In an editorial by the Concord (New Hampshire) Monitor they wrote:

The postal service has since the 1980s operated as an “independent establishment of the executive branch” and, as such, is expected to be self-supporting. For the most part, it is. But in exchange for its monopoly on first and third-class mail, it is charged with providing universal service, which means delivering mail at a loss in many parts of the nation.

Some 26,000 of the service’s post offices operate at a loss. The service has embarked on a long and cumbersome review of 2,000 of those offices to decide how many to close. By law, it is not allowed to close offices solely because they are losing money. Doing so in some cases makes sense. In other cases – for example, when the nearest alternative post office would be many miles away – a money-losing office shouldn’t be closed.

Some conservatives want to end the postal service’s monopoly and let private companies deliver rural mail. Rural residents, of course, would be charged rates commensurate with the cost of delivery. A move in that direction, however, would be a tragic break with history and a breach of the social contract, one that would be economically and sociologically devastating to much of rural America.  Read full article

Not so fast!  At a meeting last year the Postal Service briefed APWU National officers  about plans to consolidate operations in large stations and branches. USPS conceded that:

…among the reasons for closing stations and branches is that there are fewer “procedural requirements” for closing stations and branches than for small post offices. They also said that 34 percent (now 35%) of current postal revenue comes through alternative access, and that they are striving to increase that percentage.

 The reasons given by USPS on what Triggers a station/branch to close or consolidate:

Operational Efficiencies
Declining Office Workload
 – Retail Transactions
 – Mail Volume
Proximity of Other Facilities
Loss of Lease; No Suitable Alternate Quarters
Economic Savings Offered through Alternative Service

So is it closing money-losing stations/branches, a way to increase alternative access to postal services or both?

APWU expressed its  concern that USPS may be attempting to circumvent the contract:

We also believe that if management backfills the stations and branches it closes with contract postal offices (CPUs), this would violate the procedural requirements on subcontracting in Article 32.1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The other point to ponder: In many of the locations where stations/branches are closing or consolidating  sits FedEx Kinkos and UPS stores. So  USPS  customers may choose to utilize alternative companies in lieu of  traveling the extra distance for USPS alternative access to mail services.  Only time will tell.

 Below is a timeline USPS  developed for closing Post Offices (9 months or longer) vs. “Classified” Station/Branches (4 months)