Why Can't New York Get Rid of 2-Person Subway Crews?
Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill mandating two-person subway crews, but union contracts and bipartisan support ensure New Yorkers will keep paying for them anyway.
Late last year, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill that would have required two-person operating crews on New York City subways, despite heavy pressure from transit unions. While the veto looked like a win for fiscal sanity, two-person train crews—and needlessly expensive transit systems—are likely here for the foreseeable future.
The bill, which would have mandated both a driver and a conductor on each train, cleared the state Legislature somewhat unexpectedly last year. It was pushed by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) to permanently codify more union jobs into state law.
Most NYC subway lines already operate with two-person crews under the current labor contract between the TWU and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Hochul's veto stopped two-person crews from spreading systemwide, and it theoretically left the door open for the topic to be renegotiated in future labor talks, rather than being cemented into state law.
NYC's two-person system is a global outlier. An analysis from New York University's Marron Institute of Urban Management found that just 6 percent of the world's commuter rail lines use two-person crews, with most operating safely with a single driver for decades.
Although unions insist two-person crews are essential for safety, evidence suggests otherwise. The Manhattan Institute's Adam Lehodey has documented that London, which uses one-person crews, operates one of the safest rail networks in the world. Research from the Association of American Railroads, which compared one-person trains in Europe to America's multiperson freight train system, similarly found no evidence of a safety impact.
But, as TWU President John Samuelsen told The New York Times, "It doesn't really matter to us what the data shows," adding that a driver and a conductor make trips "visibly safer."
The fight over crew size extends beyond New York. Under President Joe Biden, the Federal Railroad Administration enacted a rule mandating two-person crews for freight trains nationwide. While one might expect this rule to be repealed in a Republican administration, the GOP's continued bear hug with organized labor has muddied the waters.
President Donald Trump's Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FRA Administrator David Fink both voiced support for the Biden-era two-person crew rule during their confirmation hearings. During his time in the Senate, Vice President J.D. Vance co-sponsored—along with numerous other Republicans, including Sen. John Hawley (R–Mo.) and then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.)—the Railway Safety Act, which would have legislatively mandated two-person freight crews.
The contradiction is especially stark in rail policy, as Trump recently fired numerous Surface Transportation Board members, presumably in an effort to greenlight railroad mergers—the type of pro-railroad stance that collides with the administration's pro-union crew-size priors.
Beyond failing to improve safety, two-person crews are substantially more expensive. Switching to one-person crews would save the MTA $442 million a year. That money could fund real safety improvements, such as the installation of platform doors, which provide a physical barrier between passengers and the train until the train has come to a complete stop. After platform doors were installed in Seoul, South Korea, annual subway deaths dropped from 70 to two.
If anything, Hochul's veto merely gives new NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani more flexibility in future labor negotiations between the TWU and the MTA. Based on the mayor's track record, it's unlikely he'll be a voice for one-person crews.
Given likely political support from both City Hall and the White House, two-person crews appear entrenched—and riders will keep paying for them.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Seems like an easy thing to automate
Cut the crews in half, cut democrat "donations" in half.
We can't have that!
Am I wrong in thinking that 2 people is a reasonable number to staff a train full of people? 1 to monitor basic operations and another to deal with any other circumstances that could arise with machinery and people.
Seems like a good idea until someone gets stabbed in the throat.
yes, you are wrong. Simply automate the trains. You have staff at the major stops. If there is a problem, people can call 911, like they do everywhere else.
NYC chose mamdani. Let them rot. Most of dont give 2 shits about NYC other than to laugh at. After decades of skimming the financial centers and banking they can have a slow burn death.
Despite their sometimes love for Rand, bet we dont hear this speech here.
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/refugees-wont-get-welfare-under-groundbreaking-new-bill-care-will-transfer
"You have many of these church charities involved in bringing people here, and then the church charity thinks that charity involves signing them up for welfare. No. Charity is if your charity brings them here, and they can't or aren't working enough to have food, you feed them. It's charitable to give your own money. It's not charitable to take someone else's money."
Paul, along with other members of Congress in both the House and the Senate, have been sounding the alarm on a key component of welfare program eligibility, which was redefined by the Biden administration, who ushered in millions of illegal immigrants under novel parameters for eligibility.
One item Rand missed was funding NGOs as a pass through for this welfare.
1, who gives a shit
2. Other states need to put a preemptive ban on any person from NY that moved from voting.