In its annual State of the Subways Report, the Straphangers Campaign said the L train did the best while the W train was the worst. How is that possible?
- The Straphangers Campaign found that the L did the best out of all lines on measures of "regularity of service and announcements" and well on "frequency of scheduled service, delays caused by mechanical breakdowns and the percentage of dirty cars." But it was below average on "a chance of getting a seat during rush hour."
- At the other end, the W "has a low level of scheduled service and performs below average on four other measures: regularity of service, car breakdowns, car cleanliness and announcements." And it also performs below average on "a chance of getting a seat during rush hour."
The 7 train was second best, doing well on "frequency of scheduled service, regularity of service, delays caused by mechanical breakdowns and chance of getting a seat during rush hour," but its cons were dirtiness and adequate announcements. NY1 spoke to L train riders, who who agreed the train was pretty good--"It's reliable, and it comes frequently, and it's clean." Here's are the rankings of all the lines (the Straphangers calculates a "Metrocard rating"--the higher, the better):
For more detail on your line, look here. Unfortunately, the Straphangers also found that car breakdowns also increased--there were 156,624 miles between breakdowns in 2006, which dropped to 149,646 miles between breakdowns in 2007. And last year, the 1 train was named the best line.