NARP’s Jim Mathews is Pissed!
(NARP has been criticized for years by other organizations claiming to be advocates for passenger rail because we receive about $22,000 per year from Amtrak to cover a portion of the salary of the person who facilitates the Amtrak Customer Advisory Committee. This, say the critics, means NARP is unable to publicly criticize Amtrak, an accusation that has cropped up in comments received here in recent days … comments prompting the following email from NARP’s president and CEO, Jim Mathews. Since I share his views regarding this criticism, I asked Jim if I could publish his response. Here it is … enjoy!)
“I’m so tired of this b… s… claiming that Amtrak’s payment to us for ACAC prevents us from ever criticizing Amtrak. That’s just dumb. Furthermore it’s insulting, and I think I’m ready to stop being nice and polite about it.
“The next time someone tells me NARP is Amtrak’s lapdog, I’m going to look him in the eye and say, “And how effective have YOU been as an advocate lately? How much traction have YOU gotten by throwing grenades at Amtrak management? How much service have YOU restored? How many dollars did YOU get allocated for restoration of Gulf Coast service? How much did YOU have to do with getting rail added to the Surface Transportation bill?
“It is naive in the extreme for these armchair quarterbacks to think that just because I call—or even if a bunch of our members call—and complain about losing station agents, that Amtrak is going to change its mind. I meet with Amtrak management regularly and not a single conversation goes by without me saying that eliminating station agents is a mistake, that it penalizes the rural traveler and the disabled passenger disproportionately, and that NARP is strongly opposed to that policy. I said as much in a letter last year to Joe Boardman, and I’ve been saying it out loud ever since.
“And…so what? Amtrak is still laying off station managers. They’re still doing it because Congress says they have to eliminate even the puny 7% shortfall after a 93% farebox recovery (an unheard of recovery figure anywhere in the world). That means when station agents retire or change jobs, Amtrak is going to switch to a caretaker or recruit volunteers to run the station.
“The simple truth is, until Congress changes its break-even-or-else policy, Amtrak is not going to change its behavior. How can they?? That’s why I’m more interested in trying to get Congress off Amtrak’s back, so that they feel less pressure to get rid of wine tastings and dining cars and station agents.
“Here’s a good example of what we’re up against. Today, the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system gets more federal dollars for its expansion than Amtrak gets for its entire operation. And these self-proclaimed advocates criticize us for not publicly dumping on Amtrak! That is frustrating beyond belief. I wish they would stop criticizing NARP for a non-issue and start criticizing Congress, which is where the blame properly belongs.”
Ex-Amtraker Carolyn gets $22,000 from Amtrak to facilitate the Customer Advisory Program?
Indirectly. Carolyn facilitates the ACAC program for which NARP is paid $22,000 a year. She has other NARP-related responsibilities for which she is paid by NARP. Her total salary is in excess of the 22k.
I totally support Jim. He’s done a fantastic job. Leadership comes and goes in my opinion Jim is one of the best in recent memory. He is the reason for my continued support…Tom Minetree
I agree!
The issue really isn’t that Amtrak bought off NARP. It is that NARP–for whatever reason–is incapable of advocating for saving, much less growing, RPS, in this country until it elects to debunk the Big Lie that informs the opinion and judgment of objective and responsible but non-expert people everywhere. No one can be an effective advocate for a program that in almost everyone’s perception costs so much and produces so little.
Jim Mathews is a smart, capable, likeable guy, and even he can’t do it. Nobody can, because the idea of pouring still more money into a service that Amtrak says–and NARP endorses (for whatever reason)–loses hundreds of millions of dollars a year to no particular benefit is irrational and stupid. NARP apparently wants its members to back ideas that are irrational and stupid.
After the Big Lie is debunked, NARP might be able to sell pouring a billion a year into the NEC by blowing whoofie dust over the low load factors and market shares there, and emphasizing the “ridership” (we just won’t talk about most of it being PHL-NYP semi-commuters). That is probably salable as regional social welfare. But a half billion in “lossesw” for LD trains that “no one rides”? Why is that a credible, salable idea?
NARP needs to embrace the truth about the financial results of Amtrak’s different groups of trains, because until it does, its “advocacy” is built on a lie, and therefore lacks credibility or effect. Only the transit parasites of the northeast benefit from NARP’s 40-year consistent refusal to come to grips with the Big Lie. NARP’s failure to do so, whatever the reason, is what is costing most of the country its prospects for train service, growth or improvement. Much of what Jim alludes to in his piece above is no more than a smokescreen, because it is built on the Big Lie, and it hasn’t saved or added trains outside the NEC, and last year, even the NEC lost some train service. Local efforts in several non-NEC states have produced innovation and growth, in a few cases despite NARP’s efforts not because of them.
One last question about NARP’s conflict of interest: when was the last time anyone saw NARP advocating for competitive entry into the business, to fill empty routes that Amtrak won’t touch, to improve services that Amtrak has neglected, to drive growth in underserved markets, or to spur innovation and drive down prices in the NEC and the California mcorridors? That’s what competition does; it is what competition has done all across Europe. But not here, and not in NARP’s advocacy–because NARP, for whatever reason, must never cross Amtrak-the-Monopolist. Maybe it’s the money, maybe it’s the “access,” maybe it’s something else, but the reality is that you will never hear NARP calling for the competitive marketplace to work its magic and bring America more and better passenger trains.
Re: Your last question, NARP supported Iowa Pacific’s efforts to operate the Hoosier State four days a week and, in fact, Ed Ellis, Iowa Pacific’s president, was featured speaker at our 2015 Fall meeting in Indianapolis.
Forgive me, but to say that we have a difference of opinion and argue that point forcefully is one thing and I welcome all such communication. But to accuse NARP–and that includes me–of encouraging our members “to back ideas that are irrational and stupid” is insulting and over the line. And since it’s my blog and I get to draw that line, I will edit verbiage like that from any future comments … in the unlikely event there should be any.
What competition in Europe are you talking about? Each country is doing it differently, but competition, there is hardly any. You have some competition over who will organise regional franchises (UK) or gets a mandate to manage a previously set up sector (most others), there are maybe a handful of companies who go at it as open access carriers, competing on the same routes as the incumbent (NTV’s Italo, Leo Express and RegioJet in the Czech Republic, a few (mostly failing) attempts in the UK and of course in Sweden. Biggest difference, they get to ride the rails mostly for virtually free, because rail access is heavily subsidised. There is no way to compare with the US, where virtually all rails are owned by private companies, which have some, but not too many obligations towards passenger rail. There’s no operating company who relies on freight traffic in Europe as they do in the US, because virtually all railway infrastructure is owned and/or operated by the government.
BTW, most railways are just as loss-making as Amtrak is, if not more. They still require huge amounts of money to operate, as any transport infrastructure does. If they make a profit, it’s after they were given the subsidies they got, counting them as income.
And that’s totally fine, because it’s seen as an investment in the economy of a country and its society, the train allows you to bring in visitors, for people to get to work, to visit family, etc. As with roads, if they wouldn’t be there, the economy would suffer, and that’s all the more true for regions who hardly have any other infrastructure left.
In your last paragraph, where DART receives more federal funding then Amtrak, I have stated in past posts to have Amtrak converted to a public transit agency much like commuter railroads are. They are in fact still considered a railroad just like Amtrak. Public agencies are held to a much different standard and are ALWAYS subsidized and have much more lenient ridership standards than what is expected of Amtrak. This could be accomplished by creating a bill called the Surface Public Transportation Act (I made up the name but it’s a good starting point), and this will then make Amtrak equal to DART or METRO at that point and make it eligible for gauranteed federal funding.
Another idea and this would keep those off Amtrak’s back would to split Amtrak into 2 entities. The first would become the National Public Transportation Railroad System. This would retain the Amtrak name and now as a public agency, the need would then be presented for more rail routes much how new bus routes are presented. As it is a public transit agency and then there is a valid need for new routes and frequencies, those needs would then have to be funded. It could be forced as a civil right at that point because then the argument could then be made that 2 populations are then being discriminated against (disabled and elderly, and rural and poor). To make the argument valid, the public agency will only be responsible for providing coach and economy coach accommodations. The service would be complimented with minimal food service.
For the second part of Amtrak, it will retain its current corporate name (National Railroad Passenger Corporation). This part will retain any service that is an upgrade from coach service as well as the food service. This is so because a case cannot be made that a public agency must provide upgraded comfort services. The upgraded services obviously would be combined in the same train(S) that convey coach service.
If this was accomplished I would love to see how ideologues try and wiggle their way out of that one. I feel it’s damn near impossible.
Fascinating concept. I have forwarded to people far more qualified than I for comment.
I especially like the last sentence. Even if Amtrak isn’t without blame, government is the main responsible for the way the Amtrak experience is going downhill.
I am also convinced you are not in Amtrak’s pocket in any way, even by accepting funds to do your work. On the contrary, a wise company knows better than to ignore their critics, but as a company to be able to tell them what you’re doing about the problem, sometimes you need to help them.
But as I also said, it’s a difficult balance to maintain between defending the passenger today, and the passenger tomorrow. I agree the passenger of tomorrow is important, but you need the current passengers for your work. And sometimes communicating a bit stronger about what you feel goes wrong (And why!) would likely not estrange so many passengers who say: once, but never again.
Although I will not attempt to speak for Andrew Selden et al in our differing approach to NARP, such a whining response here to legitimately expressed concerns is unacceptable.
How soon those seeking to ‘circle their wagons’ conveniently forgot their reaction to an identifiable conflict last year between Congressman Shuster (R-PA), Chairman of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, with his girlfriend, VP Global Affairs of the Airlines for America, at a time Shuster sought to offload the FAA. As well, how the ethicists and Congress have raised the issue of conflict with the pharmaceutical industry giving away pens, dinners, travel, and other amenities to induce physicians prescribing their drugs. Without a FOIA, I have secured on “deep background” the purpose of NARP accepting (any amount of) funds from Amtrak was attributed to Amtrak’s former CEO, W.G. Claytor: “make sure NARP is inside the tent pisisng out, not outside pisisng in.” Also, in the past, did NARP also receive certain perks from Amtrak re travel? At one point in the late 1990s, did NARP also seek a congressional statute to automatically receive a seat on the Board of Directors? Did the founder of NARP, Anthony Haswell, not intercede and attempt to reverse this conflict course over 15 years ago?
What has blurred the intellectual discourse to evidence an open mind to understanding the big picture; the refusal of NARP to appreciate how competition would offer the options not provided by a monopoly thinking process married to Washington? Why not be open to leveraging the Northeast Corridor for package delivery services (e.g., FedX, UPS); private operators offering different levels of passenger services to serve the consumer, instead of solely relying upon Congress? And you wonder what you can do to recruit millennial memberships..?
The other issue broached in this defensive attack is about “throwing grenades at Amtrak management.” It took too long, but even NARP eventually had to walk away from the 8 year regime of the past Amtrak CEO, who was a political administrator and not a railroader; who politicized management, demoralized the rank and file, and did not create a safety culture. As well, how do you defend how that management with non-existent marketing and brand management, refused to even recognize the curbside bus firms eating their lunch; simply paralyzed to respond and effectively compete?
To clarify, I, for one, have thrown in my support 100% to Amtrak’s new CEO, Wick Moorman, as already he appreciates reality; how the focus must be prioritized on safety, customers, and employees. Rather than being sensitive to our genuine concerns and different posture, I would suggest remembering how honorable military officers were to openly speak-out against the Iraq War (2003-2010), as they could not accept the direction we were headed. In essence, nothing wrong to question potential conflict that could inhibit meaningful dialog and demur the opportunities that competition present.
However tempting it might be to indulge in a point-by-point response, I shall take a pass with one exception: It is absurd that the NARP of today–with a new president, a dedicated board, and a string of modest, but significant successes–continues to be judged wanting because of a fatuous comment Graham Clayton may or may not have made some 30 years ago. Seriously??
Good read. As a working member here in San Antonio, I can tell you that NARP continues to play an active role in cooperation with both Amtrak and freight lines in seeking achievement of our goals. There are of course times when we have brought attention to both Amtrak and freight lines areas of our concerns. But always in a positive way coupled with our suggestions for improvement. NARP is not Amtrak’s poodle.
Amen! This criticism-is-advocacy meme is **INSANE**, counter-productive, and betrays a fundamental failure to understand what advocacy is.
And why do we want so badly to believe everyone is on the take? Even when there is no evidence, and the amounts are puny.
Aside: yet we fail to hold much more powerful people to any account in meaningful ways – we reelect them!
We struggle desperately in our local advocacy here (Michigan) with this “criticism is advocacy” issue; people feel so righteous about the fact that they have yelled at someone. But all that does is serve the critics of service, shut down conversation, and dissuade other [mostly younger] people from participating.
> start criticizing Congress, which is where the blame properly belongs
Ditto!