The V was launched in December to alleviate two of the most overcrowded lines in all of New York -- the E and F trains which run express on Queens Boulevard and then travel across 53 Street in Manhattan. The F was switched off the last segment of Queens Boulevard and routed through the newly opened 63 Street tunnel and then down Sixth Avenue as before. Meanwhile, the V was added, running local on Queens Boulevard and joining the E through the 53 Street tunnel.

Newsday reports that the E remains as packed as ever because commuters forsake the roomier V for a faster ride on the crowded but express E. Saving time wins out over gaining comfort. As one straphanger remarked to a Daily News reporter, "Granted, the V trains are empty, but they're too slow." The E train "gets me to where I have to go faster."

How well you think the new plan is working depends on how you judge success. Gene Russianoff of the NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign, a rider advocacy group, calls the new system a failure because most V trains still have seats available as they enter Manhattan, according to observations made by the Straphangers group in March. At the same time, E trains remain packed. (Both sides agree that the F has become somewhat less crowded.)

Transit officials, on the other hand, count the rejiggered train routing a success because enough people have switched from the E to the V to bring the crowds on the E within "guidelines" -- train cars' official capacity including both seated passengers and standees. Transit officials reportedly always intended to rank the system a success if it siphoned away just five percent of E and F riders.

From transit planners' perspective, even the half-empty V creates benefits. Trains with elbow room for standees consume less time loading and unloading passengers, meaning that more trains can whisk through the tunnel each hour. Thus, the V train's lack of riders actually helps squished E riders because their service is quicker and more reliable.

This view clashes with customer expectations, however. Customers wanted less crowded trains, for sure, but they did not envision trading space for speed. And many simply do not see that as a good tradeoff.

Add to that basic calculation the configuration of the station at Lexington Avenue and 53 Street that is the first stop in Manhattan for E and V trains. Many Queens riders use the E because they want to go downtown on the 6 train. Unfortunately, only one escalator at Lexington Avenue serves riders transferring to the 6. Passengers squeeze into the front cars of the E to be near that one escalator, same as always. For these passengers, the commute is no different than before. New York City Transit's brochure promised "new routes, more options, less crowding." But for these riders, the new service is no improvement.

Would flip flopping the V and F between the 53 Street and 63 Street tunnels be better? If the F went back to the 53 Street tunnel, Queens customers wanting express service to 53 Street would have both the E and F to choose from. But ridership might dwindle so much on the V routed through the 63 Street tunnel that E and F trains might be no less packed than pre-V.

The core of the problem isn't which way the trains run. Nor should riders who choose to save time by sticking with packed express trains be blamed. Speed of travel almost always trumps other factors when people decide how to travel. No one expects New Yorkers coming to Manhattan to be any different.

The core of the problem is that Queens Boulevard has only one express track. Studies in the mid-1980s considered adding another express route through Queens, but cost and neighborhood opposition squashed that alternative. Add in ridership growth of 13 ercent since the mid-80s. The result is an over-taxed system even with the new 63 Street tunnel.