« PreviousContinue »
Potential annual national savings from the functional motor-vehicle program
Estimate, 1 hour per route per day on letter mail.
per hour equals $1,046 savings per route. !
There are approximately 5,000 routes. Estimate new
vehicles used on 80 percent of them. 4,000 times $1,046_-
$4, 184, 000 (6) Savings through lower annual vehicle costs: Unknown, but
small compared to man-hour savings.
Estimate, 1 hour per route per day on letter mail.
relay and collection :
vehicles used on less than 70 percent of them, or
12, 500 12, 500 34-ton, sit-stand, 2 man.
25, 000 12, 500 14-ton, 3-wheel, l-man--
45, 000 32, 500
equals $1,325.25 savings per route.
45,000 routes times $1,352.25--- $59, 636, 250 Less annual cost of additional vehicles, as follows: (b) Annual cost of additional vehicles :
25,000 34-ton vehicles (6
year rate) equals --- $8, 333, 333 7,500 44-ton vehicles (3
year rate) equals.--- 1, 750, 000 Operating and maintenance:
32,500 vehicles at $0.27
per hour cost equals. 13, 601, 250
23, 684, 583
35, 951, 667
(a) Savings through man-hour reduction : Unknown-
Estimate 4,000 routes with annual contract
cost per route----
Savings per vehicle_.
Total annual net savings.
41, 022, 467
INCLUDING SERVING TIMES
ALL FIGURES INCLUDE DELIVERY OF PARCEL POST.
PROCEDURES FOR ADJUSTING CURBSIDE DELIVERY ROUTES
1. Plot on a map the curbside routes in the postal station or area being surveyed.
2. Have carriers spot all houses, coding residences, business houses, and groups of boxes. Indicate the line of travel for each route.
3. Eliminate overlapping or retracing of steps.
4. Prepare a spread-sheet listing for each route the times from stations to route and route to station, and using the graph for curbside delivery, list for each route the serving speed and serving time.
5. Using the map and the spread-sheet data, study the possibilities of consolidating routes to absorb the apparent time savings. This is accomplished by apportioning parts of routes to be absorbed among the routes to be retained, using observation and taking into consideration the shortest line of travel.
6. Prepare descriptions of proposed new routes, discuss with carriers as part of the training program, and put the service into effect. Allow sufficient time for the carriers to become accustomed to the new vehicles and the various route changes.
7. Make an inspection of the new routes. If the changes are not entirely satisfactory, have supervisors make necessary adjustments or give further training to the carriers.
INCLUDING SERVING TIMES
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
FEET PER AVERAGE ACTUAL STOP
PROCEDURES FOR ADJUSTING HOUSE DELIVERY ROUTES
1. Plot on a map the outline of the postal station or area being surveyed.
2. Have carriers plot the stops on their routes, indicating by code whether the stops are residences or business houses, curbside boxes, or groups of boxes. (Routes may contain some curbside boxes.)
3. Measure the distance to, from, and on each route. Determine for each route the average distance from line of travel to houses.
4. Determine from inspection reports the average percent coverage of stops and deliveries for each route.
5. Using the above information and the graphs for house delivery and curbside delivery, compile on a spread sheet the following information:
(a) Route number.
(8) Saving or difference in time between present and proposed method. 6. Using the map and spread-sheet data, study the possibility of consolidating routes or parts of routes to absorb the apparent time savings.
7. Prepare descriptions of proposed new routes, discuss with carriers as part of the training program, and put the service into effect. Allow sufficient time for the carriers to become accustomed to the new vehicles and the various route changes.
8. Make an inspection of the new routes. If the changes are not entirely satisfactory, have supervisors make necessary adjustments or give further training to the carriers.
Mr. GOFF. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we will be able to get Mr. Banton here. Upon inquiry, I find he didn't have anything to do, apparently, with these negotiations. However, he prepared a report which was submitted to Mr. Abrams, and Mr. Abrams sent it up with an accompanying letter. That gives in detail the history of the experiment, dating back to 1951.
I endeavored this morning in my preliminary outlining statement to give the salient facts, but this goes into much more detail.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Has that statement been made available to the committee staff!
Mr. GOFF. Yes, it has, and it was sent out to you. This was sent with a letter to the committee. I think it would be very helpful to the committee if this could be inserted as the statement of Mr. Banton, then the industrial engineer, immediately following my opening statement, because it would fit in there and give the chronological statement of the whole experiment.
I would like permission to have this inserted into the record, except there is one thing here. I notice when this was submitted, the Divco bid, which was mentioned here I believe by Mr. Meader, was for
$2,096.78, and that did not include tax. That should be changed, and has been changed in this copy I am submitting, to $2,264.52.
I would like permission to have the report of Mr. Banton submitted for the record immediately following my outlining statement.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Without objection
Mr. CHUDOFF. I reserve the right to object. It appears to me-I would like to ask Mr. Banton some questions, and I think if we admit this report into the record, it will be taken for what it is worth.
I think unless Mr. Banton is produced, I don't think we can rightfully introduce the report. Certainly, the reason we ask these people to appear before congressional subcommittees is to ask them some questions.
Is there any reason why Mr. Banton cannot appear?
Mr. GOFF. He is no longer in the employ of the Department. We were unable to reach him in the limited time available.
What I suggest is this report has already been sent to the subcommittee. I suppose, if you desire to ask Mr. Banton some questions, after looking over the report, you could get him here, or you would have the power to subpena him.
Mr. CHUDOFF. I am not so much interested in subpenaing him. Can we admit the report, subject to the opportunity of all the members of the subcommittee to read it, and if there are questions, we should be given an opportunity to ask them?
This report might have been made in cooperation with some of his subordinates, and they might be in a position to answer those questions.
Mr. GOFF. I think Mr. Graddick was the man immediately in charge. The industrial engineer had a great many things to do, and I think Mr. Graddick would be far better able to give details than Mr. Banton.
Mr. Graddick is here, and that is the reason that we came up, because actually, we think Mr. Graddick knows more of the details than Mr. Banton himself does.
Mr. CHUDOFF. I have no objection to Mr. Banton's report, but there might be some questions we want to ask somebody, and we shouldn't admit it to the record until we see if there are some questions.
Mr. GOFF. The only thing I suggest is that it might be a good idea to have it in the record, because Mr. Graddick is available.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is Mr. Graddick presently in the position formerly occupied by Mr. Banton?
Mr. GOFF. No. I believe his official title is postal operations specialist. But he worked under Mr. Banton, and is presently in the employ of the Department as a member of the staff of the industrial engineers. He is here. He is the one who was more directly concerned with this particular experiment.
Mr. PLAPINGER. Is this report of Mr. Banton the report dated February 7, entitled "Light Weight, Sit-Stand Functional," addressed with an enclosure to the chairman with the letter of February 27 from Mr. Abrams?
Mr. GOFF. It is, sir.
Mr. PLAPINGER. This was prepared by Mr. Banton when he was with the Department?
Mr. Goff. That is right. This gives chronological detail in a little more detail than we have had here.
Mr. CHUDOFF. I agree that it should be admitted, but we should have the right to ask some questions on it.