In light of low ridership, the San Francisco Bay Ferry is exploring service cuts, fare increases and route changes to its South City ferry route.
The ferry service operates six routes, with the South San Francisco service mostly serving weekday commuters from Alameda and Oakland to their South City employers, typically life science firms situated on the east side of Highway 101. But the route only constitutes at most 5% of total ridership, and the share of operating expenses covered by passenger fares is less than half of what it was pre-pandemic and also much less than other routes.
But the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, which oversees the San Francisco Bay Ferry, has been looking into potential cuts or changes to the service specific to South City, given the fiscal challenges. The agency said it is weighing a few options, such as operating a four-day service, down from five days a week and increasing fares, which could get closer to the Vallejo route fare, about $2 more than the South City’s rate.
Other possibilities include removing the Alameda stop or adding a stop to downtown San Francisco, the latter helping to boost ridership. But that would increase travel time for East Bay commuters, currently the vast majority of the riders. Several individuals in a recent community outreach meeting said they were opposed to the San Francisco stop, with one participant saying she would likely have to quit her job, with the increased commute time.
Many South City firms, especially those on the east side of Highway 101, employ individuals who use the ferry, but Mike Gougherty, director of planning at WETA, said based on initial conversations, employers weren’t interested in providing private subsidies.
Recommended for you
Senate Bill 63, which recently passed the California Legislature, would authorize a 2026 ballot measure to help fund several of the Bay Area’s major transit agencies, many of which are facing serious structural deficits. While much of the funding would go toward larger operators such as BART and Caltrain, the sales tax measure, if approved by voters, would also provide about $7 million to San Francisco Bay Ferry.
“Unfortunately, SB 63 would help but it wouldn’t in and of itself solve the problem,” Gougherty said. “We still need to find our own path.”
South San Francisco Mayor Eddie Flores said the route is critical to maintaining multimodal transit options and is “deeply concerned” about potential cuts. While the route has the lowest ridership of all the routes, he said that doesn’t warrant service reductions.
“It has been structurally limited since its launch in 2012, just connecting to Alameda and Oakland. That’s not a failure of demand. That’s a failure of design,” Flores said. “We’re not just advocating to preserve the ferry but to also improve it.”
Environmentalists are not fond of Ferry Service, on the contrary. It's not really "public transit" either.
Now some of the North Bay ferries aren't bad for commuting, but the system still wants to expand into Redwood City as well. And that has been tested 3 times now and failed every time. But they keep doing it.
To get to the Ferry terminal in RWC, any resident would have to drive >15 min. no matter where they live. But in 20 min. I'm also on the highway and at a BART station. Caltrain is also closer and gets to SF in 30 min.
Basically Ferry service is competing directly with Caltrain and/or BART and can't win that fight.
Ferry in the South Bay is another transit grift created by Bay Area Democrats to avoid providing solid service. And Public Transit CANNOT succeed until Democrats attack the LAST-MILE issue they have (aka bike lanes!)
Why would anyone drive 15 min. to the Ferry, park, wait 10 min. till Ferry arrives and spend another 55 min. until they get to SF Ferry bldg., and then commute another 10 min. to finally get to their office? This works only for a very selected few.
This story highlights another example of transit unwilling to do their part in fiscal management. Why didn’t they make these changes years ago? My guess is they wanted to fully fund staff for 100% ferry operations as long as they could. And now, my guess is these folks will propose additional taxes so your money will continue to pay for ever increasing salaries, pensions, and benefits of transit workers for 100% service with much less ridership. Vote NO on any tax proposals for transit until these folks get their financial house in order.
Thanks for your observation, joebob91. We all know “evaluating changes” is talking the talk but not walking the walk. Think of the folks who talk about the ills of carbon emissions while they spew carbon to their hearts’ desires. Look at Newsom saying biological males competing against biological women isn’t a good thing yet Newsom continues to discriminate against women. Your kindred friend, eGerd, highlights politicians and so-called leaders who say they’ll do something to support cycling improvements but when the rubber hits the road, whether by vehicle or bicycle, they do nothing.
Ferry folks have had years during and after COVID to evaluate changes to service and operations but they continue operating at 100% capacity with much less demand (like BART). It is always about paying union workers and then hoping they can fool taxpayers into giving them more money to continue their wasteful ways. Vote NO on any transit measures. For folks that are in support of transit, they can donate money to the cause. As long as they’re okay with their donations being transferred to union transportation worker salaries, pensions, and benefits.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(4) comments
Environmentalists are not fond of Ferry Service, on the contrary. It's not really "public transit" either.
Now some of the North Bay ferries aren't bad for commuting, but the system still wants to expand into Redwood City as well. And that has been tested 3 times now and failed every time. But they keep doing it.
To get to the Ferry terminal in RWC, any resident would have to drive >15 min. no matter where they live. But in 20 min. I'm also on the highway and at a BART station. Caltrain is also closer and gets to SF in 30 min.
Basically Ferry service is competing directly with Caltrain and/or BART and can't win that fight.
Ferry in the South Bay is another transit grift created by Bay Area Democrats to avoid providing solid service. And Public Transit CANNOT succeed until Democrats attack the LAST-MILE issue they have (aka bike lanes!)
Why would anyone drive 15 min. to the Ferry, park, wait 10 min. till Ferry arrives and spend another 55 min. until they get to SF Ferry bldg., and then commute another 10 min. to finally get to their office? This works only for a very selected few.
This story highlights another example of transit unwilling to do their part in fiscal management. Why didn’t they make these changes years ago? My guess is they wanted to fully fund staff for 100% ferry operations as long as they could. And now, my guess is these folks will propose additional taxes so your money will continue to pay for ever increasing salaries, pensions, and benefits of transit workers for 100% service with much less ridership. Vote NO on any tax proposals for transit until these folks get their financial house in order.
Actually, the article says that they are evaluating changes to service and operations in order to address their financial challenges.
Thanks for your observation, joebob91. We all know “evaluating changes” is talking the talk but not walking the walk. Think of the folks who talk about the ills of carbon emissions while they spew carbon to their hearts’ desires. Look at Newsom saying biological males competing against biological women isn’t a good thing yet Newsom continues to discriminate against women. Your kindred friend, eGerd, highlights politicians and so-called leaders who say they’ll do something to support cycling improvements but when the rubber hits the road, whether by vehicle or bicycle, they do nothing.
Ferry folks have had years during and after COVID to evaluate changes to service and operations but they continue operating at 100% capacity with much less demand (like BART). It is always about paying union workers and then hoping they can fool taxpayers into giving them more money to continue their wasteful ways. Vote NO on any transit measures. For folks that are in support of transit, they can donate money to the cause. As long as they’re okay with their donations being transferred to union transportation worker salaries, pensions, and benefits.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.