Straphangers: Q line the best (surprise!), the C is the worst (again)

[IntExp 223]

Report came out just this morning, and it says some pretty intersting stuff. Among them include...

• The best subway line in the city was the Q with a “MetroCard Rating” of $1.60. The Q ranked number one in the system for the first time since 2001. The Q ranked highest because it tied for best in the system on announcements — and also performed above average on three measures: delays caused by mechanical breakdowns, seat availability at the most crowded point during rush hour, and subway car cleanliness. The line did not get a higher rating because it performed below average on the amount of scheduled service and average on regularity of service.
  
• For the fourth year in a row, the C was ranked the worst subway line, with a MetroCard Rating of 85 cents. The C line performed worst or next to worst in the system on four measures: amount of scheduled service, delays caused by mechanical breakdowns, subway car cleanliness and announcements. The line did not get a lower rating as it performed above average in the system on regularity of service and on chance of getting a seat at rush hour.
  
• The subways are a story of winners and losers. Riders on the best line — the Q — have much more reliable cars, frequent service and subway car cleanliness and car announcements than riders on the worst, the C.
  
• The is the most reliable line in terms of breakdowns, while the C is the worst.
  
• You have a better chance of getting a seat on the (71%) then on the (23%)
  
• The (J)/(Z) are the most reliable in terms of regular service, while the 5 is the most irregular
  
• Subway cars got diriter (score one for VG8!) Subway cars went from 94% clean to 90% clean. Fifteen lines declined (2, 3, 4, 6, B, C, D, E, F, J/Z, L, M, N, Q, and R), four improved (1, 7, A, and G) and one remained unchanged .
  

 

Thoughts? The full report, along line-by-line break down, can be found here.

[TheSubwayStation 908]

Interesting. Before this turns into a complaint war (No, MY line is worse!!!), I'll make these observations:

 

The is rated considerably cleaner than the , even though they both use the same fleet.

 

The and have improved in service regularity, and the has gotten less crowded. The and (understandably) are now worst in crowding.

 

The one thing that these ratings don't address is why certain lines are overcrowded. The fact is that subway lines which serve popular destinations will be more crowded, and while those lines will receive a lower rating, it might be better to live near one of those lines since they get you to where you want to go. For example, the rates better than the , but the is arguably a more useful line.

 

In addition, longer, more crowded lines tend to always be less reliable. Although, those lines tend to be the most useful...

[JubaionBx12+SBS 417]

A line using R160s got named the best and the one using R32 named the worst. I don't think such rocket science was needed.

[Quill Depot 1,570]

The is only bad because of it's R32's and the CPW service. I think the is more crowded than the . Especially in Manhattan. Also they go overboard with this stuff.

 

Interesting. Before this turns into a complaint war (No, MY line is worse!!! ), I'll make these observations:

 

Like, (over limit)

[Guest Lance]

I swear, Strappies exists solely to point out the bleeding obvious. Let's go through this line by line, shall we?

 

Breakdown percentages: E is the best, C is the worst. Oh I can't imagine why that is. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that the former's cars are less than five years old while the latter's date back to the Johnson administration.

 

Cleanliness: The 1 is the best, the C is the worst. First off, what constitutes as heavy dirt? Does that solely mean trash on the trains or does that include graffiti, scratchitti, etc. as well? Because if it does, again, 50 year old cars.

 

Chance of getting a seat: R is the best, 5 is the worst. Well, of course you have a better chance of getting a seat on the R. Most folks bail the R at the first chance they get, either for the E or F on Queens Blvd or the N on 4th Avenue or Broadway. Then to compare it to the 5-line? One of the most used lines in the system? One of the only lines that serves the east side of Manhattan? Come on, of course it's going to be crowded.

 

Service Intervals: 6 is the best, C is the worst. Again, no duh. Between the Parkchester and Pelham Bay Park trains, the 6 runs the tightest headways in the system. Again because it's one of the only lines serving the east side and the only local on the east side. The C's headways are in part due to the age of its running fleet. The line needs a lot of spares, which limits the amount of trains you can schedule without having to drop some of them. Then there's the question of whether the C needs to run even close to the amount of trains the 6 does anyway.

 

Announcements: 4 and Q tied for best, 7 is the worst. Again, I'm absolutely floored that the new techs beat out the older fleet for clear station announcements.

 

All in all, I get that they need to do something for these state of the subways things, but my goodness, can they at least try to bring something new to the table?

[Quill Depot 1,570]

Also, frequency is another problem with the .

 

Crowding is a woot woot to the . More money in their pocket. But what do you expect from a huge city. There is gonna be crowding.

 

EDIT: The is the second best! I live the .

 

*love the .

Edited August 1, 2012 by jimmy7train

[JubaionBx12+SBS 417]

Interesting. Before this turns into a complaint war (No, MY line is worse!!! ), I'll make these observations:

 

The is rated considerably cleaner than the , even though they both use the same fleet.

 

The and have improved in service regularity, and the has gotten less crowded. The and (understandably) are now worst in crowding.

 

The one thing that these ratings don't address is why certain lines are overcrowded. The fact is that subway lines which serve popular destinations will be more crowded, and while those lines will receive a lower rating, it might be better to live near one of those lines since they get you to where you want to go. For example, the rates better than the , but the is arguably a more useful line.

 

In addition, longer, more crowded lines tend to always be less reliable. Although, those lines tend to be the most useful...

The seat chance category should be taken out of consideration. All it does is lower the rating for the most useful lines. I view crowding as a good thing so I would actually add to the rating of those lines if I did the report. However, I don't have enough time on my hands for that.

[TheSubwayStation 908]

I think these reports are useful for looking at specific data, but not the overall ratings of each line. For example, it's a convenient way of seeing which lines have better on-time performance, but bad on-time performance doesn't mean "this line is bad".

[Q10 Airport 134]

Very interesting. I'm not at all surprised that the is ranked last again. It will stay that way until they get new cars. I love the R32's, but they are older and consequently not as good with reliability and in-car announcements. They also have 7.5 TPH (Or is it less than that?) during rush hour.

 

However, I don't like the measure of amount of scheduled service. Some lines, like the , , and , have less scheduled service because they tend to be less crowded anyway!!!

 

The Straphangers Report also seems to confirm the success of the orange . The always used to have the least crowded trains, but the 's crowding data is more on par with other subway lines. Granted, the used to have 10-car trains while the has 8-car trains. Still, it shows that the orange is here to stay!!!

 

If the Strappie Report wants less crowded trains they can revive the . We all knew how that worked.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Q10 Airport

[Via Garibaldi 8 8,581]

I'm not sure how the is #1, but then again even if the trains are more crowded and the service isn't as frequent as it could be, it helps when you have a new station to wait at AND new trains to boot. I tell ya redoing those stations on the Brighton Line has made a world of difference IMO as a user and that goes quite far when you've got a clean platform to wait on. You're less irritated as opposed to waiting at say Rockefeller Center on the rank piss smelling platform for a or train. In the sweltering heat, you now have some shade from the sun where as before at some stations you didn't really have that.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[GojiMet86 4,694]

I ride the and , and I see no difference between the two. They both use the same cars ( trains become trains at Ditmars and vice versa).

[trainfan22 1,753]

The is one of my home lines, its a great line, only that it sucks that is its SRO on weekends, but the ridership is high so its understandable, LOL.

 

When the gets its R179s it will probably win this contest, NTT on a part time line meaning they will be cleaner than the trains who run 24/7 so that will help a lot.

 

The cars on the and are cleaner than the ones on the other lines, can't wait to see 179s on the , its gonna be dope!

[RollOver 1,189]

With the R32s on the every summer, I think they might have less breakdate rates once they go back to the . And that's because they're getting SMS'ed. I dunno maybe I'm wrong, But I really hate people bashing the R32s, they just need SMS as well as nightly maintance and their A/C has to function better when on the at the Rockaways. It's kinda obvious that NYCTA is not doing a good job at tne maintaining them every night when the isn't running.

 

Lastly are Straphangers refering to the breakdowns of the R32s, R46s, or both on the ?

Edited August 1, 2012 by RollOverMyHead

[Astoria Line 1,064]

The has been the lowest ranked for a few years hasn't it? I think it is cuz of the R32s no doubt...

 

I agree with GojiMet about the and they are like the same for me...

 

The chance of getting a seat isn't fair, as in one direction, some trains will be crushloaded but in the other direction, they will be empty. For example, the was ranked 2nd highest for chance of getting a seat, but in peak direction (Manhattan bound in the AM, Flushing bound in the PM), those trains are terribly crushloaded and uncomfortbale while it is relatively easy to get a seat in the other direction....

 

As for interior cleanliness, I don't agree with the getting 4th, its relatively dirty when i take it (EVERYDAY) and there are relatively high amount of homeless on the as well... I don't agree with the being second dirtiest, that is the 2nd of 5 lines I use frequently and I don't often see a dirty car....

[Jdog14 758]

I ride the and , and I see no difference between the two. They both use the same cars ( trains become trains at Ditmars and vice versa).

 

 

Maybe it has something to do with the Sea Beach stations.

[Via Garibaldi 8 8,581]

Maybe it has something to do with the Sea Beach stations.

 

 

It most certainly does. I speak as an average rider and having nice new trains with horrendous looking stations is sort of a slap in the face. When stations are really run down, you just want to get on the train and even if the train runs well the unpleasant experience on the platform can erode that fact to a degree. I feel like the two go hand and hand. New subway cars rolling into a decrepit station is a reflection of the state of the system overall, which one can argue is mediocre.

 

As for the , there is no question that it's the old cars. If you're just an average rider who knows nothing about transit and your line was the you would say why is it that we get all of the old cars while other lines have all new cars? Is my $2.25 not as good as say train riders? They don't care about all of the particulars about why the has to use older cars. They just want to see newer cars on their line too.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[TheSubwayStation 908]

Maybe it has something to do with the Sea Beach stations.

 

It most certainly does. I speak as an average rider and having nice new trains with horrendous looking stations is sort of a slap in the face. When stations are really run down, you just want to get on the train and even if the train runs well the unpleasant experience on the platform can erode that fact to a degree. I feel like the two go hand and hand. New subway cars rolling into a decrepit station is a reflection of the state of the system overall, which one can argue is mediocre.

 

The cleanliness ratings are based only on the trains, not the stations. Regardless of whether station cleanliness is important, it didn't affect the score.

[Via Garibaldi 8 8,581]

The cleanliness ratings are based only on the trains, not the stations. Regardless of whether station cleanliness is important, it didn't affect the score.

 

 

I'm not talking about cleanliness of stations. I'm talking about the overall affect of the stations and how passengers view the service on the line overall. I know they're separate things, but passengers think of all of those things COLLECTIVELY when rating their line. Just ask any passenger and see what they say. Anytime you see folks interviewed on tv, they talk about the stations, and the subway cars equally. I know the Straphangers did this report, but I find it a bit hard for them to rank the so low while ranking the so high and they both use the same cars. I see no other difference really in terms of service or anything else aside from the decrepit stations along the Sea Beach Line.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Threxx 1,833]

I don't think this is necessary anymore. Many of the lines being compared can't be compared. I don't see what the point of these surveys is anymore...

[Via Garibaldi 8 8,581]

I don't think this is necessary anymore. Many of the lines being compared can't be compared. I don't see what the point of these surveys is anymore...

 

 

Which are? I can see the point of the surveys. Take the for example... It scored low for a few years and then the beefed up service on that line and put new cars on it... Now if they only could redo those hideous Sea Beach stations...

[Threxx 1,833]

Sea Beach, Chambers Street and Bowery are experiments on how dilapidated a station can get before people protest.

[Guest Lance]

As for the , there is no question that it's the old cars. If you're just an average rider who knows nothing about transit and your line was the you would say why is it that we get all of the old cars while other lines have all new cars? Is my $2.25 not as good as say train riders? They don't care about all of the particulars about why the has to use older cars. They just want to see newer cars on their line too.

 

 

I'd like to have a million dollars. We can't all get what we want. I'm sure the MTA would like to put new(er) trains on the C-line, but the fact remains that the cars simply aren't there. Unlike when the N-line ranked pretty bad in '07, there aren't any new cars that are rolling off an assembly line that are just waiting to be put in service. And if they take new trains off another line to put them on the C, I guarantee you that some politician is going to complain about their loss of good trains and how they were replaced with absolute crap.

Which are? I can see the point of the surveys. Take the for example... It scored low for a few years and then the beefed up service on that line and put new cars on it... Now if they only could redo those hideous Sea Beach stations...

 

 

It's supposedly on their list of stations to rehab, right after the West End and Culver stations.

[Via Garibaldi 8 8,581]

I'd like to have a million dollars. We can't all get what we want. I'm sure the MTA would like to put new(er) trains on the C-line, but the fact remains that the cars simply aren't there. Unlike when the N-line ranked pretty bad in '07, there aren't any new cars that are rolling off an assembly line that are just waiting to be put in service. And if they take new trains off another line to put them on the C, I guarantee you that some politician is going to complain about their loss of good trains and how they were replaced with absolute crap.

 

Oh I understand all of that believe me. I'm just giving my thoughts as to why the scored lowly.

[Quill Depot 1,570]

It's supposedly on their list of stations to rehab, right after the West End and Culver stations.

 

 

But for some reason it costs 500 million per station.

 

Sea Beach, Chambers Street and Bowery are experiments on how dilapidated a station can get before people protest.

 

 

And I told you this! !

Edited August 1, 2012 by jimmy7train

[RollOver 1,189]

A brief statement...

 

These surveys about the subway lines are just merely opinionated to me at least. I don't have to agree with any of this. As long as every public train and bus cars continue to get weekly maintainability every day as universal as usual, they'll keep moving on their legs and run okay. A car type is not entirely to blame for a line's poor performance. The always has a ten minute interval throughout the day, all trains (except the and ) share a track, including the and except during daytime hours.

 

Any intervals have nothing to do with a car that currently serves a line, and neither does a "cleanliness" or whatever....Aren't the people themselves the reason why they dirty up the cars depending on the location that a train/bus line pass by? Aren't the lines the only ones that access the East Side of Manhattan which explains their massive overcrowding? Imagine the being left alone in Astoria with a 6-10 minute interval through weekdays if the doesn't come back? I see some people here saying the R32s are the reason the C fails in every way? I rather stick to personal experience than these kind of "sources" that Straphangers give out. I stick to facts rather than beliefs, especially when some here saying "the R32s are because of the C's lousy performance" or "I think its that blah blah blah".

 

I'd rather blamed the people for making the C a "trash heap", things don't nasty up themselves y'know? All I care about is leaving the current car assignments the way they are until they retired and be replaced by the new cars that will replace the cars they used before. I would like to see the C being 100% R179s while saying a GREAT goodbye to the R32s. As a I take the to school, the R32s were clean as said by Straphangers last year in their annual report and even the R46s. Can't blame a public train/line for the people being nasty and the NYCTA obviously not SMS'ed the R32s completely (y'know repainting them to look as great as new, new brakes, wheels, and window installments for their extended careers).

 

However, people (including several of you here that said that the R32s are not reliable because of their 48-49 years of age and are the reason for the C's bad performance) should know by now that the MTA is in DEEP trouble due to the R44s' retirement as well as other budget issues. Yes, the subway system wasn't hit THAT hard like the bus system but I'm not taking any of Straphangers statement about the C and its current cars, nor I'm not going to agree that the R32s make the suck badly. If any of you think that the R32s make the C unpopular because of their age? well though luck....

 

You guys including everyone else out there needs to care for what there is and the only way you are going to improve a line's performance is simply maintaining the R32s every night when the doesn't run and when they only run on the for the day only. Hell, they can even be put on the instead and require MUCH frequent maintenance all night and weekend.

 

New things can't always make things popular as opposed to just taking all the R142As from the and converting them into R188s for the and the Flushing Line's automation and giving the R62As back to Westchester Yard. I would be pissed if the were to become 100% R142As if its R62s were back on the ...People's giant egos will always be crush if a line doesn't get the new cars and will still rank worst. People still complain about the same two things on the C line: Ten minute waits and old cars. I'm not going to sit here and say "I LOVE THE R160S!!!!! WHY CAN'T THE GET THEM???" or "MANG!!! BUT THE IS FOR CRAPPY BECAUSE IT USES BUMB ASS CARS THAT ARE OLD!!!!!".

 

I'd rather blame the Transit Authority but ONLY if they are not giving the R32s a one full year of SMS for their extended careers completely. Remember, they run the city's subway and bus lines and a car types operate them, NOT the line themselves. The R32s nowdays are not even repainted completely or whatever, but yeah only some of them. Retiring old subway cars is still their top priority but they can't always focus on new subway cars for the sake of people's egos. The money has to go the rehab of stations and other important things while keeping cars to last for over in around their 40s rather than just by 40 years old...Whatever car type you don't like on your line nowdays, well DEAL with it like I'm going to do if I ever see R62As back on either the or !

Edited August 1, 2012 by RollOverMyHead