The Straphangers Campaign has released its annual State of the Subways Report Card and yet again, the 6 train is named the best line while the N is the worst. The other trains, from best to worst, were the 1/9, 7, 4, E, J/Z, L, 5, Q, 2, 3, V, F, A, D, R, M, B, W, C. So, overall, it seems that the crappiest grouping of lines are the B, D, F, V - which comes as no surprise, as though cars are really old and crappy. The 6 gets its high rating because the train cars are newer, which means more comfort (if not more seats), more clear announcements and less breakdowns, whereas the N gets slammed because it performed below average on these four measures: "arriving with regularity, seat availability, cleanliness and announcements." If you look at the data (there are a bunch of PDFs available at the Straphangers), it seems to suggest that shorter lines - and ones with the newer subway cars - tend to rise to the top. Newsday, though, gets a quote from MTA spokesman Paul Fleuranges who says, "The subway system was never designed to offer everyone a seat during rush hour, particularly at the most crowded point along the route." Yeah, so suck it up, New Yorkers!
N riders aren't surprised their line sucks; Gothamist likes how one person the Post interviewed was "sweating profusely" as he waited for a train, because we've noticed that many N stations (Times Square, Herald Square, Union Square) are like saunas. If Gothamist were a conspiracy buff, we'd say the 6 is the best line because Mayor Bloomberg usually takes it from his townhouse, but we're not anything like that. But perhaps we'll change our nickname for the N from the "Never" to the "Nasty" train.