional pieces on purchased transportation cost without the dubious interconnection of
14
the relationship between capacity and volume. The relationship between calpacity and volwne
15
may not be simple.
The TRACS
16
This analysis flies in the face of the obvious facts. One of the most successful work
17
sharing programs is in transportation. Mailers are availing themselves of it in droves. So
18
effective volume (for transportation purposes) is going down. PS responds by purchasing
19
more transportation. Six years is a long time. This is long enough to make adjustments in the
20
transportation system. Several of the major changes of drop shipping should have had their
%cluding weight and mailcode or subclass
9
1
impact by now.
2
As shown in LAM-9b the average use of capacity on Intra BMC is 56.7% and
3
declining. On Inter BMC (longer-haul) it is 69%. Spending on these two accounts has
4
increased 49% in the last six years. Real spending has increased and capacity utilization is
5
going down. After all the t-statistics and R-squared are discussed what is the policy
6
prescription of Bradley’s analysis? It is that in the long run’ as volume increases 100% real
7
purchased transportation will increase 97%. Well, transportation needs hawe gone down and
8
transportation expenditures have increased, nevertheless.
9
10
Bradley would have us believe that he studied cost drivers and1that TRACS will
11
provide the missing link to relate transportation cost to volume. He blelieves that he has
12
studied the change in cost with respect to the change in capacity and the TRACS will provide
13
the answer on change in capacity with respect to change in volume. He is wrong. TRACS
14
has nothing to do with capacity or changes over time. TRACS looks at one point in time to
15
&.&&J&
16
Bradley surely knows that misspecitication is one of the most serious problem in
17
econometrics. Not getting correct variables in an analysis. Unfortunately he has fallen in to
18
a classic trap in social science. Wisely, he divides the problem he must solve into several
19
parts. Unfortunately he cannot or does not know how to study the important or difftcult part,
costs. Bradley’s analysis, therefore, fails because of the missing link. Professor
’ Really the “rate-relevant” run of about three years
10
1
while he can flex his methodological muscles on the part that is less important, almost trivial.
2
Transportation is pervasive throughout our economy. It is provided by h&seholds and by
3
producers both owner operators and firms. The nature of its costs are very well known. The
4
government uses standard costs on income tax returns 3 1.5 cents per mile is the allowable
S
cost on transportation. That is an averagewhich can be used nation wide without much error,
6
Similarly, the cost of operating trucks is well known. If Bradley could study the change in
7
transportation cost with respect to his cost driver that would be fine if it were supplemented
8
with good relationship between changing capacity and change in volume. No one has done
9
proper econometric specification of this second relationship. Surely it must consider factors
10
other than volumes so that the net effect of volume can be seen with more preferential mail
11
on in theses accounts service standard is surely influenced. With persistent over capacity the
12
relationship of capacity to changes in volume is variable. With all due respect, professor
13
Bradley is somewhat like the inebriate who has lost his keys. He can’t see in the dark (where
13
they probably lie). So he looks under the street lamp where the light is good with such over
1s
capacity and with the powth of preferential and nonpreferential transportation runs. Factors
16
other than volume must be in the transportation cost equation.
III. TRACS
17
18
A.
Description
19
Although TRACS, a measurementsystemdesignedby Price-Waterhouse(PW), for
20
the USPS, has been in use in rate casessince R 90-l it has never been tested or examined or
21
evaluatedon the record. Information about it has come from the PS at a slow pace: a few library
11
1
referencesevery now and then in mail classificationcasesand a few now and then in a rate case. It
2
is a measurementsystemto measureutilization of transportation resourcesfor air, rail, highway, and
3
water. It is not a statistical system,but it doesinvolve samplingand has statistical properties which
4
can be measured. PW designedforms to be filled out in a CODES environment with hand-held
5
equipmentby PW and postal technicians.
6
In addition to statistical accuracy,issuesof not slowing down the mail were in the minds of
7
the designersof TFLACS. In the highway sampling system,a truck is never stopped on the road for
8
sampling. Instead,samplingis doneonly when mail is unloadedfrom trucks. At that time, mail waits
9
to be processedso there is time for sampling without unduly slowing the mail. Nevertheless,the
10
estimateshavestatisticalpropertieswhetheror not they were designedasa statistical system. Despite
11
the heavinessof traffic on the outbound movement, 70% of sampling was done on inbound
12
movements,and only 30% on the outbound.’ The inbound movementis sampledmore heavily for
13
the convenienceofthe postal service. This is certainly not a sampling schemedesignedto minimize
14
the varianceof estimatorsand witness Nieto saysas much (seeTr. 7/3434 ).
15
B.
Expansion
16
Ms. Nieto usesthe word “expansion”to meansseveralthings. The TRACS systemin seeking
17
to be able to find costs of each leg of the trip expandsvolume off-loaded marrytimes. It expands
18
what is in items or containersto the size of the container. That spaceis expandedto the size of the
19
vehicleandlater the off-loadedmaterialis expandedfor the emptinessof the vehicle on previous legs
20
of its journey. One might almost say that TRACS’ designerswere obsessedwith expanding.
21
I wish to separatethesebecausesomeI acceptin my analysisand someI cannot accept.
6 Theseare detainedwith respectto the BMC for all intra BMC and inter BMC’s.
12
1
**Some of the methods used by P-W and describedby witness Nieto are haphazardmethods.
2
Discussion surrounding the variable PERCONT were loosely described and applied by
3
statisticaltechnicians.Sometechniciansrecorded pieces,others weight or percentagesofthe
4
truck or of the container or item. Nieto attempts to paper over theseproblemsby saying it
5
will all come out in the wash (FGFSAIUSPS, T 2-49).
6
2.
I
8
TO expandfrom a “sampling” to a universeor population I accept as standardsamplingand
extrapolation to a population.
3.
To expandfor empty space.I cannotaccept.This is to chargethe “items” ,for only that traffic
9
presentlyin the items It is alsoto chargethe vehicle-trip for only those items presently in the
10
vehicle. The key problemwith this approachis the concentration on the leg of the trip as the
11
proper unit of cost analysisof the trip segmentfrom point A to point B and not the round trip
12
from A to B andback to A. ProfessorsBowersox, Smykay and LaLonde (seebelow, p. 22)
13
record the acceptedanalysisunit as the round trip in the freight transportation literature.
14
I am informedthat the PS never stacksfreight higher than 6 feet. UPS, on the other hand uses
15
a “double bottom” so that spacecan be used up to the fill 10 feet of the trailer. It is ludicrous to
16
expandto the 111cubicfoot capacityof the truck when trucks are very rarely if ever used abovethe
17
six foot high point.
18
MS Nieto frequently proteststhat nom
are calculatedin her analysis(Tr. 713433).
leg at a time. This is technically true becauseshedoes no costing &r
19
Shesaysshedoesnot&one
20
s, but it is the simplest of stepsfrom a distribution key to a list of costs. The main contribution of
21
TRACS to purchased transportation cost finding is the development of a distribution key.
22
Nevertheless, how a sample is treated is very important in developing a distribution key. If
13
1
proportionsof mail codesor subclassesare derived from a calculation, then the calculation in a very
2
real senseis determiningthe Distribution Key which will then be applied to the attributable amounts.
3
4
Expandingfor empty spaceis very akin to blamingthe victim. The carpool ,resultswe discuss
5
in the next section work out much more equitable with more reasonwhen the unit over which the
6
spreadingof costs is done is larger than the leg. Sometrafftc happensto be on sparseruns. These
7
are often incoming and therefore in a peak-load analysiswould be chargeda lower unit cost, We
8
explore that possibility but are not advocatingthat. PleaseseeLAM-3
9
Postal Servicemethodfor the &. Becausethere is sparsetraffic on the leg, they pay high unit costs.
10
That is the key problem:costingthe leg. One may advocatecosting the round trip or costing general
11
transportation in a multi causationframework which we call “jointly determined”. In our car pool
12
example, the one driver is on some analysisaskedto pay for the full cost of the drive home from
13
school. Sincethe other riders needthe car at home in the morning, I do not believethat is fair. The
14
trip to andfrom is a unit. Pleaseseeour discussionof the specialeconomicsof transportation starting
15
at p.21, There is no point in expandingto the size of the truck. Let us chargeeach CFM on both
16
outboundand inboundthe sameunit cost Chargeeachstudentin the carp001for trips he takes. The
17
studentstake threeman-tripsin the morning and only one man trip to return the vehicle becausethe
18
other studentshave different schedulesand get home on their own Let us assumethat the cost of
19
a round trip is $8.00.Then Table A applies.Expansionis neededwhen the purpose is to find the cost
20
of the legper se.When costsand CFM are aggregatedandthen a quotient is formed, the aggregation
21
servesthe timction of the expansion:applyingthe sampledproportionsto the whole. The crucial item
22
is the unit of aggregation.
14
They are chargedin the
1
There are decided differencesbetween the classcomposition of the traffic on in-bound and
2
out-bound trips to and from the BMC. SeeLAM 9a analysisof this can be facilitated by observing
3
facility categories(FACCAT’s) where tests are taken. These come in the following five types :
4
Inbound SCF
5
Inbound other
BMC
Outbound SCF
Outbound other
9
10
Outbound and inbound runs are shown in LAM-9a. Parcel Post is 33.9% of the CFM in
quarter 1 for inbound runs but is only 23.9% for outbound runs.
11
TFUCS was executed more with the convenienceof PS in mind and less with statistical
12
accuracy in mind. Ms. Nieto said several times that her estimates did not partake of desirable
13
statistical characteristicof minimum variance”.
14
15
C.
Examples
16
Most regulatoryproblemsinvolvingjoint or commoncostscanbe boiled down to the question
17
of how to split the costs of a group lunch. Four people go out to lunch. Do they split the bill four
18
ways or do they split the bar bill separately?
19
A simpleexamplemay show the issuesin a more familiar context Here is ;anexamplewhich
20
showsthat expansionto the size of the truck is wrong, that calculating costs for e;achleg of a trip is
15
1
erroneous.’ Let us envisiona carpool.Three studentscarp001to a school. Ail three users,the driver
2
and two riders, use the carp001in the morning, In the afternoon, sinceclassschedulesdiffer, only
3
the driver returnshomein the carpool. They rotate usingeach other’s cars but the samestudentwith
4
the late classestakesthe car back to the bedroomcommunity eachnight. The question is how should
5
the $8.00round-trip cost of the carp001($4.00 on each leg) be apportioned among the three users.
6
In SchemeA, asshownin Table A below, every man-trip costs $2.00, sincethere are a total of four
I
man-trips eachday. The drive in the morning generates$6.00 and the drive home generates$2.00
8
in revenue. SchemeB chargesthe driver morewhen he is alone coming home. This ensuresthat the
9
round trip is the unit of analysis,and no effort is spenttrying to allocate the cost of eachleg.
10
Table A
11
J&ual Cost Per Person Per Man-Trip
First Pricing Scheme
12
13
Student
Uses
14
Total Number
ChargePer
Student
Of Man-trips
Man-trip
Charges
15
16
A
Mom & Afternoon
2
$2.00
$4.00
17
B
Morning
1
$2.00
$2.00
18
C
Morning
1
$2.00
$2.00
19
20
$8.00
Total:
21
22
23
‘The way eachleg is costed individually is through “expansion.” Proportions are
measuredand then the entire car cost is attributed to traffic only on that leg.
16
1
First Pricing Scheme
Table B
2
3
Student
Afternoon
Mom
Total
4
5
A
$2.00
$2.00
$4.00
6
B
$2.00
$0.00
$2.00
I
C
$2.00
$0.00
$2.00
8
-
Total
9
$6.00
$2.00
$8.00
10
11
12
In SchemeB, the riders apportion the cost of eachleg in proportion to how many people
13
are on eachleg. In the morning, the three userspay $1.33 each so that the revenuegeneratedon
14
the drive is $4.00. In the afternoon, with only one person aboard, the chargeis.WOO for that
15
person, This rest&s in Student A’s ( the driver) paying $5.33 and the other two paying $1.33
16
each. SchemeB generates$4.00 revenuefor eachleg but the cost of a man-trip varies.
17
18
Table C
t and Char=
19
Per Lsg
Second Pricing Scheme by Trips
20
21
22
Leg
Rides
23
cost
Cost/Student
Of Leg
Per Ride
24
25
Morning
3
$4.00
$1.33
26
Afternoon
1
$4.00
$4.00
17
1
2
Total:
$8.00
3
4
5
Table D
Second Pricing Scheme by Students
6
7
Student
Morning
Afternoon
Total for Student
$4.00
$5.33
8
9
A
$1.33
10
B
$1.33
$1.33
11
C
$1.33
$1.33
12
13
-
Total:
$4.00
$4.00
$8.00
14
15
16
Another exampleis from postal circumstances.In carrier street time analysis,carrier
17
accessis the time taken away from the route to accessthe house and load the mail receptacleand
18
return to the route. Apart from load time, the time ‘Up the garden path” (or access)to the house
19
and “back down the path” (deaccess)to the route is attributed to the single classcausing a stop.
20
In a PW-Nieto world, the time used in making the accesswould be attributable to the subclass
21
causingit (which was being carried), but the time causedby the deaccesswould be attributable to
22
the classesremaining in the pouch, -the.
23
accessand the trip should be attributable to the samecausenot to the mail which happensto be in
24
the leg while the deaccesstakes place. This shows that it is treacherousand misleadingto allocate
25
costsleg by leg. When askedif mail to be delivered causes the trip from the route to the
26
house, did that same mail cause the trip back to the route? His answer in FGSAKJSPS T
The deaccessis necessitatedby the
18
1
1l-3 was, yes. This means that mail present on a segment is not coincident with the cause
2
of that segment’s costs.
3
Our two approaches(so far)* may be characterizedas follows: Our choice is to cost the
4
leg or to cost the joint product: the round trip. If we cost the b someriders will pay $1.33 per
5
ride and others will pay $4.00 Why is the first or method A abovepreferable? When there is
6
uneventraffic not at the option of the traveler or shipperthere will be wide swings in cost per
7
trip, if we cost eachleg. It is not that one user is getting a better product and therefore they
8
should pay more. There is nothing more desirableabout the servicebeing offered to incoming
9
trips at BMC’s than that offered outgoing trips.
10
11
12
13
There are really three casesdiscernablein allocating costs of truck transportation:
lea on its om- allocate cost of eachleg by dividing costs of leg by traffic on that
leg only.
14
15
Round trip- add up the costs of line haul and back haul. Divide total by traffic (person-
16
trips or CFM).
17
18
Joint determination- this approachrecognizesthat servicestandardshave a role in
19
determining costs as well as mail volume. A scheduleof trips preventslong delay times,
20
The costs of transportation are partitioned through accountingtechniquesinto a small
’ We shall find that there really are three cases
19
1
number of sectorsbasedon size of vehiclesand approximatelength of haul (e.g., Intra B,
2
Inter B, Inter SCF, Intra SCF). Within such groups where costs can be expectedto be
3
homogeneoustotal costs are divided by total CFM, a measureof transportation demand.
4
It is important to realize that all approachesbut one aggregateCFM and costs and
5
6
make a grand quotient within a control group (either the round trip or the accounting sector).
7
Only the &&g
on its own method keepsthe quotient within the leg exclusively.
20
1
IV. ReceivedEconomic Theory Pertinent to Transportation and Its Applicatilon
2
A. Theory
3
There are some salientfacts about transportation which should guide its analysis.
4
1.
It is createdin bulk. If somepotential servicesare not used,those are gone for ever. This
5
is why it is efftcient to have a high load factor. This is also why international tanker (ship)
6
rates fluctuate by a factor of 10 to 1 and more.
7
2.
It is often scheduledfor servicequality rather than for efficiency. There is a fixed schedule
8
of trips whether passengersor freight eventuates. The scheduleis staggeredso that
9
demandwill be “sufficient.” There is usually one trip per day at a minimum between two
10
cities. Commuter railroads run severaltrains in the middle of the day (nlbeit with fewer
11
cars) so that maximum waiting time will be reduced.
12
3.
tried to purchasea one-way airline ticket.
13
14
Entrepreneursprefer to sell units of round trips. This is evident to anyonewho has ever
4.
Line haul and back haul arejoint products. This is as near to fixed output proportions as
15
we ever come in economics.The miles from New York to Washington are exactly equal
16
to the miles from Washington to New York. As Marshall (seebelow)tells us that the cost
17
of anything used for severalpurposeshasto be defrayedby its fruits in all of them. In the
18
PS the rules for transportation do not allow mixing mail with other freight. Therefore we
19
cannot haul furniture if not enough mail materializesin order to minimize cost.
20
To elaborateon number 4 above,we might discussthe following. In the production of
21
transportation services,it is very difficult to produce a line haul without producing a back haul to
22
go along with it. Therefore, the contract costs of purchasedtransportation would be-.
21
1
The useful unit of analysisis the line haul and back haul together. They are a .unit becausewe
2
cannot havethe one without the other. This resemblesin essentialways the classicaljoint product
3
of economics:the wool and mutton and the wheat and straw discussedby Alfred Marshall,
4
Princiules of EconomiG (p. 321-323, Eighth Edition, London: Macmillan, 1961). The truck
needsto return to its origin to accomplishthe next line haul, Similarly, the car in our carpool
example aboveneedsto get back to the bedroom community so that it is availableto take the
group to school in the morning. The trip there and back is more t?uitfUy seenas a unit in
8
transportation.
9
Microeconomic theory usually focuseson the pricing problem: What can the enterpriseget
10
for the “by product” which is desiredin addition to the prime product By contrast, our problem
I1
is one of cost analysis,but it is always maintainedthat the joint production of-two outputs must be
12
seenas a unit. Prof. Panzar,in referring to “the ‘segments’ or ‘legs’ of a route ..,” saysthat he
13
“[does] not seehow their costs could be analyzedseparatelyfrom those of the route as a whole.”
14
(PanzarFGFSA T-l I-l(b)).
15
That the round trip is a logical unit of analysisin transportation is demonstratedin several
16
ways:
17
.
The authority Bowersox, Smykay and Lalonde @IS&L), F!hys&l DistribU
18
m:
19
analysisand logistics. We provide a quotation from this book which discussesthe rational
20
analysisof line-haul cost.
21
22
0
(New York: Macmillan, 1968 rev. ed.) is a practical book on transportation
The difficulty, experiencedby many, of purchasingone-way airline tickets is a layman’s
introduction to this truth acknowledgedby transportation professional;s.Entrepreneurs
22
1
want to cover their return trips when they undertake a line haul. If you are not convinced,
try to take a taxi trip which takes the driver out of his normal area.
.
The difficulty in renting a car and returning it to a place other than the origin. There is
almost always an extra charge for doing so.
BS&L in their standardtext on logistics have a chapter on transportation cost analysis. It
5
6
is entitled, “Transportation Costing.” For truck transportation cost what BS&L call line-haul
7
cost? are usually analyzedwith the round trip as a unit. “becausea truck usually goes from an
8
origin to a destination and back, line-haul costs are generatedin both directions.“ Round
9
w
is a heading in the following table, 7-2. (p. 169). SeeLAM-l 1, p. 5 of 5.
10
11
12
13
14
15
B. HOW MUCH USE CAN WE MARE OF TRACS DATA VS. TRACS AXALYSIS
We would like very much to design a distribution key for TRACS which eliminatesthe
16
inequity of chargingtraffic on light segmentshigh rates. Presentindications are that the data
17
forthcoming from TRACS is not reliable. Is there enough quality control? Eydtibit LAM 4b
18
shows alternate estimatesof cubic feet by two approaches.
19
Exhibit LAM-4b combinestwo Library References,one on Standard(A) and one on Standard(B)
20
mail. The Exhibit is in terms of thousandsof cubic feet. In the Intra BMC movementthesefigures
21
from Lib. Ref H-l 11 and 135indicate the ratio of cubic feet between parcel post and standardA as
9 To be distinguishedfrom terminal and administration cost for example
23
1
4.25 to 1 in favor of standardA. But if we rely on TRACS we find a ratio of CF equal to 1.08 LAM-
2
13. (SeeLib. Ref. FGFSA-H-2). This is quite a discrepancy:one estimateis 3.8,times the other.
3
We are despondentabout TRACS. The ability to estimateCF and CFM is necessaryand the effort
4
is laudable.But what are we to make of a systemwhich makesthesecontradictory findings.
5
See LAM 4b. There are further problems with the TRACS data. The mail code KK signifies bulk
6
small parcels,a category which never existed. Somehow TRACS techniciansfound 225,000 cubic
7
feet in postalquarter 1 of 1996and 739,000cubicfeet in the secondquarter of thi.smail code. Please
8
see LAM 4a for Quarters 1 and 2 There are different patterns to in-bound and out-bound
9
movements.In one observation,standardA was 33.1% of in-bound movementswhereaslooking at
10
out-bound movements where bound equals 2, standard A was 37.2% and this is not the most
11
dramaticof comparisons.In-bound and out-bound movementshavevery different composition. In
12
a situation such as this one we cannot be indifferent as to which type of trips fall in to the random
13
sample becausecertain types of movementsserve some classesmore than others and if those are
14
monitored too much cost will be allocated to these classes.
15
We showed above that charging by the leg and making an “equitable” distribution therein
16
penalizesclassesof mail on lightly-traveled routes just as the driver in the carp001is penalizedfor
17
beingthe only one on the inboundleg. It is more equitable and efficient to chargeevery volume unit
18
(CPM) andthereforeimplicitly “cost out”” the round trip as a unit. With regard to witnessesin this
19
caseNieto clearly statesthat shecostsout purchasedtransportationleg by leg [Tr , l/3434]. Bradley
20
by contrast, clearly saysthat to study the problem leg by leg is improper FGFSAAJSPS Tl3-251.
” By “cost out” we mean“find of the costs of.”
24
I
Panzarsaysthe samething.
2
This distributionkey would be more in line with economictheory We could go further with
3
economictheory in the direction of linear or mathematicalprogramming, Such analysiswould lead
4
us to calculate costs at the maximum-load point as Meyer, Kain and Wohl (Cambridge: Harvard
5
UniversityPress,1965)havedonein their classicstudy of urban transportation.” In our application
6
herethis would suggestcalculating costs when the trucks are at their fullest (certainly on outbound
7
trips). This peak-loadapproachlooks at outbound runs only and divides costs asthe proportions of
8
mail classespresenton those trips. This distribution key is shown in Exhibit LOAM-3.
9
Unfortunatelythe TRACS datacollectedarenot reliablebecause( among other things) of the finding
10
DBMC mail on incomingruns: a logical contradiction. Further TRACS data collection problems are
11
shown in LAM 4b. Lib Refs H-l 11 and H-135 are inconsistentin their estimatesof the relation
12
between Parcel Post and StandardA cubic feet.
13
14
15
In the Opinjon andRecommendedDecisions of severalrecent cases,th’ePRC has found that
16
the identity and integrity of the preferential and nonpreferential transportation systemswhich once
17
existed separatelyis now a thing of the past. (R 87-l)
18
We see first class loading in candidateDistribution Key’s of 14%; 1l-17% in the fourth
19
quarterof the baseyearbetween10 and 18% for fust classincludingpriority. Some 10 % of the cubic
20
foot milesare periodicals. The decline of the distinction betweenpreferential and nonpreferentialin
“See p, 186 for their decision to chargethe construction cost of rapid transit largely to the
traffic at the peak.
25
1
the transportation systembegan when non-red tag mailers in secondclass insi.stedthat the
2
service charge “red tag”‘* mailers for the better servicethey received. Postmaster-generalbolger
3
decree that all secondclasswill be preferential, There was a long tradition that
4
distributed through BMC’s.
magazines
postal
were
5
Thereis more andmore preferentialmail on thesehistorically nonpreferential transportation
6
routes.Thereforedecisionsbeginto be madeconsideringservicequality and the needto meet service
7
standards.New transportation contracts are enteredinto becauseof these considerationsand not
8
exclusivelybecauseof volume, That transportation cost could vary 97% with v’olumeor even 90 or
9
95% seemsmore and more unlikely.
10
TRACS is preoccupiedwith proportions to the exclusion of basic piece data. If one parcel
11
were in a containeror item, all the spacewould be allocatedto Parcel Post. If three parcelswere in
12
the container all the spacewould be allocated to Parcel Post as well.
13
Mr. Hatfield’s analysishas problems. He suggeststreating DBMC differently from Intra
14
BMC. Theseparcelsmove with eachother on the sametruck at the sametime. why should
15
their cost analysisbe different?Many other classesof mail aretransportedfor the convenience
16
of the carrier.To make decisionsas to whether a particular segmentwas part of the net pay
17
load in the directionthat the piecestraveling or whether for the convenienceof carrier would
18
subject
19
one typology as Inter BMC, Intra BMC, DBMC and Intra SCF. In an other typology, he
20
distinguisheslocal, intermediate and long distancetransportation.
rate making to much more detail than it presently has.Mr. Hatfield divided cost in
I2 Red tag meanssecondclassitems which receivedpreferential servicebecausethey were
publishedweekly or more frequently.
26
1
2
The files related to TRACS highway transportation analysisare divided in to the following
3
groups: DESIGN, EDIT and EXPAND. In the Design group, samplesare defined. In the EDIT
4
group, data are scrubbedand mistakesare found and cast off. In the EXPAND group, articles are
5
weightedfor cubicfeet and to convertfrom poundsto cubic feet andthey are expandedto fill the size
6
of hemsand containersandultimatelythe size of the truck. We have concentratetdon analysison the
7
EXPAND group of analysisespeciallyhwy-1 through hwy-12. The results avail:ablein LAM-4b are
8
from an exercisewhich follows the TRACS methodology except for three items:
9
An error in PERCONT
10
11
Expansion to the size of the truck is eliminated
12
13
FACCAT weighting is alternately used and not used.
14
Distribution key can be observedfor cubic foot miles and cost using the Nieto methodology These
15
are available in the intra BMC account for both in-bound, out-bound and the union of the two
16
categorieswhich we call “.” or “dot.“.
17
There is no question that there is a bias in data collection for TRACS:
18
TRACS is not a minimum variance sample.
19
20
TRACS takes 70% of its sampleon inbound movements.
21
22
Why did PW andPS collect in-boundsamplesmore frequently?It was easierto sit at the BMC where
27
1
a lot of shipmentscomein andcollect muchdatawith little travel and in short amount of time. AO’s
2
and DU’s have less dock activity per hour.
We haveshownin the in-boundand out-boundanalysisthat parcel post is heavily represented
in in-bound trips. This has an easy explanation. PS has a large market sharein the householdto
householdandhouseholdto businessparcelpost market PS’s comparativeadvantageis its retail infra
6
structureor setof officesall over the land, well establishedand convenientto households.That mail
7
is presenton in-bound movementsto BMC’s and AO’s. Business to householdpackagesare more
8
likely to be drop shipped at BMC’s.” Such traffic would not arrive on postal purchased
9
transportation.The weighting of FACCAT is meant to counteract this known bias. The only way to
10
be sure there was a random sample of possible trips is to know the NASS schedule. That is
11
consideredproprietary by the PS. I believethat there is a strong likelihood that the sampleremains
12
biasedin favor of a samplingof m-bound unloadings and the mail classeswhich are presenton those
13
inbound runs.
14
I3FGFSA’s packagesdo this largely for quality becauseof the limited shelf life of the
product and desirefor freshness.
28
We used data provided in LR’s H-82 (TRACS Highway Sample Design Programs and
Documentation) and H-84 TRACS Data Files in Machine Readable Format. We did
two types of analysis. We studied the pure data collected by PW and PS. We also did
several runs of the SAS program with modifications.
We analyzed implicit cost distributions over mail codes on inbound, outbound (using
the BOUND Variables). Our distribution were made in CF, cubic foot miles and costs
as shown in Exhibits LAM-3 and LAM-9
29
LAM-1
Historical
Data on lntra and Inter BMC Purchased
Transportation
Cost
Year
04
85
lntra
BMC
144.5
166.1
Inter
BMC
134.4
154.6
278.9
320.7
89
90
91
92
93
~94
95
96
163.7
161.3
185.3
181.6
232.3
240.1
257.4
257.1
188.2
173.7
209.2
214.5
201.4
214.5
223.7
243
351.9
335
394.5
396.1
433.7
462.6
481.1
500.1
Source:
National Consolidated
Trial Balance 1990-96. 1985
C:\WINDOW...ttyGFS\hist\intra.erpp,wb3
Total
LAM-la
Growth of Purchased Transportation
I
lntra BMC plus Inter BMC Highway
500
480
460 l
440
420
400
380 '
360
1340 89
I
_. ‘.
,,”
,I
,I ”
90
91
92
93
Year
94
95
96
LAM-2&
Purchased Transportation
FY1996
by Quarter Accounts and Attribution
(1)
(2)
(5)
(4)
lnlra
Acct No.
Amt (a)
(5)
Inter
Accl No. Amt (a)
1996Ql
53127
53128
53129
53136
44415
7456
1368
4941
58180
53131
53132
53133
40714
1517
2174
199602
53127
53128
53129
53136
45052
10322
1543
6085
63002
53131
53132
53133
46894
3856
2861
55611
1996Q3
53127
53128
53129
53136
44960
6374
1316
5046
57696
53131
53132
53133
51010
1438
2706
1996Q4
53127
53128
53129
53136
61708
6690
1609
7900
78107
53131
53132
53133
74011
1865
2893
70769
Sources:
a: USPS T-5,WorkpaperB-14.
c: Cal 5 = co14 " COI 3
col9=co18*col7
Worksheet
14.0.1. p.2
Cost Accounts Within PurchasedTransportation
Which We Study
IntraBMC
Exceptional Service
Emergency Service
Leased Trailers
53127
53128
53 129
53136
InterBMC
Exceptional Service
Emergency Service
53131
53132
53133
TRACS Replication
ACCOUNT=53127
for Outbound
Runs
BOUND=2
Pa196 Distribution Keys Using USPS Estimates (Weighted) for 7 Mail Types
Intraa-BMC
Percent
MAILCODE
CuFt
1St Class
67,605,983
2nd Cl Periw
tntemational
PRI
STD A
STD B Otk
CFM
11.74
79,581,x25
1 ,w,652
13.62
0.32
3a,Q77,752
183,416,476
6.77
31.66
M,978,922
STDS-P
CUR
139.m.m3
11.29
24.20
Percent
CFM
3,408,194.649
8.31
cost
wJ7,lW
!‘ercent
Cost
8.12
5,880,015,621
107.759,975
1 77Z521.718
14.34
0.26
4.32
2.m9.m
14,934,072,720
36.34
5,651.659
5.156.461.73a
Q.767.979.345
12.57
23.66
2,548,389
29.55
12.87
7.085.654
35.66
23,601
597,wl
10.15
0.12
3.52
PC)296 Distribution Keys Using USPS Estimates (Weighted) for 7 Mail Types
kltra-BMC
Percent
MAILCODE
1 St Class
CuFt
109.323376
2nd Cl Per&
International
PRI
STD A
72,164,443
2,122,343
45277,681
14QmJ.4m
16.14
II.98
0.33
7.51
24.74
Percent
CFM
cost
7,753,681.536
5,114,375,73a
14.76
9.73
3351.566
2,516,920
119,261,967
2,433,266,372
0.23
4.63
53,081
1,123,673
25.75
15.74
5.317.618
2,968,94s
29.16
5,167.644
80,616,7!x
13.36
13,526,516,646
8.268.680.322
144.013,876
23.80
15.320,410,116
STD E Otht
STDS-P
CFM
CuFt
16.33
12.27
0.26
5.48
259r
14.47
2528
Pa393 Distribution Keys Using USPS Estimates (Weighted) for 7 Mail Types
Intra-BMC
Percent
CuFt
MAILCODE
CuFt
tst Class
2nd Ct P&x
107.263.534
78,616,643
14.95
10.98
lntemationat
PRI
2,458.722
45,890.m
0.34
6.38
STD A
STD B - Otht
234,890,210
61,?92,c67
32.70
11.33
STDS-P
167,276,X6
23.31
PWCent
CFM
CFM
9.185.761.362
10.68
3.736241
9,51o.t58.221
Q7,150,066
11.26
0.12
3,6a.525
53,221
3,64t ,769,626
J),lM,361.635
4.31
35.67
1.474.924
14.014.9X
6,716,142,3t5
23,170,039,508
10.32
27.44
3.469.6a4
9352,237
PWX Distribution Keys Using USPS Estimates (Weighted) for 7 Mail Types
I”tra-BMC
ACCOUNT=53127
SOUND=2
COSt
10.45
to.17
0.15
4.12
39.19
9.76
26.15
LAM-3 (rev 21 Jan 1998)
Percent
MAILCODE
CuFt
1 St class
2nd Cl Perk
127,270,796
98.899.168
1.5X.147
International
PRI
60,44&324
CuFt
17.90
13.91
Percent
cost
14.15
4.263,058
4.211.322
106,262
Cdst
13,lQ
r3.m
0.27
211,960,837
4,43414w43
23.791,036,768
6.22
33.36
1,674,7cu
9927,636
5.80
33.72
7,664,558,736
15.738,094,576
11.03
4,M)5,167
22.08
7929,794
12.33
24.54
STD A
169850,276
STD 6 Othf
STDS-P
~,~.~
1645x,m7
9.57
2316
SAS run y96all
10,087,503,793
9.141.881,525
CFM
12.63
0.33
8.50
26.68
Source:
Percent
CFM
with data from L.R. H-84, Nov. 17. 1997.
0.33
LAM-4a Page
WI96
of 6
I
Bound =
CF, CFM and Cost for Inbound,
Outbound
Movements
and Union,
percent
LINE Mail Category
CuFt
CuFt
CFM
3.192.077217
1 First Class Letters
44,954,516
5.73
2 First Class Presort
3 Single-PC Cards
~,~,~
24‘wl
57.933
3.25
0.03
0.01
1,321.345,999
6 Priority
m,711,074
36.877,313
9.M
4.70
4,526,166,536
2,475,685.3?5
7 Express
6 Pwiodicats
845.758
84.121.040
0.11
10.73
Q.334.149
1.19
49.013,LEE
189,860,723
6.25
21.67
226.207.966
29.11
14 NonPref Other
3.om,Jss
17,588,743
0.39
2.22
15 Total Std A
16 Small Parcels
248.641 .x4
225,193
31.71
0.03
17 Parcel post
16 Sound Printed Matte
2ZWX.427
28.52
4 Prest Postcards
5 Total First Class
9 Std A Single Piece
IO Std A ECR
11 Std A Other
12 TotalRegStdA
13 NonPref ECR
19 Std B Special
56.151.666
42.358,527
7.16
5.4)
20 Std S Library
21 Penat?yuSPS
10,326,617
2,674,684
1.52
22 Free for Blind
23 International
b68.955
6,62&O, 1
784.020.631
24 Total All Mail
PQ193 Distribution Keys Usir UNLOADED
Intra-BMC
ACCOUNT=S3127
Mail
0.34
0.08
0.87
1m.m
Various
Mail Classes
Percent
9,m,1m
2,642.921
CFM
Percent
cost
4.fis
1.502.868
1 .EQ
587,561
O.Dl
cost
4.49
1.76
0.01
0.m
4,454
1,lTI
6.W
2.096.m
6.27
3.81
1,016,116
16,424
3.04
0.E
2.5EBw4
463.719
7.77
1.38
22.a
2,921 .wB
6,829,481
8.73
LX.42
220,634,661
3x6
0.32
10,214.243
61,758
1,794,3J7,223
23.161.833,629
2.62
33i9
681.198
6.495.409.462
32.745528
0.E
9.47
1,x6.278.299
4,771,943,5ca
1 .A17
6.M
15.388.469.739
21.166.881.546
13,68L,‘m
21 .P3,289,312
4,518,846,e4!3
4,367.076,708
1.002,374.601
0.02
30.75
6.S
6.37
1.416
264@%962
0.42
‘an&=
EEw89,631
O.C6
0.61
68.533.794.146
im.ca
10.977205
5Ke
11.472,201
2,484,ffil
1 ,m7,8m
0.m
3x4
0.24
2.04
32.82
0.02
34.33
7.43
5.39
541.395
Ill.679
1.62
0.33
56,112
0.17
0.61
288.=
334‘l6,283
1m.m
(Weighted)
SOUND=,
LINE
percent
CuFt
CuFt
1 First Class Letters
12.613,626
4.21
2 First Class Presort
3 Single-PC Cards
1,627,lu2
53.882
0.54
0.02
15,671
0.01
14.510.291
11.933,346
4.77
3.52
4 Prest Postcards
5 Total First Class
6 Priority
14).906
0.05
6 Periodicals
Q Std A Single Piece
IO Std AECR
7 Express
lQ.176.340
5,768,829
10,417.531
6.31
1.90
3.43
11 Std A Other
12 TotalRegStdA
13 NonPref ECR
71,481,161
87.678.541
338,171
2351
28.84
0.11
14 NonPref Other
15 Total Std A
17 Parcel Post
16 Sound Printed Matte
‘5,EV=58
9+6-6S.271
2.26
31.21
101 .Z3,527
20.368.801
53.34
6.rn
CFM
1,477&?3.344
129,172.485
percent
CFM
cost
percent
cost
4.dB
0.:&J
663,789
47,679
4.20
0.33
2,126
0.01
5.266.OlQ
1.145.611
0.m
1,612.607.668
4.50
714,119
4.52
1,142,375,085
w‘m.580
3.47
O.CQ
488.765
3,624
3.10
0.02
1.253,w7.566
686,297,7aJ
3.M
2.11
834,787
334.625
5.29
2.12
I ,453.806,270
7,mo,018,3s
9.160.122.308
4.41
21 .:I4
27.67
1,738.231
3.510.5m
5.533621
11.01
22.24
35.37
57939,726
0.17
24.831
0.16
6X,476,721
9.93l.188,757
12.6a2.773499
2.11
3316
58.4,
252.663
5.861.315
4.523651
1.60
37.13
31.22
4.fiz
7m4J9
1,521,211 .SS
0.m
525
0.m
4.88
LAM-4a
Pagf?)_of
6
7 Express
6 Periodicals
zn.174
M.827.561
9 Std A Single Piece
10 StdA ECR
11 Std A Other
12 Total Reg Std A
13 NonPref ECR
14 NonPre, Other
15 Total Std A
16 Small Parcels
17 Parcel post
16 Bound Printed Matte
19 Std B Special
20 Std B Library
21 Penalty-USPS
22 Free for Blind
23 International
24 Total All Mail
147.209.641
0.12
24,585,414,620
1.715.289.689
20.53
1.44
3.12
M.23
24.79
57.T74
9,7j 1,461
0.12
20.54
1.43
3,233,475
s,544,743
0.96
2.58
66954,175
78,829.393
19.95
3.725.515,143
24.162.975.476
2349
0.63
2Q.603.78D.314
627.5s1.m
5.08
29.20
6.672046,171
36,935,417,517
86.SlS.656
0.04
2587
71 .W3.970
28.880.348.631
11.826.607
14,77K,B33
3.52
4.40
3.628.093.210
24.18
3.194
1.M
5.19
1.136
z465835
3354,570
3.420.853
521,512
6.194984.150
1,266,348,510
1.02
0.16
1,156,567.115
223,807,520
0.!37
0.19
0.57
1 .J42.813.838
119,429,585,825
0.837
lCO.lr)
463.664
67,939
410,4x
0.19
0.87
47,26?,629
1m.m
2.119.143
17,D447Ell
97,923.31 I
146,242
1 ,sw=
335.612,762
PWQS Distribution Keys Usir UNLOADED
Intra-BMC
ACCOUNT=63127
0.09
19.32
Mail
imm
0.53
5.13
3o:w
O!X
675.246
1 ,$&I.426
9.503.071
3.10
M.10
11.642.743
244519
24.62
0.52
2.641 .m9
14.52Qi51
5.33
3072
28.256
11.378.750
0.06
24.05
1,421,319
3.01
5.21
495,330
1.W
0.98
(Weighted)
BOUND=.
Percent
Percent
percent
1 First Class Letters
75.Bn.597
9.53
6.674.018.57t
8154
2,683,681
6.35
2 First Class Presort
3 Single-PC Cards
31,688,725
247.078
4.01
0.03
2,772,098,24l
22.664,926
3!39
003
1.216.862
3.78
0.W
5,cK2.764
112,791.164
0.64
14.X
343.36l.ffi7
9.612.142,805
044
12.‘70
58.567334
7.40
0.27
5.942.772.876
7.99
0.W
4 Prest Postcards
5 Total First Class
6 Priority
7 Express
6 Periodicals
2.1m.te3
nP4m
15,6%,B56
9.77
62,858.m
6,211,774,4tX
1.96
1,191,882,451
10 Std A ECR
11 Std A Other
33321.362
132,923,463
4.21
16.60
3.340,428,772
11,816,521,573
152Q
12 TotalRegStdA
13 NonPref ECR
lB1.883.679
2x9
0.41
16.346,832,785
587.574.914
2.83
2623
2,155.186,736
1B,942.584,446
9 Std A Single Piece
14 NonPref Other
3,23x53
22,37a,BQ2
15 Total Std A
16 Small Parcels
207.482.827
733.461
17 Parcel Post
22X344.175
42.554.332
28.10
5.33
23.806.063.318
3.75z685.135
44406.081
5.61
I .61
6.292.4XWZ3
1 s32.8a.345
107,431.m
18 Bound Printed Mstte
19 Std B Special
20 Std B Library
21 Penaiiy-USPS
22 Free for Blind
23 International
24 Total All Mail
0.09
12,754,207
l,leJ.Ea
4.145434
0.15
0.52
4,784.332
791.t58.519
0.60
,m.m
PO29i Distribution Keys Us0 UNLOADED
Mail
(Weighted)
24,524,m
529.321 .m
ZQ.615.643
77.261.085.585
8.134
154
4.:32
8.958
157,763
4.067.275
2.315.839
‘-,=
2,997.513
501.680
0.49
12.65
7.2u
0.15
9.32
1.56
5.53
21.16
0.51
1 .m.m
4.968.833
7.243.290
171.785
22.w
0.53
2.134
24!51
948.425
8.370,500
2.95
26.03
0.133
3x0
1,932
9.525137
0.01
4%
8.14
I .!%
0.14
1 .wQsm
2,167,651
618.328
52,746
O.‘E6
0.34
216,880
116.677
103!33
3zl51.665
15.46
29.63
5.13
6.74
1.92
0.16
0.67
0.37
lcmm
LAM-4a Pa&
of 6
19 Std S Special
20 Std B Library
25.704997
6,537,183
21 Penalty-USPS
22 Free for Blind
1.348.461
6x.71 e
23 International
24 Total All Mail
5.453.925
=-vJ‘Ei~
PC1196 Distribution Keys Vsir UNLOADED
Intra-BMC
ACCOUNT=53127
Mail
8.45
2.61
3,175,741,947
859,987,433
9.64
2.55
0.44
0.20
262.632.067
40.606,4?6
474,D45,261
32,938,116,276
0~60
0.12
95,261
57,058
0.60
0.36
1 .?I4
1M.M
251,261
15,7B7.672
1.58
103.03
I.79
1iX.M)
1,304,QQ7
476,373
6.27
3.02
(Weighted)
BOUND=2
Percent
LINE
CuFt
1 First Class Letters
2 First Class Presort
3 Single-PC Cards
4 Prest Postcards
5 Total First Class
6 Priortty
7 Express
6 Pertcdicals
9 Btd A Single Piece
10 Std AECR
13 NonPref ECR
14 NmPref Other
15 Total Std A
16 Small Parcels
17 Parcel post
18 Bound Prtnted Matte
19 Std B Special
20 Std 6 Librav
21 Penany-USPS
Percent
CFM
CFM
3Zl43,890
23.826.841
6.70
4.95
1 .?I 5.m5.674
1 .lQ2.4~.504
4.61
3.34
19om9
42,263
0.04
0.01
4,634.151
13Q7,tto
0.01
5ww~
24,943,965
11.71
2.913,558,639
O.CKl
6.17
1 ,G%33,310.290
3.74
m‘w2
64,944xX)
3.564.320
J8,=.5Q
Qtvxa.542
11 Std A Other
12 TotalRegStdA
5.20
O.f5
13.53
0.74
6.M
2i.a
24.434943
5.231.801.897
0.07
14.67
3c8.980.589
3,316.137.p8
0.87
9.3’1
6.558.451 ,a
2344
33.6’1
0.45
14x29,425
2,725.164
29.2s
0.57
11 ,ms,589,237
10.501.165
2.19
1.09B,m.m
13.247,64+672
lS3.755.794
225,193
3x0
0.E
122.216.9JJ
25.46
7.45
35761.867
16.653,629
3.47
I.325400
0.37
0.26
m233
0.01
1 .Jw‘w
22 Free for Blind
23 International
24 Total All Mail
CuFt
1,3M.m6
479974,643
PQ196 Distribution Keys Usir UNLOADED
Inter-BMC
0.29
1m.m
Mail
165,045133
13,680.a
6.433.485.813
2,SS7,63S,SQ3
1,191.534,761
162.387.168
~.~.~
3,12l,S46
B‘w‘MJm
35,658.6E.B88
3.06
37.15
O.Db
23.85
6.41
3.34
0.45
0.06
0.01
0.24
ID300
Percent
cost
cost
@am
4.75
539,871
2,JLB
3.06
0.01
652
0.m
1.31.931
527,351
7.83
2.99
12.800
0.07
1,764,c97
126,sQ4
9.99
0.73
l,lB2,817
3,316.916
6.70
16.79
4,mo,6.?7
26.22
0.32
E6Qza
428,335
5,115,6Sn
5,6a9
6,542.550
1.714,212
2.43
26.97
0.m
37.m
9.71
482.808
2.79
w-m
16,616
0.37
0.09
w52
16,674
17.558,612
0.01
0.11
100.03
(Weighted)
ACCOUNT=53131
Percent
LlNE
1 First Class Letters
2 First Class Presort
3 Single-PC Cards
4 Prest Postcards
5 Total First Class
6 Priority
CuFt
27,D47,645
6,62Q,36Q
191,SfO
10,567
34079.500
15,661 .BJl
CuFt
Percent
CFM
CFM
Percent
cost
cost
6.06
9.CO1.176.913
7%
3.570.273
7.55
2.03
0.06
2,148.7Q2.c63
63,112,4x
1 .m
OS5
886.327
29,411
1.07
0.06
0.W.l
10.15
4.67
3,671,099
11.216.752,YX
4,101.m ,588
O.cO
Q.:S
3.,43
1,451
4,467,462
1,752,463
0.00
9.49
3.71
LAM-4a Page
Y
of 6
PQ296 Distribution Keys Usit UNLOADED
Mail
(Weighted)
Ifltra-BMC
ACCOUNT=53127
BOUND=1
Percent
LINE
CuFt
CuFt
1 First Class Letters
21.418.825
7.07
2 First Class Presoll
4.044913
119.7K6
1.34
0.04
3 Single-PC Cards
4 Prest Postcards
5 Total First Class
8 Priority
7 Express
6 Periodicals
9 6td A Single Piece
10 Std A ECR
11 Std A Other
12 Total Reg Std A
13 NonPref ECR
14 NonPref Other
15 Total Std A
17 Parcel Post
16 Bound Printed Matte
19 6td B Special
20 6td B Library
21 Penalty-USPS
22 Free for Blind
23 tntemational
24 Total All Mail
1,139
0.W
Peront
CFM
2.346385701
580.586.494
9,402,673
117.706
268,412
613,208
I.83
4.19
73.431.5m
20.4
24.25
5.893,058.643
7.011.782.526
337,576
14.371,915
0.13
4.75
m.m1 ..I62
29.12
PO296 Distribution Keys Usir UNLOADED
Mail
IW.W
7.33
9.07
I.33
1 .A4
847,334,557
471,%9,327
332.848366
l,se906
1.329.1Q2
0.04
8.08
1.48
0.29
0.96
0.m
0.M
5,171
890,470
2.35
868.985
2.974,900
3,754
49
5.a
4.527,463
61 ,T76,568
3.32
0.20
1.61
0.(x3
o.ai
1,723,457,313
7,127,539
10,060,132
612,462
5.67
235,166
Q.Ul
O.D3
6.16
6.28
830,915
11.6’1
0.M
105,574
16.658.~2
16,972808
7.18
1.76
Percent
cost
Z,Q35502.573
8.45
7.61
33.14
4.23
cost
3,788,074.767
12.320,338
25584,562
23.845.816
im,352,6m
12,800,5a
CFM
18,43V4il
lB.C6
21.4)
O.CC
1 .I 20,276,806
6,150,‘%3,171
3.4s
24.98
10.316,676.617
31.62
3.86
1,26&521,lW
2.898,124.636
1,193,873.134
64580.434
111,277.f&O
1w.421.m
32.62E.lZ3.685
2,637,209
18.22
3,518.e.m
7,159
24.02
0.35
437,529
3.40
27.45
4,023958
4.870.897
3325
6.81)
637.097
1 ,lQ8,336
4.35
6.16
3.60
0.20
466,271
32.745
3.16
0.22
0.34
0.423
54,452
0.37
0.50
im.al
TJ.cQo
14,651,236
1m.m
Weighted)
Intra-BMC
ACCOUNT=63127
BOUND=2
Percent
Percent
LINE
1 First Class Letters
2 First Class Presort
3 Single-PC Cards
4 Prest Postcards
5 Tota First Class
6 Priority
7 Express
8 Periodicals
9 Std A Single Piece
10 Std A ECR
11 Std A Other
12 TotalRegStdA
13 NonPref ECR
14 NonPref Other
CuFt
54583.m
CuFt
11.14
27.843.612
127,372
5.65
0.03
5,c61,525
87,2C6,582
i.m
17.86
54,921,716
7.15
1.944.819
5ww=
8,511,315
0.41
12.01
1.74
mm.899
71,146,6%
5.w
14.57
1c6.452,110
2.632.676
22.21
03
6,OX97S
1.64
CFM
CFM
cost
cost
4,327,632,6m
2,191.501,746
9.69
4.91
1 B52.776
981,675
10.59
5.61
13.262.252
343.243.361
0.m
5.204
157,714
0.m
15.411
4.83
2.X17.588
968648
17.13
50,558,367
0.11
‘we3
4,468,317.085
5‘ww@J‘l
2.889.039.445
lO.Qi
1.22
6.43
2,107,043
233.267
1.164.571
0.25
12.04
1.33
5.Q2346z731
9,537,050,270
13.27
20.91
2.332.821
3.750.458
6.65
13.33
21.32
379,141,075
1.075903.930
0.85
2.41
164,566
451,896
2.58
6.675.843.230
2.154.898.111
0.77
0.92
5.64
0.94
LAM-4a Page$f
6
15 Total Std A
16 Small Parcels
119.291,785
738,461
24.43
0.15
10.792.101.274
24.17
4.346Q41
24.84
24,524,7U3
0.05
17 Parcel Post
16 Bound Printed Matte
121.981.505
24.98
1,012,805
5.79
19 Std B Special
6.09
5.21
30.21
5.57
0.01
26.60
2am.m
25.432,273
13,4@9,330,m1
2.486.173.978
I.532
4,664,240
20 Std B Library
21 Penaily-USPS
2.894.075
64.196
0.55
3,394,335,787
332.987.211
7.m
0.75
Q-39.295
152.051
5.54
0.67
0.11
0.67
43051,099
418.c4L.470
0.10
0.94
20,Wl
182.428
0.11
0.93
6588
I7.500.429
0.26
1W.M
22 Free for Blind
23 international
3275468
1.809.432
24 Total All Mail
488,311,154
0.37
1M.W
PQ2S6 Distribution Keys Usir UNLOADED
Inter-BMC
Mail
im,793,853
44852,961 .BBl
0.23
1m.m
(Weighted)
ACCOUNT=53131
Percent
LINE
CuFt
1 First Class Letters
2 First Class Presort
3 Single-PC Cards
4 Prest Pcstcards
CuFt
29.112,363
6.128.209
lC0.444
5.615
5 Total First Class
6 Priortty
35344.831
7 Express
33.589
68.277.77I
8 Periodicals
9 Std A Single Piece
3.050.772
Percent
CFM
9.58
202
8.524.907.524
1.626.403.067
0.m
0.W
II.63
i.m
0.01
~,~.~
1,172.677
10,183,?86.334
2247
26,072,946.343
1 .MB,~,~
5,711,747
3,903,480,925
CFM
cost
7.10
3,427.915
1.35
0.m
856.482
12.4x)
0.03
6.48
4.097.289
0.M
404,998
0.53
21 .i2
2,296
10,541,486
1DJ.889
1,x9.421
7.11
1.38
0.m
0.M
8.50
0.84
0.00
21 .ffi
I.83
2.37
2.706,668.128
61342.067
20.19
26.626.057.316
22.18
10,715,016
2.26
2222
74.098.456
1,722.719
24.58
0.57
32,436,216,3iiS
654,066,B91
27.02
056
13K6.336
27.04
13 NonPref ECR
14 NonPref Other
15 Total Std A
15,szo,011
91,580.188
5.12
34307
6.146.244.238
224,cQn
0.07
2337
38,246.527,488
108.624.489
ZS.350.466.163
5.12
32.28
3.52
4,484,568.523
3.74
5.09
1.17
6.994.354.589
5.a
1 .:o
2.789849
0.16
0.33
85.675
158,434
1.11
524,361
10 Std AECR
11 Std A Other
12 Total Reg Std A
16 Small Parcels
17 Parcel Post
16 Bound Printed Matte
19 Std B Special
20 Std B Library
5.564.583
7.191.8C8
71.022.643
10,685,im
15.489.cu3
21 Pen&y-USPS
3.558.543
l.m8,142
22 Free for Blind
23 lntemational
527.748
3.c61.342
24 Total All Mail
3mm.B‘%
PQ396 Disttibution Keys Usir UNLOADED
Mail
0.41
0.17
r.m
mm
1.6‘w=,438
219.205.531
396.526.521
1.332.2Ct2.089
120,w,568,580
2.EQ
2.25
471
Percen
cost
O.C8
2362
rcoca
2.55
263.685
2,508.133
0.55
5.x)
15,808,153
3279
0.09
44089
II.293922
1,796,712
663.244
48.212,431
2343
3.73
5.79
1.36
0.18
0.33
1.09
imm
(Weighted)
Intra-BMC
ACCOUNT=53127
LINE
BOUND=.
CuFt
Percent
CuFt
CFM
CFM
cost
Percen
cost
LAM-4a Page 6 of 6
1 First Class Letters
2 First Class Presort
62.266.sBl
4w41,m
9.14
5.34
809.858
2Ew33
131 ,X3,612
6 Prtortty
7 Express
6 Periodicals
8.43
3,396,567
0.09
6,926532,219
3.891.105.157
B4.117.432
3.66
0.03
0.03
14.60
17,258,166
12.921.062.995
0.02
12.1’6
1,668.668
3%85
2,916
45532,364
B91.565
5.07
0.10
4,149,m,46a
67,694,576
3.91
96.633,971
16,898,391
10.74
1.88
11,452,600,410
33,016,m8
4.23
iB6.C9‘$148
243,m,576
x).93
27.01
4,995,~,988
24,162.677,233
13 NonPref ECR
2,623,664
14 NonPref Other
15 Total Std A
30.890.553
276,722,X6
0.31
3.43
16 Small Parcels
587,106
PI .535,a36
3 Single-PC Cards
4 Prest Postcards
5 Total First Class
9 Std A Single Piece
10 Std A ECR
11 Std A Olher
12 Total Reg Std A
17 Parcel Post
16 Bound Printed Matte
19 Std B Special
20 Std B Librav
21 Penalty-USPS
22 Free for Blind
23 lntemationat
24 Total All Mail
5VZB.761
45917,265
1o,e&,?a6
3,146,529
KQ.283
5.137,62.6
899,772,545
PC!386 Distribution Key% Usir UNLOADED
Intra-BMC
ACCOUNT=%127
Mail
2,D42.56&480
31,Ml ,X4.71 6
429711,674
33.75
0.07
3.243,885,367
34.674,681,777
75.D47.1m
25.73
28,7tO,403,Bi5
5.62
5.10
0.03
10.713
1 .a2
4.70
22.74
29.3’7
0.40
3.m
32.62
0.0’7
270.2
4.37
7.m
1.21
4.643,988,866
7.4BB.B33.423
Seeffi7.189
0.P3
0.35
0.09
4m.624.097
W,55o,lS5
0.33
0.05
0.57
410,034,146
0.33
103.03
ic6,250,3si ,149
im.al
7.79
3.83
0.08
5106,033
0.01
11.72
1.347,aw
45,310
3.76
0.10
4.113.671
9.44
1.99
86s.m
zo88.754
10,977,si
13.831.413
191,241
1.322,MB
15,44$7Dt
30.706
12,m,D6z
1.932.868
2.475.771
4.79
25.19
31.97
0.44
3.03
35.44
0.07
27.58
4.44
5.68
0.97
421,581
187.998
0.43
a.464
127.016
0.05
0.29
43.579.203
im.m
cO.St
P-XCW
COSI
(Weighted)
BOUND=1
LINE
1 First Class Letters
2 First Class Presort
3 Single-PC Cards
4 Prest Postcards
5 Total First Class
6 Priority
7 E&mss
B Pertcdicals
9 Std A Single Piece
10 Std A ECR
11 Std A Other
12 Total Reg Std A
13 NonPref ECR
14 NonPref Other
15 Total Std A
16 Small Parcels
17 Parcel post
16 Bound Printed Matte
CuFt
Percent
CuFt
31.609.961
14,312,7Dt
10.37
262,788
O.oB
0.B
zJ5,J99
46.410,649
9,942.m
51 ,911
3zo15,115
6.464.928
5.3w588
58,448,=
71 ,m,572
615.938
12,033,765
8ww‘?s
558,958
62,729.012
11.242.427
4.m
Percent
CFM
CFM
3,ams44,5J7
1,457,342,405
40,444511
11.2f~
1.516.479
10.46
4.10
0.12
576.270
3.98
0.11
O.Lkl
16,472
1,917
15.22
3.26
5,413,567,432
1.316.253.185
15.65
3.79
2.111,158
533.561
0.02
3,979,cm
2,162
IO.50
2.12
4.D26.B3wm
4g3322.243
0.01
11.56
1.74
r9.w
i53.D47,105
7.126.1c6.280
2336
0.20
6.372.474,623
78356,742
3.94
27.50
1 .I 77225.321
9,626,055,881
66,398,057
0.16
27.14
3.83
15.236.m
6,133.6!33.464
897,016,214
I.42
2.16
20.46
24.W
0.23
3.33
27.W
0.10
2343
2.68
1.456,901
249,667
285.775
3,2x,975
3,756.616
38,752
43.996
4.255385
26.613
4.086.676
32x33
0.01
14.57
3.72
0.02
10.05
1 .n
1.97
22.22
25.92
0.27
3.17
2936
0.19
28.20
2.53
LAM-4b (rev. 21 Jan. 1998)
Estimates
of Parcel Post and Standard
Sources
Parcel Post
Panel A
Mail Category
A CF From Non-TRACS
lntra BMC
Cubic Feet (000)
Parcel Post
22,497
a
DBMC
70,468
b
92,965
Inter BMC
Parcel Post
42,556
c
Source: Lib. Ref. H-135, Standard Mail (B) Parcel Post Volume and Cubic Feet
Data Distribution by Weight and Zone and BMUASF - GFY 1996, Attachment I.
a. p. 32
b. p. 44
c. p. 38
Panel I3
Standard(A)
Standard (A)
Cubic Feet (000)
Inter BMC
lntra BMC
136,980
395,737
Source: Lib Ref. H-11 1 Dropship Savings in Periodicals and Standard Mail
Appendix A, Table 4 and conversion factor .056583 = 1117,673 from TRAC!; program
“hwy 1”. p. 171, Lib. Ref. H- 82.
Panel C
Summary
Figures
lntra BMC
92,965
b
395,737
d
Inter BMC
Parcel Post
Standard(A)
Sources:
C:\myfiles\contrl
42,600
136,980
a Panel A.
b Panel A
.estwb3
a
c
c Panel B
d PanelB
LAM.6
p.Iof2
Standard (A)
Standard (8)
impact of Drop Shipping on Workload
In lntm-BMC and Inter BMC Purchased Transportation
1996
1991
33056.2
41914.1
mail not ds beynd
BMC e/
4546.5
5214.6
lb St (A)
0.872
2442.6
6989.1
1.242
0.973
1966.6
7101.4
w. DBMC correction
Standard A Mail
1996
1991
Dest. SCF Entry
DDU Er&y
Standard A
20.26
5.87
Standard
6619 SCF DE
1821 DDU DE
8440
59.3
26.13
59331.2
50354.1 Tot St. A Reg
Total BR Regular
-145
8440 Single Piece
Dsd SCF or Dest DDI
41914.1 Dst SCF or Dest D -26130
not ds beynd BMC
DDU
33056.2
41914.1
mail not ds beynd
BMC el
0.7607
ratio
-21.1%
change in workload
Notes:
measured by pieces
a. Bttg determinants IQ91
b. SCF DE = SCF Destination Enby
c. Bitting determinank 1996
d. ds = drop-shipped
e. “ds beyond BMC” means to SCF , A0 or DU.
LAM4
P.ZOf2
Standard B Mail
1991
Mail
1
2
3
4
5
Pieces
PP
BPM
Spatial
Library
Total
1996
Weight
129.9
363.2
144.9
40
670
Pieces
660.2
917.4
285.5
116.9
1980.0
ratio of workload
6
7
8
9
IO
lbslpc PP
DBMC PP (mills)
lbs saved millions
half of DBMC savings
Standard (B) after DBMC adj
Weight
212.8
516.1
189.8
30.1
948.8
1094.9
1231.3
319.4
51
2696.6 bef DBMC
adjust
1.3619
5.1447
5.12
26.3
13.2
1966.8
5.2608
Q6.41
508.0
254.0
2442.6
0.9732
1.242
dropshii.incr.pmh2.w
DBMC PP avoids inter BMC transp but it does not avoid intraBMC transp
LAM-7
PricelndexofTruckTransportationExceptLocal
Jun
Jut
Aw
Sep
OCI
Nov
Dee
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
APr
May
Jun
Jul
Aw
Sep
OCt
NOV
Dee
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
APr
May
Jun
Jul
Aw
Sep
OCt
Nov
Dee
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
APr
MW
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sw
OCI
NOV
Dee
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
19Q3
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
(a)
100.0
99.8
99.7
99.5
99.5
99.4
99.4
100.7
100.5
100.6
100.6
100.3
100.8
100.1
100.8
100.8
100.8
101.1
101.1
100.7
101.5
102.1
102.3
102.4
102.6
103.0
103.2
103.4
103.5
103.8
103.8
104.2
103.0
104.4
105.0
105.1
105.0
105.1
105.4
104.7
105.4
105.3
105.6
105.5
105.0
105.1
106.0
108.7
106.8
APr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sw
OCt
Nov
Dee
Annual
Jan
Feb
Mar
APr
May
Jun
Jul
Aw
Sep
OCI
Now
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1998
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
lQ97
1997
IQ97
106.6
107.0
108.6
107.4
107.7
107.9
108.7
108.7
108.7
107.6
109.9
110.3
110.1
110.4
110.5
110.5
110.8
111.2
111.1
111.3
111.0
US Bureau ofLaborStatistics,tabstatlntemetsite,sertes
PCU4213W
LAM-8
Estimation
month'f ‘r.
Index
Jun
1992 100.0
JUI 1992
99.8
1992
99.7
Aug
1992
99.5
sep
OCt
1992
99.5
NO-/ 1992
99.4
Dee
1992
99.4
Jan
1993 100.7
Feb
1993 100.5
Mar
1993 100.6
1993 100.6
APr
1993 100.3
May
Jun
1993 100.8
Jul
1993 100.1
1993 100.8
Aw
1993 100.8
Sep
OCt
1993 100.8
Nov
1993 101.1
1993 101.1
Dee
Jan
1994 101.5
Feb
1994 102.1
1994 102.3
Mar
1994 102.4
APr
1994 102.6
May
1994 103.0
Jun
1994 103.2
Jul
1994 103.4
Aug
1994 103.5
Sep
act
1994 103.8
1994 103.8
Nov
1994 104.2
Dee
1995 104.4
Jan
1995 105.0
Feb
1995 105.1
Mar
1995 105.0
APr
1995 105.1
May
1995 105.4
JUfl
JUI 1995 104.7
1995 105.4
Aug
1995 105.3
Sep
OCt 1995 105.6
1995 105.5
Nov
1995 105.0
Dee
1996 106.0
Jan
1996 106.7
Feb
1996 106.8
Mar
1996 106.8
APr
1996 107.0
May
1996 108.6
Jun
1996 107.4
Jul
of Annual
nat. log.
4.60517
4.603168
4.602166
4.600156
4.800158
4.599152
4.599152
4.612146
4.610156
4.611152
4.611152
4.608166
4.613138
4.60617
4.613138
4.613138
4.613138
4.61611
4.61611
4.620059
4.625953
4.62791
4.628887
4.630838
4.634729
4.636669
4.638605
4.639572
4.642466
4.642466
4.646312
4.64823
4.65396
4.654912
4.65396
4.654912
4.657763
4.651099
4.657763
4.656813
4.659658
4.658711
4.65396
4.663439
4.670021
4.670958
4.670958
4.672829
4.687671
4.67656
Rate of Growth
of Trucking
Price index
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Regression Output:
Constant
Std EnofY Est
RSquared
No. of Observations
DegreesofFreedom
4.588696
0.005332
0.978215
66
64
X Coefficient(s)
0.001847
Std Err of Coef.
3.4E-05
tvalue
monthly growth fact
53.60731
1.022389
moly rog
rate ofgrowth
0.022389
2.238904
% peryea
Aw
Sw
OCt
Nov
Dee
Jan
Feb
Mar
APr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
OCt
Nov
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
107.7
107.9
108.7
108.7
108.7
109.9
110.3
110.1
110.4
110.5
110.5
110.8
111.2
111.1
111.3
111.0
4.67935
4.681205
4.688592
4.688592
4.688592
4.699571
4.703204
4.701389
4.70411
4.705016
4.705016
4.707727
4.71133
4.710431
4.712229
4.70953
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
65
Totals
for
Account
Mailcodes
BOUND 1
53127,
MAILCODE
PIECES
Percent
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
s
T
"
v
w
Y
AA
DD
EE
GG
IiH
II
LL
7,619
1,6:16
15.16
3.21
0.61
459.91
69.60
0.91
0.07
0.42
0.45
1.51
0.33
342.28
305
33
213
49
175
62
1,766
629
1,382
29,112
527
5,140
445
243
375
57
102
09
11
252
12
1.0
8
1
1
7
------50,270
Prqared
FOJ LAMA
1
28
0.10
0.35
0.12
3.51
1.25
2.75
57.91
1.05
10.22
0.89
0.48
0.75
0.11
0.20
0.18
0.02
0.50
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
WT
15.94
627.32
83.19
162.97
percent
5.10
0.77
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
3.73
0.18
6.35
0.92
1.81
C"FT
32.98
4.33
0.07
0.03
0.11
0.02
::7.07
2.25
35.76
6.90
9.22
0.06
w===E==
2.875.73
34.63
387.08
2,223.56
518.13
623.56
212.94
7.53
55.06
0.88
114.75
80.56
1.13
0.64
1.31
0.06
1.27
0.31
116.31
==========
1.29
-------
0.02
16.58
=====-====
100.00
9,019.91
100.00
775.31
0.01
0.00
by Al Rosenthal iWX5)
Consuliing
31.88
0.38
4.29
74 65
5.74
6.91
2.36
0.08
0.61
0.01
1.27
0.89
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
162.72
2.12
23.65
31~6.93
14.79
5,8.90
15.80
0.53
5.36
0.07
7.06
11.02
0.13
0.06
0.08
0.01
0.09
percent
4.25
0.64
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
3.49
0.29
4.61
0.89
1.19
20.99
0.27
3.05
40.88
4.43
7.60
2.04
0.07
0.69
0.01
0.91
1.42
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
2.14
------100.00
RE%ED, Orioher 11. 1997
Page 2
Totals
Account
for Mailcodes
53127,
BOUND 2
MAILCODE
PIECES
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P.
Q
R
s
T
"
v
Y
AA
BB
DD
EE
FF
HH
II
JJ
KK
3,483
6,123
LL
MM
NN
1
5
175
41
166
44
1,335
309
3,864
16,010
403
3,170
190
174
104
25
20
2
1
6
5
4
2
1
1
8
3
2
-------
1
117
20
2
36,477
Percent
3.55
16.79
0.00
0.01
0.48
0.11
0.46
0.12
5.47
0.85
10.59
43.89
1.10
8.63
0.52
0.48
0.29
0.07
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.32
0.05
0.01
100.00
Prepared by Al Rosenthal (Y9645)
For LAM4 Consulting
WT
300.27
241.83
0.06
0.05
1.45
0.31
293.38
35.50
515.81
40.13
283.34
2,104.70
33.50
207.83
860.13
Percent
4.70
3.78
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
4.53
0.56
8.07
0.63
4.54
32.32
0.52
3.25
0.06
1.94
3.81
0.27
25.34
11.81
3.13
596.00
5.75
0.13
==E======2
L?zPI
7.76
3.28
0.69
0.47
0.46
0.00
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.00
0.41
0.18
0.05
9.32
0.09
0.00
-------
6,392.64
100.00
496.13
209.38
44.31
30.31
29.19
0.19
5.75
2.38
1.31
C”FT
211.53
1.7.34
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.02
s:3.21
5.01
::9.40
3.33
16.41
11.9.09
2.05
12.70
112.59
33.31
19.78
3.23
2.15
2.84
0.01
0.79
0.28
0.15
0.01
0.11
0.46
0.02
1.87
1.65
0.30
84.35
0.33
0.01
=====s==3=
525.09
REWED
Percent
4.10
3.30
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
4.42
0.95
5.60
0.63
3.12
22.68
0.39
2.42
23.35
6.34
3.77
0.63
0.41
0.54
0.00
0.15
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.09
0.00
0.36
0.31
0.06
16.18
0.06
0.00
------100.00
Orlaber 11. 1997
Page 3
Utilization
of Truck Floor Space
Year
lntra BMC
Inter BMC
1993
50.35
73.00
1994
57.62
70.00
1995
57.40
08.32
1996
53.67
64.62
Source: Response to FGFSANSPS
J-2-12, Attachment
1
2
NOllVl30SSV Stl3ddlHS Ilr-klJ IdIE) VClltlOlz.4 40
S31&!01V90tlt131NI 01013lN SS3NlIM 33bW3S WlSOd JO 3SNOdS3tl
RESPONSE OF POSTAL SERVICE WITNESS NIETO TO INTERROGATORIES
OF FLORIDA GIFT FRUIT SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION
b.
Highway
capacity
utilization
factors for FY96 can be seen in the table below:
Highway Capacity Utilization Factors;
Objection
filed September
15, 1997.
15
RESPONSE OF POSTAL SERVICE WITNESS NIETO TO INTERROGATORIES
OF FLORIDA GIFT FRUIT SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION
Highway
i.
Capacily
Utilization
FY95
\
14
Factors
n
0
r
r
;;
A
m
<
n
7
r
r
P
%
r
'Z
=1
m
u
r
0
z
u
0
z
0
%
,y,d g&,‘S
S! Z-L 2,qeL “! p”e ‘(JA+J ()I); JO) ,o,XJ
pE0, punod-MW)‘oi
aq,
,2pu,, puno, “aq~ s! ,.SS ,ad ,SOJ ,neq-au!,
aw~!ro,dde
aq~ fz + c&or)
oooco~
s! JOJXJ
“! padd!qs
s! s,s”5
qs”3
%a,,,
din-pun”,
‘~X‘j
“e 5! S!qL
p”E
‘lo,XJ
pea,
sno!,e\
‘0,
I! ,e,
moq
aql
,e”sn
“odn
laysod-Jo-In”
a,qe,
‘(l”L?q
,!“n
0, ,E,!L”!s
,neq-a”![
aql
GO8 k[lWlS”
p[X,
)eq,
,! ,@!a~
Z,J”,,
JO
a,o~
Jo ,“noule
‘,al!e,,
~>“,I
aq, Lq s,soa aq,e[
e
aql
aq 1s”~” ,eq, ISOJ
aq 01 )! ,ap!s”os
aql
ale
aq, JO a”o
a,qel
s,! pue
md,no
0, S! pa~\,O\“!
‘u&m
:iue pue aauewp
01 alq!ssod
MO” s! 111
‘,“N, Jo ,@“a[
%?,a.\&?
u”,IS”OJ
,a.\oX,
S! ,O,JBJ pEo, at,, J! >J”ElS!p
0, pa,J”,ls”“J
aq “E!> a,eJs ).HJ
e leq, p”e ‘as”els!p
q1F.n ,‘a”![
>([ls!,lS ale ‘W[lN”,“J
23, Aq ~0;
‘,@,a&
dq Sl,O!,&!D/,
,103
X,J IR,, “.N”,,S “2aq SW, J! ‘NJ s”ql
‘In2
%“!.C[d!,lnw
‘sa!,,~
o,
“! pW!,a”a4
e ,a.\02 01 paZ’,eq~
‘J”BJS”“3
,ad lsoa
,“e,,-a”!,
v
Z-L
auo
e a,e,“~,e~
ISOJ ,“!o[
lsoa
01 aie.~ mldt”!s
,ayJ”d-Jo-lno
“Xl L”o,J
0, s,aJa,
aqn,
!
A”e ,oJ s1SoS ,WX,-a”,(
qloq
aq~ ‘aK[q!un~
h!“!p,O
~S~IUOUOJ~ z!Seq aq, p”e,s,ap”n
,Kue ,OJ lsoJ
‘s”o!,X,!p
“o!leso,,e
spuadap
s! “o!,e,ado
h”lXJ
dy-puno,
E “1 “@O
pado[a.\ap
ale S,SOJ ,nq-a”!,
‘~“!,“““J3e
X,1
pue ‘“o!,m!p
pco[
pBo[ dy-pun”1
s,a.\e,,
Kq pa”!um,ap
aql “! ~‘01
‘WXJ
U! slua[q”,d
s! S,olXJ
OJ snoa^o~eue
‘SnqL
““!,~“!JS~p
aq, pue
zi”!p!.\!p
J!
Jo ht
.uo!m,odsue,,
a,dt”era
aq, ‘,aqm
Mx)‘oc
8”!,EJ”[[E
,“LX,-a”!,
g asnmaa
pea,
ale spunod
Jo ,,“W
JO @“a[
aq, .iIlJW,
a8Wa\E
S! I,$,.\\
X,, JO J,Fq-2”O
1:‘; ,Kq *a,+”
‘;t’ot~
,i~lX?U)
SZ[ Aq a,!L” l‘ns,‘t1@yS
S! JolXJ
sa,!L”
.i,a.\o~a,
SC, Jo ,“W,
]SOJ a,,,
8 ,Od
Transportation
T~V3LE i-2’
ROL~SD-TRIP
Costing
169
OL-T-OF.POCKET
LI‘E-H.aL-L
COSTS FOR \‘.%RIOUS
(Based upon a cost of S.31499/rehicte mile)
LO.iDS
.A!erage Round-trip
Load
(pounds,
Cost in Cents
per CM
mile
IO.003
II,(xx)
I ?.col
l?.ooO
l-1.030
15.coJ
16.Mx)
I7.ow
S.3133
.x-l
2625
,243
230
.?I00
.1969
.I853
mml
?7.003
28.W
29.Km
30.003
3I.wo
32.xM
33.033
s.1212
.I167
.I125
.I086
.I050
~1016
.a984
.ms
18,OZKl
19,ooo
20.030
2I.wJl
22.m
13.ow
21.oM)
.I750
.I658
.I575
.I500
.I422
.I370
.I312
25.m
.I?60
34,cnN
35.cm
36.030
37.030
?SW
:9.ccQ
4o.cm
41.ooo
.0926
.swoo
,087s
.0851
.0829
.0808
.0787
.0768
iwage
--
-
Round-trip
Load
Ipounds)
Cost in Cents
per CHI
mile
One-~a)
CO% US the same 8~ round-trip costs when the load in each direction is the
same. When Ihe loads in each direction are d#erent. the average of the outbound load
plus Ihe inbound load mw be compu:ed 10 select the proper cost.
For example. if the outbound load is 30,ooO pounds and rhe inbound load is tO,ooO,
the average round.lrip load is ?O.oM)pounds The out-al-pocket line-haui cost per cwt. mile
is S.IS7S. For W-mile acual haul, the out-of-pocket line-haul co11 is S.473,‘IW pounds
(300 miles X S.li7i cuI. mile).
6
Pickup and Deliwry Costs. As with line-haul costs, pickup and delivery
costs have senice units asswiared with time (drivers’ wages) and distance
(fuel). These costs are first collected from the books of account. The amnwt
of WI deliwred in :ha: specific pickup and delivery area is then collected
from shipment records. Dividing the total pickup and deliwry costs by the
total CM? gives a cost per cwt. This cost was determined to be 5.17,/w%
It is now necessary to know only the number ofcw picked up and delivered
in a specific shipment to calculate its share of pickup and delivery cost.
For example, if the shipment weight is 260 cwt, the pickup and delivery costs
are 534.20 (5.17 WI X 260 WI). In fact, Table 7-3, column 3, shows that
the S.17~cwt for pickup and deliwry
cost is based upon an average of
240 CX’I picked up and deliwed.
L.
ZJ
s
0
T
w
m
0
w
I
m
zz
.
7
I/
IIOWN’I‘OWN
I~IS1‘1<lI~Ul‘ION
2X7
LAM-l 3
TRACS Estimate of Cubic Feet Fiscal Year 1996
PQ196 Distribution
Intra-BMC
Keys Using USPS Estimates (Weighted)
for 7 Mail
Types
ACCOUNT=
BOUND=
53127
MAILCODE
CuFt
Percent
CuFt
1st Class
2nd Cl Period
International
PRI
STD A
STD B Other
STDB-P
aa,27a,ala
I 24.891547
11 ,133,460
67564,941
328,939,249
147,624,723
266,621,091
PO296 Distribution
Irma-BMC
Keys Using USPS Estimates (Weighted)
a.37
11.84
1.06
6.40
31 .I8
13.99
27.17
328,939.249
266.621.091
for 7 Mail Types
ACCOUNT=
BOUND=.
53127
MAILCODE
CuFt
Percent
CuFt
1st Class
2nd Cl Period
International
PRI
STD A
STD B - Other
STDB-P
158,075,574
104,704,624
7,226,tl67
77,175,67Q
287,632,51a
145,066.120
296,053,459
PQ396 Distributiin
Intra-BMC
Keys Using USPS Estimates (Weighted)
14.66
9.72
0.67
7.16
26.68
13.46
27.65
267.632,516
288,053.459
for 7 Mail
ACCOUNT=
BOUND=
53127
MAILCODE
1st Class
2nd Cl Period
International
PRI
STD A
STD B - Other
CuFt
200,165,973
127996943
a,497,872
61.323.674
380.539.334
150,069,556
Percent
CuFt
16.22
10.37
0.69
4.87
30.84
12.16
380,539,334
Types
LAM-i3
STDB-P
305,244,64a
PQ496 Distribution
Intra-BMC
Keys Using USPS Estimates (Weighted)
24.74
305,244,848
for 7 Mail
Types.
ACCOUNT=
BOUND=.
53127
MAILCODE
1st Class
2nd Cl Period
International
PRI
STD A
STD B - Other
STDB-P
Percent
CuFt
CuFt
17.73
11.47
0.37
5.96
25.62
12.89
25.96
228,145,303
147,604,149
4.714.949
76.709.871
329,741.850
165,936.636
334,141,5ao
329,741.850
334.141560
Four Quarters
Standard(A)
ratio
Parcel Post
Source:
1.326.a52,951
1.663976
1,224,060,97a
Running of Postal Service
SAS Model in Lib. Ref. H-62 and H-64, y96all
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document
all parties of record in this proceeding
on this date in accordance
12 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Dated : January 26, 1996.
upon
with Section