Or, if the localized crowding problem (in the end cars) isn’t causing other operational problems (e.g., delays due to door holding), then simply post signs suggesting that people who want a more comfortable ride can move toward the middle of the train.

Also, the F line report notes the uneven crowding levels on the train:

Brooklyn F trains tend to be more heavily loaded at the front and back, which reflects the location of platform stairs along the F in Brooklyn. Passenger volumes in the end cars are twice as likely to exceed guideline capacity, compared with the middle cars, during the morning peak period (6am to 10am) and three times as likely during the evening peak period (3pm to 7pm). The relatively uneven loading within trains may contribute to the perception of the line as overcrowded, since proportionately more riders are in the crowded sections of the train.

This suggests the cheapest way to reduce crowding is to build new openings or new waiting areas at stations.

If you think NYCT rush hour loading guidelines (all seats filled and 3 square ft per standee – about 1400-1450 per train on the F) aren’t generous enough, then, by all means, please petition the MTA board to change them. (Note that decreasing guideline loads would trigger increased operating costs all over the system as service is increased across the board. I don’t know how that would be paid for – a premature fare increase? Perhaps it’s worth it.)

The rush hour 4 carries over-guideline loads, and there’s no way to increase service on the line. That’s why the SAS is so important. If the F in Brooklyn even approaches the crowding that’s seen on the 4, then of course additional service is in order. But if the average F train at the Brooklyn peak load point is at 75% of guideline capacity, there’s no need whatsoever for more service.

There still may be a need for better – more reliable and more consistent – service. But throwing more trains at the line doesn’t solve that problem. It may function as a (very expensive) band-aid – or it may just make things worse. The Church Avenue terminal may have trouble handling both the G and the V. The Bergen Street interlocking will be a lot busier than it is now. A signal problem at Jay Street will delay service to Queens on both the F and the V (and probably on the G as well!).

Anecdotal observations from riding trains aren’t a good way to gauge relative crowding. You may ride in a particularly crowded part of the train on one line but not on another. You may ride during the peak period, or past the peak load point, on one line but not on another. South Brooklyn got a big service boost when the Manhattan Bridge fully reopened in 2004, which relieved pressure even on lines that don’t themselves cross the bridge; at this point, the worst crowding on the subway is generally to the east (Queens) and north (the Bronx and upper Manhattan).

Fortunately, the exact numbers we’re looking for, along with a thorough discussion, are in NYCT’s recent Review of F Line Operations, Ridership, and Infrastructure. See pages 12-13.

The F is crowded. Maybe it doesn’t meet the MTA’s definition, but that train is crowded. I don’t need an official report to know it’s not cool that I have to hold my coffee against my body in order to fit on the train. We shouldn’t have to accept the 4 train at 86th st as our standard before we do something about this. I’ve ridden all the Brooklyn trains during rush hour at various time and the F is the 2nd worst, after the L. The Q comes in 3rd, and they use the Q’s express tracks for the B, which has become increasingly popular and effective. I recently moved to Queens and I have all the room I want on the V every morning.

In terms of reliability, the F currently has to merge with the G at Smith and the V at 2nd Ave. If the F ran express, it would only have to merge with the V at Jay St. Running express to Church, it would have to pick up approximately 40,000 less people every day. That’s 40,000 fewer opportunities for someone to hold the doors open and 40,000 more reasons for the V to exist in the first place. Running the F express and the V local to Church definitely would reduce complexity and increase reliability.

The resources required to extend the V would actually be quite substantial. Figure a round-trip running time of about 50 minutes added on to the route. At a 6-minute headway, that requires about 8 or 9 additional trains – each with a crew of two. Subtract 2 from the F, assuming a round-trip savings of about 8 minutes due to the express run. For a line that currently only runs 15 trains, that’s quite huge.

For an agency that recently came very close to instituting service cuts due to insufficient operating funds, I hardly think adding that degree of service is prudent unless trains are severely overcrowded – which, in this case, they are not.

Reliability is a different matter entirely. There are many potential means to improve reliability (NYCT recently released a report touching on these very issues), and I think you’ve managed to pick out by far the most expensive. That is, if it even works – the additional complexity might make the resulting service even less reliable!

But it’s not up to me. NYCT promised to study the issue, and I’m sure NYCT will study the issue. NYCT never promised a particular conclusion.

The Culver line in Brooklyn where the F runs has more than enough track capacity for additional trains, whereas most other crowded trains do not.

One of the main reasons a train gets delayed is passenger interference. The F has a very long route with many stops. If the F can skip 6+ stops in Brooklyn, that improves the line’s overall reliability and speed, meaning one will not have to wait for a full train to pass before you get on a less full one, as you described.

The amount of resources required to extend the V to Church Ave is not huge and by speeding up the F, that means it takes fewer trains to operate the route, saving money.