Plan Bay Area 2050+ consists of numerous transit plans throughout the region that are in need of funds, and while the list has not yet been formally adopted, San Mateo County-based officials, including Metropolitan Transportation Commissioners Dave Canepa and Gina Papan supported the inclusion of the ferry terminal.
“Outside of having a ferry for people commuting to work, the bottom line is … having this in case of emergency, or if there is an evacuation and Highway 101 is shutdown, is critical,” Canepa said.
Plans for the ferry have been in the works well before the pandemic, and while funding for the construction of the terminal has been mostly secured from county and state funds — around $20 million — costs to run the day-to-day operations are still in need. With its inclusion in Plan Bay Area, the project is more likely to receive crucial Federal Transit Administration money that is specific to ferry-based operators, Canepa said.
“The money will go to people power and the delivery of the services,” Canepa said. “It’s the service of acquiring the boats and deploying the services that’s the greatest cost.”
The passenger ferry service would connect to the East Bay and San Francisco, although exact routes are yet to be determined. Over the summer, a ferry pilot program ran from the Port of Redwood City to Oracle Park, which Thomas Hall, spokesperson for the San Francisco Bay Ferry, said was a success and highlighted the “huge demand on the Peninsula.”
While other major transit operators, such as BART and Caltrain, have struggled to recoup their prepandemic ridership levels, ferry service has seen a significant recovery. San Francisco Bay Ferry, which runs its public transit ferry throughout the Bay Area, saw the average daily ridership in 2024 climb to 90% of prepandemic levels. In South San Francisco, which currently runs the only San Mateo County-based ferry terminal, average ridership is about 65% of 2019 levels, almost twice as high as Caltrain’s ridership recovery.
Some transit advocates, however, said they were disappointed that other projects, particularly bus connections along State Route 92, were removed to make room for the ferry.
“We’re happy to see the ferry project included, but the removal of the 92 bus, which is a key missing link, is problematic,” Adina Levin said during a MTC meeting Jan. 22.
The project is currently in the early stages of the mandated environmental review process, and based on the current timeline, construction is expected to start in late 2026 or early 2027.
Canepa said it wasn’t worth delaying the Port of Redwood City ferry effort over another project that had a more precarious funding status.
“Why put in a project that doesn’t have a sponsor and isn’t ready, and have that be prioritized over the ferry, which logically has the funding for the terminal and is farther along? Not to say the bus express lane is not important, but we have choices to make with limited access to funding from the federal government,” he said.
(0) comments
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.