That report had two major flaws.
The only part of the report I cited were the service level and load level figures.
First people were still adjusting to Archer Ave (yes they were).
Archer opened 12/11/88. The data was taken in October 1989 - 10 months later.
The F is still bad but not as uneven with the E.
The data show that there was equal demand for the E and F. The unequal load levels are due to unequal service levels. You will note that the service levels and load levels are equal in my proposal.
The R figures do not take into consideration the load at Roosevelt which is where it peaks NOT at Queens Plaza where it did before the connection at 51/53rd was possible.
The connection between the 51st St and Lex Ave stations opened in 1988. Your point is well taken. You will also note the G train was not included in my analysis because there was no comparable data in the report. One would assume peak travel to Roosevelt would be taken care of, when this additional service was counted.
However, you are saying is that local out of Forest Hills serves as a feeder to the express at Roosevelt, even if that local goes into Manhattan. Such ingrained passenger behavior does not bode well for the V's success and the $650 million dollar gamble that made it possible. It also means that continuation of the local past Roosevelt to either Manhattan or Brooklyn is a waste for a majority of its passengers. This suggests that a more economical use of resources would be to run shuttles from Forest Hills to either Court Sq or Roosevelt Ave, instead of a full length route into Manhattan.
I read that piece of crap years ago there are a few other things in there that are important but beyond the scope of the report.
Again, I neither accepted nor rejected this report's conclusions. I used it merely as a source of raw data.