The blog of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York reports:
U.S. banks closed 4,821 branches between 2009 and 2014, reducing the total number of branches by about 5 percent (see chart below). Since branches per capita are declining, this isn't simply a story of shifts in population among regions. The forces driving the trend are not entirely clear, but as usual (in the view of economists), they could be demand- or supply-driven; banks may be closing branches that have become unprofitable because the demand for physical branch services has decreased (owing to slower economic growth since the crisis or increased online banking) or because the cost of supplying those services has increased (owing to more stringent bank regulation or other factors).
Citibank recently closed all of its branches here in the state of Massachusetts, where I live, which has caused its customers here some significant inconvenience. If in fact the branch closures — even some of them — are the result of "more stringent bank regulation" or even other government mandates, such as ObamaCare or legal settlements/shakedowns, that increase compliance, labor, and other costs for businesses such as banks, it would be worth getting to the bottom of. If each branch employed at least a few tellers, loan officers, branch managers, and even custodians or cleaning crews, those are thousands of jobs destroyed by Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank, Senator Warren, and their ilk.