DiscoverBrowse CategoriesHow it worksMethodologyFor developers
MTA TrainTime
Metropolitan Transportation Authority · Utilities

Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-06 from 921 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.

Analyzed automaticallyConfidence: High3 signal sources921 reviews scannedNot human-reviewedas of 2026-10-06
 Which version this describes

App Store

This analysis describes version 10.15.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-06 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 10.15.0, updated 2026-09-24.

Google Play

This analysis describes version 10.15.0 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.

The store currently lists version 10.15.0, updated 2026-09-22.

What the analysis found

Each finding shows what agreed and how strongly. Automated analysis

Positive evidence 1

Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.

Developer says data deletion can be requested
Measuredfrom the store listingview evidence
The developer's data-safety disclosure on the store states that users can request deletion of their data, or the app's own text offers a way to delete the account. This restates what the developer declares; it is not a test of whether deletion works. Apple publishes no equivalent disclosure, so on an Apple-only listing only the app's own text can support it.
What we saw: The developer's store data-safety disclosure states that data deletion can be requested; we have not seen a deletion control in the app's own text

One source only — shown, not confirmed 1

A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.

Reported by users: Price keeps rising
One source onlyShown, not confirmed — the only source is user reviews.view evidence
The price of the paid tier has been raised on existing users.
What we saw: Price keeps rising: raised by 5 distinct reviewers (1.0% of 511 reviews scanned)

What reviewers said

Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.

Price keeps rising

Dogshit app and service. Customer support is a waste of tax dollars if you hire illiterates who waste peoples time, don't answer questions and their solution is to uninstall the app and reinstall which just allows them to leave and delete…

2★ · Google Play · 2026-03-23

the app doesn't allow any other payment form than Google pay & the freaking thing doesn't even work no matter what card I use so I ended up paying more on the train because YOUR freaking app glitch. all this bs after tix prices went up too!

1★ · Google Play · 2025-10-01

New 2026 Policies are DISGUSTING — *All who read this review, you are better off now purchasing or going back to physical tickets from the machine. Actual Review: Periodically you ask us patrons to fill out a survey for feedback. Just…

1★ · App Store · 2026-02-22

How the automated analysis works

Automated, corroborated, and never human-reviewed without a person.

This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.

No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.

There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.

Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.

 Not yet human-reviewed

Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.

Hands-on inspections are not yet open.

 How this page was produced
Analyzed 2026-10-06 Version analyzed: 10.15.0 (App Store), 10.15.0 (Google Play)3 independent signals921 reviews scannedConfidence: HighNot human-reviewedVocabulary v1.13Methodology v1.3
Signals run: user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure. Not yet checked: SDKs in the app package, the app's own on-screen text and the app manifest.