Over the coming weeks, the Postal Service is expected to begin implementing its Regional Transportation Optimization initiative. The RTO will end afternoon collections at nearly three-fourths of the country’s post offices and add another day to delivery times for outgoing mail and packages.
On January 31, the Postal Regulatory Commission issued a highly critical advisory opinion about the plan and in particular its negative impacts on rural communities. The Commission urged the Postal Service “to reconsider whether the speculative, meager gains from this proposal outweigh the certain downgrade in service for a significant portion of the nation.”
The advisory opinion shows that for Single-Piece First-Class Mail — the type of mail most likely to be used by a household or business — nearly half of ZIP Code pairs (mail sent from one ZIP Code to another) will experience downgraded service.
Nationwide, under the RTO plan, about 24,400 of the country’s 33,700 post office will no longer get an afternoon collection. About three-fourths of the nation’s ZIP Codes and nearly half of the country’s population will be adversely affected.
The advisory opinion is strictly advisory, so the Postal Service can, and probably will, choose to proceed with implementation despite the Commission’s concerns. Only Congress can stop the slowdown now. It may therefore be useful to consider which Congressional districts and which states would be most adversely impacted by the RTO service changes.
Questions about the Universal Service Obligation
Under the RTO plan, mail and packages won’t be collected at the end of the day and transported to processing centers for sortation. Instead, everything will sit overnight in the back of the post office, waiting to be collected the next morning at the same time the mail is dropped at the post office for delivery.
The plan thus adds at least one day to delivery times. As part of the RTO, the Postal Service has therefore also proposed revising service standards to reflect the additional day for outgoing mail at RTO post offices.
Unlike previous downgrades in service standards, the RTO does not apply uniformly across the entire country. It applies only to post offices located more than 50 miles from one of the 59 Regional Processing & Distribution Centers in the new network. Because these RPDCs are typically located in metropolitan areas, most, but not all, of the impacted post offices are in rural areas.
While the effects of RTO on rural America are of paramount concern, the plan affects cities in disparate ways as well. Many state capitals, for example, will see their mail slow down, while mail sent from within 50 miles of their RPDC will see faster service. Wisconsin’s capital in Madison is more than 50 miles from the RPDC in Milwaukee, so mail sent from Madison will move more slowly than mail sent from Milwaukee. Mail sent from Jefferson City, Missouri, will move more slowly than mail from Kansas City and St. Louis. Mail from Bismarck, North Dakota, will move more slowly than mail from Fargo.
At a hearing about the plan on December 4, 2024, PRC Commissioner Robert Taub expressed concern that the Postal Service is proposing to make an “unprecedented” change in the nature of service because the plan “is not affecting all of us in America in the same way. Rural America, those particularly affected outside of this arbitrary 50 mile radius, are going to be getting different service. That to me raises fundamental questions about what is the universal service obligation that Americans have come to expect.”
Taub, now Vice Chairman of the PRC, went on to state that the American public, through its representatives in Congress, needs to have its views heard, “as opposed to leaving this to unilateral decisions of the Postal Service.”
Impacts on rural communities
Perhaps the simplest way to see the urban-rural divide in the RTO proposal is to look at a map provided in the Postal Service in a presentation back in September 2024. The map shows the areas within 50 miles of a RPDC in yellow and the areas outside the 50-mile radius in blue. (More detailed, interactive versions of this map are here.)
This USPS map is very similar to a map of the top fifty metropolitan areas of the country. That’s simply because most RPDCs are in metro areas.
What this means, then, is that large metropolitan areas will not suffer the RTO downgrades and will instead enjoy an upgrade in service standards for some destinations. Everything sent from outside the 50-mile radius around RPDCs will slow down.
Impacts on Congressional Districts
Given the disparate impacts on rural and urban communities, it’s no surprise that Congressional districts that are largely rural will suffer the consequences of lower service standards more than more densely populated districts. Those that are urban may not have any ZIP Codes subject to RTO, while rural districts may see nearly all of their ZIP Codes subject to RTO.
More specifically, 97 districts would see none of their ZIP Codes fall within RTO, while 83 districts would see all of its ZIP Code fall within the RTO. Overall, 142 districts would see at least 90 percent of their ZIPs subject to an RTO downgrade. The remaining districts have some ZIP Codes inside the 50-mile radius of a RPDC and some ZIP codes outside this radius.
Here’s a map showing the Congressional districts and the percentage of ZIP Codes that would be subject to the RTO. Scroll over the map for details.
The map is based on the following table, which shows each district (with a link to more info and a map of the district), the total population of the district, the percentage of the population that lives in areas that will be subject to a RTO downgrade, the total number of ZIP Codes in the district, and the percentage of these ZIPs that are subject to the RTO. Note that numbers are estimates due to technical issues involved with combining data on ZIP Codes, Congressional districts, USPS filings with the PRC, and Census populations (e.g., some ZIP Codes fall within two Congressional districts).
RTO Impacts by Congressional District and State
| District | Population | % Pop RTO | ZIPs | % ZIPs RTO | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nation | 329,225,919 | 47% | 39,924 | 71% | |
| Alabama 1 | 780,286 | 100% | 103 | 100% | |
| Alabama 2 | 657,478 | 57% | 149 | 64% | |
| Alabama 3 | 706,934 | 89% | 96 | 95% | |
| Alabama 4 | 741,976 | 100% | 126 | 100% | |
| Alabama 5 | 715,011 | 100% | 87 | 100% | |
| Alabama 6 | 773,128 | 77% | 77 | 73% | |
| Alabama 7 | 649,403 | 98% | 160 | 96% | |
| Alabama Total | 5,024,216 | 89% | 798 | 89% | |
| Arkansas 1 | 758,908 | 92% | 280 | 92% | |
| Arkansas 2 | 745,021 | 100% | 114 | 100% | |
| Arkansas 3 | 750,477 | 100% | 85 | 100% | |
| Arkansas 4 | 757,069 | 100% | 226 | 100% | |
| Arkansas Total | 3,011,550 | 98% | 706 | 97% | |
| Arizona 1 | 879,958 | 0% | 33 | 0% | |
| Arizona 2 | 1,040,572 | 71% | 200 | 72% | |
| Arizona 3 | 766,480 | 0% | 23 | 4% | |
| Arizona 4 | 792,982 | 0% | 23 | 0% | |
| Arizona 5 | 673,269 | 6% | 19 | 11% | |
| Arizona 6 | 669,783 | 100% | 64 | 100% | |
| Arizona 7 | 931,927 | 84% | 70 | 91% | |
| Arizona 8 | 652,135 | 0% | 20 | 0% | |
| Arizona 9 | 745,833 | 42% | 66 | 73% | |
| Arizona Total | 7,152,939 | 36% | 518 | 62% | |
| California 1 | 735,929 | 83% | 144 | 92% | |
| California 2 | 827,468 | 68% | 160 | 71% | |
| California 3 | 782,345 | 37% | 122 | 84% | |
| California 4 | 675,506 | 24% | 64 | 52% | |
| California 5 | 716,238 | 82% | 97 | 91% | |
| California 6 | 747,217 | 0% | 26 | 0% | |
| California 7 | 740,827 | 0% | 95 | 2% | |
| California 8 | 831,486 | 0% | 27 | 0% | |
| California 9 | 719,861 | 87% | 39 | 79% | |
| California 10 | 777,582 | 0% | 38 | 3% | |
| California 11 | 752,926 | 0% | 47 | 0% | |
| California 12 | 752,368 | 0% | 32 | 0% | |
| California 13 | 864,425 | 100% | 61 | 100% | |
| California 14 | 683,830 | 0% | 29 | 0% | |
| California 15 | 704,934 | 0% | 19 | 0% | |
| California 16 | 867,082 | 64% | 41 | 49% | |
| California 17 | 697,127 | 51% | 19 | 53% | |
| California 18 | 753,858 | 92% | 40 | 90% | |
| California 19 | 846,319 | 100% | 103 | 82% | |
| California 20 | 977,467 | 100% | 97 | 99% | |
| California 21 | 708,626 | 100% | 32 | 100% | |
| California 22 | 599,501 | 100% | 46 | 100% | |
| California 23 | 871,736 | 99% | 85 | 95% | |
| California 24 | 747,248 | 84% | 74 | 89% | |
| California 25 | 726,646 | 100% | 66 | 92% | |
| California 26 | 734,259 | 21% | 40 | 25% | |
| California 27 | 678,492 | 40% | 18 | 33% | |
| California 28 | 933,091 | 10% | 35 | 14% | |
| California 29 | 704,134 | 0% | 14 | 0% | |
| California 30 | 821,739 | 0% | 31 | 0% | |
| California 31 | 702,377 | 0% | 18 | 0% | |
| California 32 | 806,156 | 2% | 30 | 7% | |
| California 33 | 538,331 | 100% | 15 | 100% | |
| California 34 | 685,534 | 0% | 19 | 0% | |
| California 35 | 803,673 | 12% | 17 | 12% | |
| California 36 | 702,490 | 0% | 27 | 0% | |
| California 37 | 790,261 | 0% | 22 | 0% | |
| California 38 | 768,247 | 0% | 18 | 0% | |
| California 39 | 614,045 | 94% | 14 | 93% | |
| California 40 | 800,052 | 0% | 26 | 4% | |
| California 41 | 918,941 | 77% | 33 | 85% | |
| California 42 | 806,322 | 0% | 27 | 4% | |
| California 43 | 822,926 | 0% | 21 | 0% | |
| California 44 | 746,476 | 0% | 213 | 2% | |
| California 45 | 795,139 | 0% | 21 | 0% | |
| California 46 | 700,122 | 0% | 15 | 0% | |
| California 47 | 753,747 | 0% | 77 | 1% | |
| California 48 | 857,907 | 3% | 100 | 15% | |
| California 49 | 752,216 | 15% | 23 | 26% | |
| California 50 | 754,797 | 0% | 27 | 0% | |
| California 51 | 677,585 | 0% | 19 | 0% | |
| California 52 | 749,874 | 0% | 16 | 0% | |
| California Total | 39,527,485 | 34% | 2,539 | 48% | |
| Colorado 1 | 1,112,450 | 0% | 62 | 0% | |
| Colorado 2 | 860,631 | 52% | 97 | 71% | |
| Colorado 3 | 730,009 | 100% | 164 | 100% | |
| Colorado 4 | 536,052 | 37% | 142 | 73% | |
| Colorado 5 | 718,337 | 100% | 60 | 100% | |
| Colorado 6 | 794,418 | 0% | 22 | 0% | |
| Colorado 7 | 540,515 | 23% | 65 | 60% | |
| Colorado 8 | 481,585 | 25% | 26 | 19% | |
| Colorado Total | 5,773,997 | 40% | 638 | 69% | |
| Connecticut 1 | 699,658 | 20% | 93 | 9% | |
| Connecticut 2 | 733,228 | 67% | 117 | 74% | |
| Connecticut 3 | 754,088 | 94% | 72 | 97% | |
| Connecticut 4 | 708,201 | 69% | 66 | 68% | |
| Connecticut 5 | 710,769 | 77% | 72 | 79% | |
| Connecticut Total | 3,605,944 | 66% | 420 | 63% | |
| District of Columbia at-large | 689,545 | 0% | 250 | 0% | |
| DC Total | 689,545 | 0% | 250 | 0% | |
| Delaware at-large | 990,270 | 82% | 87 | 83% | |
| Delaware Total | 990,270 | 82% | 87 | 83% | |
| Florida 1 | 783,766 | 100% | 62 | 100% | |
| Florida 2 | 751,637 | 100% | 103 | 100% | |
| Florida 3 | 771,819 | 91% | 92 | 90% | |
| Florida 4 | 784,877 | 0% | 52 | 2% | |
| Florida 5 | 750,925 | 3% | 27 | 4% | |
| Florida 6 | 779,906 | 82% | 81 | 81% | |
| Florida 7 | 775,035 | 18% | 58 | 36% | |
| Florida 8 | 769,703 | 71% | 62 | 71% | |
| Florida 9 | 766,102 | 0% | 28 | 11% | |
| Florida 10 | 743,867 | 0% | 52 | 0% | |
| Florida 11 | 769,070 | 25% | 41 | 37% | |
| Florida 12 | 756,641 | 29% | 59 | 44% | |
| Florida 13 | 746,436 | 0% | 63 | 0% | |
| Florida 14 | 785,100 | 0% | 57 | 0% | |
| Florida 15 | 771,895 | 0% | 41 | 0% | |
| Florida 16 | 745,568 | 16% | 43 | 19% | |
| Florida 17 | 805,906 | 100% | 61 | 98% | |
| Florida 18 | 821,502 | 63% | 75 | 73% | |
| Florida 19 | 740,060 | 100% | 47 | 100% | |
| Florida 20 | 788,745 | 33% | 65 | 45% | |
| Florida 21 | 757,451 | 100% | 42 | 100% | |
| Florida 22 | 762,056 | 100% | 27 | 100% | |
| Florida 23 | 785,059 | 33% | 32 | 34% | |
| Florida 24 | 327,764 | 0% | 11 | 0% | |
| Florida 25 | 763,413 | 0% | 23 | 0% | |
| Florida 26 | 555,526 | 37% | 23 | 61% | |
| Florida 27 | 1,035,687 | 0% | 47 | 0% | |
| Florida 28 | 953,770 | 9% | 43 | 21% | |
| Florida Total | 21,349,286 | 40% | 1,443 | 51% | |
| Georgia 1 | 746,243 | 92% | 84 | 94% | |
| Georgia 2 | 736,824 | 100% | 134 | 100% | |
| Georgia 3 | 761,888 | 46% | 74 | 57% | |
| Georgia 4 | 723,746 | 10% | 23 | 17% | |
| Georgia 5 | 754,813 | 0% | 35 | 0% | |
| Georgia 6 | 851,832 | 0% | 68 | 1% | |
| Georgia 7 | 805,968 | 89% | 23 | 87% | |
| Georgia 8 | 788,265 | 100% | 121 | 100% | |
| Georgia 9 | 705,279 | 100% | 65 | 95% | |
| Georgia 10 | 918,273 | 85% | 76 | 96% | |
| Georgia 11 | 772,269 | 54% | 43 | 67% | |
| Georgia 12 | 782,630 | 100% | 109 | 100% | |
| Georgia 13 | 676,193 | 53% | 37 | 24% | |
| Georgia 14 | 687,768 | 76% | 50 | 88% | |
| Georgia Total | 10,711,991 | 64% | 942 | 77% | |
| Iowa 1 | 800,067 | 88% | 229 | 90% | |
| Iowa 2 | 792,734 | 100% | 244 | 100% | |
| Iowa 3 | 802,589 | 21% | 209 | 51% | |
| Iowa 4 | 795,645 | 69% | 357 | 83% | |
| Iowa Total | 3,191,035 | 69% | 1,039 | 82% | |
| Idaho 1 | 945,099 | 27% | 159 | 66% | |
| Idaho 2 | 891,077 | 71% | 157 | 91% | |
| Idaho Total | 1,836,176 | 48% | 316 | 78% | |
| Illinois 1 | 695,485 | 7% | 25 | 12% | |
| Illinois 2 | 739,732 | 26% | 104 | 75% | |
| Illinois 3 | 687,238 | 0% | 16 | 0% | |
| Illinois 4 | 792,102 | 0% | 56 | 0% | |
| Illinois 5 | 893,482 | 0% | 21 | 0% | |
| Illinois 6 | 839,968 | 0% | 50 | 0% | |
| Illinois 7 | 740,577 | 0% | 32 | 0% | |
| Illinois 8 | 697,030 | 0% | 34 | 0% | |
| Illinois 9 | 615,710 | 0% | 23 | 0% | |
| Illinois 10 | 798,161 | 30% | 37 | 41% | |
| Illinois 11 | 769,398 | 17% | 40 | 23% | |
| Illinois 12 | 831,875 | 78% | 276 | 94% | |
| Illinois 13 | 665,128 | 57% | 117 | 70% | |
| Illinois 14 | 779,948 | 24% | 64 | 61% | |
| Illinois 15 | 791,982 | 84% | 318 | 93% | |
| Illinois 16 | 841,663 | 100% | 214 | 100% | |
| Illinois 17 | 632,998 | 100% | 132 | 100% | |
| Illinois Total | 12,812,477 | 31% | 1,564 | 72% | |
| Indiana 1 | 766,730 | 50% | 46 | 43% | |
| Indiana 2 | 736,780 | 100% | 113 | 100% | |
| Indiana 3 | 746,964 | 100% | 127 | 100% | |
| Indiana 4 | 756,320 | 58% | 121 | 79% | |
| Indiana 5 | 733,767 | 38% | 72 | 57% | |
| Indiana 6 | 733,432 | 15% | 86 | 35% | |
| Indiana 7 | 758,923 | 0% | 48 | 0% | |
| Indiana 8 | 753,760 | 100% | 206 | 100% | |
| Indiana 9 | 798,827 | 47% | 133 | 53% | |
| Indiana Total | 6,785,503 | 56% | 952 | 74% | |
| Kansas 1 | 671,760 | 94% | 299 | 98% | |
| Kansas 2 | 801,089 | 64% | 218 | 90% | |
| Kansas 3 | 726,042 | 6% | 72 | 22% | |
| Kansas 4 | 738,881 | 100% | 156 | 100% | |
| Kansas Total | 2,937,772 | 65% | 745 | 89% | |
| Kentucky 1 | 740,082 | 100% | 169 | 99% | |
| Kentucky 2 | 802,849 | 63% | 142 | 83% | |
| Kentucky 3 | 702,929 | 0% | 69 | 0% | |
| Kentucky 4 | 737,983 | 23% | 108 | 46% | |
| Kentucky 5 | 748,340 | 100% | 361 | 100% | |
| Kentucky 6 | 760,872 | 100% | 86 | 100% | |
| Kentucky Total | 4,513,190 | 65% | 936 | 84% | |
| Louisiana 1 | 729,412 | 89% | 117 | 92% | |
| Louisiana 2 | 793,412 | 78% | 71 | 55% | |
| Louisiana 3 | 771,122 | 100% | 91 | 100% | |
| Louisiana 4 | 913,486 | 100% | 192 | 100% | |
| Louisiana 5 | 702,139 | 50% | 127 | 74% | |
| Louisiana 6 | 742,367 | 49% | 112 | 58% | |
| Louisiana Total | 4,651,938 | 79% | 710 | 83% | |
| Massachusetts 1 | 756,778 | 17% | 120 | 26% | |
| Massachusetts 2 | 804,418 | 37% | 113 | 27% | |
| Massachusetts 3 | 769,659 | 25% | 50 | 44% | |
| Massachusetts 4 | 785,727 | 21% | 61 | 25% | |
| Massachusetts 5 | 771,281 | 0% | 52 | 2% | |
| Massachusetts 6 | 795,537 | 0% | 54 | 0% | |
| Massachusetts 7 | 781,141 | 0% | 31 | 0% | |
| Massachusetts 8 | 789,771 | 0% | 68 | 0% | |
| Massachusetts 9 | 775,520 | 62% | 125 | 67% | |
| Massachusetts Total | 7,029,832 | 18% | 674 | 27% | |
| Maryland 1 | 764,991 | 96% | 154 | 97% | |
| Maryland 2 | 849,407 | 74% | 48 | 83% | |
| Maryland 3 | 731,192 | 8% | 46 | 15% | |
| Maryland 4 | 810,320 | 0% | 53 | 0% | |
| Maryland 5 | 735,073 | 13% | 92 | 34% | |
| Maryland 6 | 765,146 | 71% | 119 | 74% | |
| Maryland 7 | 689,738 | 14% | 43 | 9% | |
| Maryland 8 | 830,908 | 0% | 35 | 0% | |
| Maryland Total | 6,176,775 | 35% | 590 | 54% | |
| Maine 1 | 687,052 | 19% | 151 | 39% | |
| Maine 2 | 675,165 | 81% | 334 | 89% | |
| Maine Total | 1,362,217 | 50% | 485 | 73% | |
| Michigan 1 | 778,357 | 100% | 273 | 100% | |
| Michigan 2 | 816,565 | 52% | 151 | 70% | |
| Michigan 3 | 742,132 | 0% | 55 | 0% | |
| Michigan 4 | 753,551 | 55% | 68 | 60% | |
| Michigan 5 | 783,453 | 86% | 128 | 90% | |
| Michigan 6 | 781,536 | 3% | 36 | 6% | |
| Michigan 7 | 805,967 | 86% | 84 | 92% | |
| Michigan 8 | 747,574 | 100% | 78 | 100% | |
| Michigan 9 | 827,222 | 50% | 114 | 72% | |
| Michigan 10 | 716,145 | 0% | 27 | 0% | |
| Michigan 11 | 765,227 | 0% | 53 | 0% | |
| Michigan 12 | 745,105 | 0% | 24 | 0% | |
| Michigan 13 | 814,472 | 0% | 63 | 0% | |
| Michigan Total | 10,077,306 | 41% | 1,154 | 67% | |
| Minnesota 1 | 716,184 | 91% | 175 | 97% | |
| Minnesota 2 | 544,997 | 5% | 39 | 26% | |
| Minnesota 3 | 618,914 | 0% | 57 | 0% | |
| Minnesota 4 | 884,232 | 0% | 41 | 0% | |
| Minnesota 5 | 864,286 | 0% | 36 | 0% | |
| Minnesota 6 | 668,292 | 44% | 55 | 55% | |
| Minnesota 7 | 700,255 | 85% | 318 | 90% | |
| Minnesota | 708,807 | 92% | 225 | 97% | |
| Minnesota Total | 5,707,019 | 39% | 947 | 76% | |
| Missouri 1 | 762,803 | 0% | 60 | 0% | |
| Missouri 2 | 842,398 | 11% | 63 | 21% | |
| Missouri 3 | 740,893 | 54% | 122 | 88% | |
| Missouri 4 | 724,177 | 76% | 178 | 91% | |
| Missouri 5 | 787,347 | 0% | 72 | 0% | |
| Missouri 6 | 776,572 | 60% | 292 | 83% | |
| Missouri 7 | 770,139 | 100% | 124 | 100% | |
| Missouri 8 | 750,848 | 84% | 236 | 96% | |
| Missouri Total | 6,155,177 | 47% | 1,147 | 76% | |
| Mississippi 1 | 737,274 | 67% | 123 | 85% | |
| Mississippi 2 | 743,978 | 97% | 200 | 98% | |
| Mississippi 3 | 730,540 | 100% | 115 | 100% | |
| Mississippi 4 | 748,942 | 100% | 77 | 100% | |
| Mississippi Total | 2,960,734 | 91% | 515 | 95% | |
| Montana 1 | 542,671 | 100% | 136 | 100% | |
| Montana 2 | 542,067 | 66% | 261 | 89% | |
| Montana Total | 1,084,738 | 83% | 397 | 93% | |
| North Carolina 1 | 718,877 | 100% | 140 | 100% | |
| North Carolina 2 | 641,855 | 100% | 47 | 100% | |
| North Carolina 3 | 791,087 | 100% | 123 | 100% | |
| North Carolina 4 | 709,644 | 95% | 33 | 94% | |
| North Carolina 5 | 680,415 | 46% | 88 | 64% | |
| North Carolina 6 | 749,050 | 15% | 79 | 16% | |
| North Carolina 7 | 765,435 | 100% | 82 | 100% | |
| North Carolina 8 | 752,090 | 35% | 64 | 72% | |
| North Carolina 9 | 915,558 | 39% | 69 | 43% | |
| North Carolina 10 | 712,482 | 15% | 48 | 25% | |
| North Carolina 11 | 743,822 | 100% | 109 | 100% | |
| North Carolina 12 | 629,383 | 0% | 59 | 0% | |
| North Carolina 13 | 838,896 | 99% | 62 | 97% | |
| North Carolina 14 | 813,989 | 14% | 67 | 27% | |
| North Carolina Total | 10,462,583 | 61% | 1,070 | 72% | |
| Nebraska 1 | 609,541 | 73% | 121 | 79% | |
| Nebraska 2 | 694,821 | 1% | 61 | 8% | |
| Nebraska 3 | 655,036 | 97% | 426 | 98% | |
| Nebraska Total | 1,959,398 | 55% | 608 | 85% | |
| Nevada 1 | 840,280 | 0% | 55 | 0% | |
| Nevada 2 | 769,378 | 100% | 101 | 100% | |
| Nevada 3 | 717,064 | 1% | 29 | 14% | |
| Nevada 4 | 777,554 | 14% | 58 | 60% | |
| Nevada Total | 3,104,276 | 28% | 243 | 58% | |
| North Dakota at-large | 778,443 | 76% | 407 | 90% | |
| North Dakota Total | 778,443 | 76% | 407 | 90% | |
| New Hampshire 1 | 682,232 | 76% | 110 | 85% | |
| New Hampshire 2 | 695,387 | 73% | 171 | 94% | |
| New Hampshire Total | 1,377,619 | 75% | 281 | 91% | |
| New Jersey 1 | 773,601 | 0% | 54 | 2% | |
| New Jersey 2 | 767,373 | 92% | 107 | 90% | |
| New Jersey 3 | 733,911 | 8% | 71 | 11% | |
| New Jersey 4 | 843,832 | 86% | 42 | 93% | |
| New Jersey 5 | 752,458 | 7% | 80 | 15% | |
| New Jersey 6 | 759,862 | 30% | 46 | 50% | |
| New Jersey 7 | 818,895 | 24% | 100 | 36% | |
| New Jersey 8 | 937,862 | 0% | 21 | 0% | |
| New Jersey 9 | 722,631 | 0% | 42 | 0% | |
| New Jersey 10 | 600,225 | 0% | 44 | 0% | |
| New Jersey 11 | 813,420 | 0% | 56 | 0% | |
| New Jersey 12 | 764,917 | 0% | 50 | 0% | |
| New Jersey Total | 9,288,987 | 21% | 713 | 30% | |
| New Mexico 1 | 756,577 | 12% | 64 | 50% | |
| New Mexico 2 | 745,731 | 69% | 156 | 79% | |
| New Mexico 3 | 612,785 | 96% | 207 | 96% | |
| New Mexico Total | 2,115,093 | 57% | 427 | 83% | |
| New York 1 | 734,786 | 21% | 73 | 48% | |
| New York 2 | 849,366 | 0% | 39 | 0% | |
| New York 3 | 738,826 | 0% | 57 | 0% | |
| New York 4 | 772,317 | 0% | 34 | 0% | |
| New York 5 | 809,304 | 0% | 29 | 0% | |
| New York 6 | 833,994 | 0% | 14 | 0% | |
| New York 7 | 652,115 | 0% | 13 | 0% | |
| New York 8 | 1,031,281 | 4% | 21 | 5% | |
| New York 9 | 628,277 | 14% | 17 | 18% | |
| New York 10 | 899,911 | 27% | 30 | 10% | |
| New York 11 | 711,452 | 30% | 18 | 17% | |
| New York 12 | 737,913 | 0% | 103 | 0% | |
| New York 13 | 724,278 | 0% | 16 | 0% | |
| New York 14 | 756,546 | 0% | 18 | 0% | |
| New York 15 | 732,263 | 0% | 11 | 0% | |
| New York 16 | 814,208 | 0% | 38 | 0% | |
| New York 17 | 781,309 | 42% | 85 | 53% | |
| New York 18 | 768,464 | 97% | 117 | 92% | |
| New York 19 | 840,539 | 100% | 308 | 100% | |
| New York 20 | 719,451 | 100% | 120 | 100% | |
| New York 21 | 805,888 | 100% | 300 | 100% | |
| New York 22 | 752,538 | 100% | 127 | 100% | |
| New York 23 | 735,059 | 100% | 210 | 100% | |
| New York 24 | 790,770 | 55% | 225 | 59% | |
| New York 25 | 775,515 | 0% | 64 | 0% | |
| New York 26 | 804,647 | 100% | 41 | 100% | |
| New York Total | 20,201,017 | 34% | 2,128 | 67% | |
| Ohio 1 | 775,740 | 0% | 73 | 0% | |
| Ohio 2 | 784,047 | 65% | 146 | 82% | |
| Ohio 3 | 740,071 | 100% | 39 | 100% | |
| Ohio 4 | 751,543 | 99% | 121 | 98% | |
| Ohio 5 | 787,947 | 60% | 149 | 87% | |
| Ohio 6 | 822,784 | 97% | 187 | 99% | |
| Ohio 7 | 821,193 | 12% | 54 | 22% | |
| Ohio 8 | 801,347 | 9% | 71 | 35% | |
| Ohio 9 | 785,728 | 96% | 106 | 95% | |
| Ohio 10 | 798,303 | 31% | 69 | 26% | |
| Ohio 11 | 761,131 | 0% | 43 | 0% | |
| Ohio 12 | 862,710 | 100% | 139 | 100% | |
| Ohio 13 | 748,896 | 29% | 70 | 34% | |
| Ohio 14 | 785,199 | 42% | 87 | 61% | |
| Ohio 15 | 772,763 | 100% | 52 | 100% | |
| Ohio Total | 11,799,402 | 56% | 1,406 | 72% | |
| Oklahoma 1 | 778,435 | 100% | 69 | 100% | |
| Oklahoma 2 | 776,369 | 100% | 233 | 100% | |
| Oklahoma 3 | 843,313 | 65% | 239 | 89% | |
| Oklahoma 4 | 767,087 | 43% | 113 | 73% | |
| Oklahoma 5 | 794,057 | 6% | 96 | 22% | |
| Oklahoma Total | 3,959,261 | 63% | 750 | 82% | |
| Oregon 1 | 702,907 | 12% | 83 | 30% | |
| Oregon 2 | 836,662 | 99% | 170 | 99% | |
| Oregon 3 | 717,477 | 3% | 36 | 11% | |
| Oregon 4 | 688,028 | 100% | 94 | 100% | |
| Oregon 5 | 699,513 | 41% | 57 | 58% | |
| Oregon 6 | 592,510 | 49% | 37 | 57% | |
| Oregon Total | 4,237,097 | 52% | 478 | 72% | |
| Pennsylvania 1 | 756,349 | 4% | 80 | 11% | |
| Pennsylvania 2 | 774,548 | 0% | 46 | 0% | |
| Pennsylvania 3 | 687,011 | 0% | 24 | 0% | |
| Pennsylvania 4 | 773,847 | 31% | 91 | 40% | |
| Pennsylvania 5 | 855,140 | 15% | 57 | 19% | |
| Pennsylvania 6 | 752,887 | 91% | 74 | 76% | |
| Pennsylvania 7 | 761,196 | 100% | 79 | 100% | |
| Pennsylvania 8 | 775,923 | 100% | 143 | 100% | |
| Pennsylvania 9 | 757,520 | 77% | 217 | 88% | |
| Pennsylvania 10 | 692,252 | 2% | 76 | 12% | |
| Pennsylvania 11 | 835,351 | 11% | 100 | 10% | |
| Pennsylvania 12 | 754,443 | 0% | 114 | 5% | |
| Pennsylvania 13 | 760,732 | 88% | 213 | 91% | |
| Pennsylvania 14 | 777,582 | 60% | 275 | 83% | |
| Pennsylvania 15 | 765,689 | 95% | 330 | 98% | |
| Pennsylvania 16 | 769,015 | 57% | 146 | 58% | |
| Pennsylvania 17 | 753,064 | 0% | 70 | 0% | |
| Pennsylvania Total | 13,002,549 | 43% | 2,135 | 65% | |
| Rhode Island 1 | 539,846 | 45% | 36 | 56% | |
| Rhode Island 2 | 557,604 | 100% | 54 | 96% | |
| Rhode Island Total | 1,097,450 | 73% | 90 | 80% | |
| South Carolina 1 | 674,929 | 100% | 58 | 100% | |
| South Carolina 2 | 711,537 | 24% | 80 | 33% | |
| South Carolina 3 | 739,567 | 94% | 89 | 92% | |
| South Carolina 4 | 762,314 | 100% | 61 | 98% | |
| South Carolina 5 | 697,926 | 19% | 72 | 39% | |
| South Carolina 6 | 800,676 | 64% | 103 | 79% | |
| South Carolina 7 | 731,476 | 100% | 71 | 100% | |
| South Carolina Total | 5,118,425 | 72% | 534 | 76% | |
| South Dakota at-large | 884,808 | 100% | 384 | 100% | |
| South Dakota Total | 884,808 | 100% | 384 | 100% | |
| Tennessee 1 | 769,326 | 100% | 82 | 100% | |
| Tennessee 2 | 780,157 | 100% | 77 | 100% | |
| Tennessee 3 | 736,162 | 100% | 87 | 100% | |
| Tennessee 4 | 785,536 | 51% | 95 | 76% | |
| Tennessee 5 | 731,328 | 7% | 34 | 24% | |
| Tennessee 6 | 785,657 | 41% | 86 | 71% | |
| Tennessee 7 | 785,930 | 48% | 103 | 50% | |
| Tennessee 8 | 782,085 | 64% | 148 | 85% | |
| Tennessee 9 | 747,292 | 0% | 68 | 0% | |
| Tennessee Total | 6,903,473 | 57% | 780 | 72% | |
| Texas 1 | 724,377 | 100% | 119 | 100% | |
| Texas 2 | 737,958 | 0% | 25 | 4% | |
| Texas 3 | 783,697 | 9% | 37 | 38% | |
| Texas 4 | 817,493 | 37% | 83 | 84% | |
| Texas 5 | 793,755 | 29% | 52 | 60% | |
| Texas 6 | 847,574 | 27% | 84 | 70% | |
| Texas 7 | 481,882 | 0% | 13 | 0% | |
| Texas 8 | 921,051 | 10% | 38 | 42% | |
| Texas 9 | 776,938 | 0% | 23 | 0% | |
| Texas 10 | 784,695 | 95% | 96 | 97% | |
| Texas 11 | 679,152 | 100% | 113 | 100% | |
| Texas 12 | 780,026 | 23% | 32 | 34% | |
| Texas 13 | 837,854 | 44% | 167 | 68% | |
| Texas 14 | 821,723 | 68% | 62 | 85% | |
| Texas 15 | 922,742 | 80% | 55 | 84% | |
| Texas 16 | 707,151 | 100% | 61 | 100% | |
| Texas 17 | 763,032 | 100% | 114 | 100% | |
| Texas 18 | 760,708 | 0% | 118 | 0% | |
| Texas 19 | 810,818 | 100% | 165 | 100% | |
| Texas 20 | 496,265 | 0% | 12 | 0% | |
| Texas 21 | 858,976 | 28% | 59 | 58% | |
| Texas 22 | 922,303 | 13% | 50 | 66% | |
| Texas 23 | 1,025,865 | 45% | 116 | 78% | |
| Texas 24 | 852,019 | 0% | 27 | 0% | |
| Texas 25 | 745,804 | 42% | 74 | 80% | |
| Texas 26 | 676,919 | 17% | 30 | 43% | |
| Texas 27 | 743,877 | 100% | 122 | 99% | |
| Texas 28 | 811,647 | 45% | 61 | 59% | |
| Texas 29 | 627,535 | 0% | 22 | 0% | |
| Texas 30 | 768,664 | 0% | 99 | 0% | |
| Texas 31 | 811,479 | 100% | 70 | 100% | |
| Texas 32 | 686,578 | 0% | 20 | 0% | |
| Texas 33 | 652,199 | 0% | 50 | 0% | |
| Texas 34 | 680,001 | 100% | 41 | 100% | |
| Texas 35 | 634,479 | 56% | 50 | 28% | |
| Texas 36 | 782,029 | 27% | 72 | 68% | |
| Texas 37 | 749,137 | 100% | 51 | 100% | |
| Texas 38 | 865,945 | 0% | 21 | 0% | |
| Texas Total | 29,144,347 | 42% | 2,504 | 68% | |
| Utah 1 | 872,460 | 23% | 86 | 50% | |
| Utah 2 | 792,120 | 38% | 114 | 80% | |
| Utah 3 | 825,584 | 13% | 82 | 62% | |
| Utah 4 | 780,074 | 18% | 61 | 39% | |
| Utah Total | 3,270,238 | 23% | 343 | 61% | |
| Virginia 1 | 728,187 | 31% | 137 | 66% | |
| Virginia 2 | 822,795 | 100% | 99 | 100% | |
| Virginia 3 | 719,568 | 100% | 50 | 100% | |
| Virginia 4 | 825,329 | 7% | 104 | 32% | |
| Virginia 5 | 810,720 | 91% | 165 | 96% | |
| Virginia 6 | 766,046 | 100% | 162 | 100% | |
| Virginia 7 | 770,053 | 61% | 85 | 85% | |
| Virginia 8 | 864,813 | 0% | 59 | 0% | |
| Virginia 9 | 806,580 | 99% | 202 | 100% | |
| Virginia 10 | 819,332 | 51% | 89 | 66% | |
| Virginia 11 | 674,006 | 0% | 53 | 0% | |
| Virginia Total | 8,607,429 | 58% | 1,205 | 77% | |
| Vermont at-large | 643,077 | 100% | 308 | 100% | |
| Vermont Total | 643,077 | 100% | 308 | 100% | |
| Washington 1 | 771,676 | 30% | 21 | 29% | |
| Washington 2 | 740,294 | 88% | 62 | 95% | |
| Washington 3 | 793,528 | 19% | 85 | 60% | |
| Washington 4 | 668,433 | 100% | 92 | 100% | |
| Washington 5 | 875,159 | 35% | 142 | 53% | |
| Washington 6 | 762,166 | 45% | 96 | 58% | |
| Washington 7 | 794,886 | 0% | 37 | 0% | |
| Washington 8 | 874,204 | 27% | 112 | 34% | |
| Washington 9 | 705,831 | 0% | 23 | 0% | |
| Washington 10 | 719,094 | 0% | 42 | 2% | |
| Washington Total | 7,705,271 | 34% | 712 | 53% | |
| Wisconsin 1 | 709,941 | 24% | 67 | 27% | |
| Wisconsin 2 | 769,849 | 100% | 99 | 100% | |
| Wisconsin 3 | 754,542 | 94% | 158 | 96% | |
| Wisconsin 4 | 730,719 | 0% | 33 | 0% | |
| Wisconsin 5 | 747,842 | 19% | 71 | 34% | |
| Wisconsin 6 | 693,306 | 77% | 110 | 82% | |
| Wisconsin 7 | 723,628 | 89% | 213 | 96% | |
| Wisconsin 8 | 763,895 | 41% | 118 | 51% | |
| Wisconsin Total | 5,893,722 | 56% | 869 | 75% | |
| West Virginia 1 | 896,672 | 100% | 587 | 100% | |
| West Virginia 2 | 896,672 | 97% | 258 | 98% | |
| West Virginia Total | 1,793,344 | 98% | 845 | 100% | |
| Wyoming at-large | 576,527 | 100% | 192 | 100% | |
| Wyoming Total | 576,527 | 100% | 192 | 100% |
The table can be sorted by column, which allows one to see which districts are most adversely impacted and least impacted by the RTO plan. Click on the arrows by the column headers to sort by the percent of population or percent of ZIP Codes, up or down. To see districts in a particular state, search by the state name. To see all the state totals, search the table by "total." To return to the default sort, click on the arrow on the far right of the table or simply refresh your browser.
Impacts on states
Here's a map showing the percentage of ZIP Codes in each state that will be subject to a service standard downgrade under RTO. Scroll over the map for details.
Four states — Wyoming, Vermont, West Virginia and South Dakota — would see all of their ZIP Codes subject to RTO. In contrast, New Jersey and Massachusetts would see less than 30 percent of their ZIP Codes subject to RTO.
RTO in New York
As an example, consider New York State. In the new network being implemented under the Delivering for America plan, New York will be served by four RPDCs: Rochester, Bethpage on Long Island, Jersey City, NJ, and Springfield, MA. Here are two maps of the state, the first showing the regions served by these RPDCs and the second showing the areas that will be subject to RTO (in blue). (Click on the maps for a larger view.)
Below is a map of New York showing the Congressional districts and how they would be impacted by RTO. The areas around Rochester and Bethpage (in yellow) will not be subject to RTO, while much of the rest of the state (in blue) is more than 50 miles from the four RPDCs and hence subject to RTO.
Overall, about one-third of the state's population and two-thirds of its ZIP codes will fall within the RTO downgrade. Hover over the map for details.
Last year, the Postal Service implemented a pilot version of the RTO called Local Transportation Optimization in the Mid-Hudson region, south of Albany. It was one of 23 areas where the LTO was piloted. The Mid-Hudson pilot ended afternoon collections at nearly 200 post offices. When the RTO plan is implemented, about 1,280 of New York's post offices will lose the afternoon collection. The Postal Service, by the way, has yet to inform customers at the LTO pilot post offices that their mail is being held until the next day.
There’s more about the PRC advisory opinion here. My own comments to the PRC for the advisory opinion are here; several members of Congress submitted this letter; and I'd also recommend the brief submitted by postal advocate Douglas Carlson, here. There's more about the RTO initiative on our RTO dashboard and DFA dashboard.
— Steve Hutkins