Your critique does bring to light a point well taken that was lost to the editing process, mainly that there were significant “political aspects” involved in the closing down of the postal pneumatic tube system at the beginning of the Eisenhower administrations. It doesn’t mention that the siting of new post offices that wouldn’t be on the pipes’ path also would reduce the system’s efficiency if it were to continue in use. Also that “the pipes” had reached a capacity and couldn’t “grow in place” without a replacement of the entire network, with a new diameter beyond the original eight inches, and a new route to include the newly established post offices necessary for the growing city. To put the blame for closing down the system solely on increasing lease payments would hardly be accurate, nor is it what I wrote in full, nor what I intended to be the readers’ general understanding. The view presented in the newspaper is a consequence of editing perhaps necessary in today’s new economic newpaper environment.

I should also add that to say that the systems being used in other American cities, and also several European cities were “similar” as you did in your opening paragraph generalizes the situatiuon in the same way that one might if one said that apples, oranges, grapes, cherries, and even pomagranates are all “similar”. It certainly true they are all relatively round, but I think that about where their similarity ends. Each postal pneumatic system I believe has been “relatively unique” in its dimentions, carrying capacities, years of operation, and even operational process and management.

I do thank you though nevertheless for taking an interest in this topic and hope you will stay “tuned in” for further developments. I learned several new things from you blog comments. Thanks again. Henry E Nass / NYC