Home Public Transit Policy Can regular ferry service save the city?

Can regular ferry service save the city?

by Benjamin Kabak

A Times graphic shows the proposed route for the city's new regular ferry service. (Via)

Pardon the hyperbole in the headline atop this post, and if anyone chuckled at the recycled idea of ferry service acting as the city’s transportation savior, I wouldn’t blame them. Politicians have been trying to bring regular, affordable ferry service to the city’s waterfront for decades, and now, the Mayor is at it again.

Michael Bloomberg will announce today that, beginning in June, BillyBey, a part of New York Waterway, will begin operating regular ferry service between Brooklyn, Queens and the East Side from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. during the week and from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays. During peak hours, the ferries will operate every 20 minutes — a move the city hopes will help attract potential customers — and the boats will run every 30 minutes off-peak and once an hour during the winter. The ride, subsidized to the tune of $9 million a year by the Economic Development Corporation and with a three-year commitment, will cost $3 or $5.50 depending upon the departure point.

According to Michael Grynbaum’s coverage in The Times, the ferries will “travel along a seven-stop route that stretches from Long Island City, Queens, to the Fulton Ferry landing by the Brooklyn Bridge, and includes Manhattan terminals at Pier 11 in the financial district and East 34th Street.” New stops include India Street in Greenpoint and North Sixth Street in Williamsburg. On the Manhattan side, the operator will run a free bus down 34th St.

“If we want every part of Brooklyn, every part of Queens, to be as attractive to businesses and residents as Midtown Manhattan is,” City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn said, “we have to make it as easy as possible to get to and from in an orderly, affordable fashion. That is what ferries can do.”

For the city, the key to this new service is the use of the word “regular.” In the past, efforts to bring ferry service to the East River have foundered due to, as Grynbaum puts it, “infrequent service, outsize operating costs and low ridership.” By enforcing a frequent schedule and subsidizing the route, the city hopes that residential growth along parts of the waterfront in northern Brooklyn will help make ferry service viable. “Consistent and dependable service will be a magnet for potential users,” Robert K. Steel, a deputy mayor, said. “Development has occurred along this corridor. You’ve got more people who would potentially find the service attractive.”

When the city first floated this idea back in June, I supported it, but the caveats about ferry service in the city remain. The biggest problem is one of access. New York’s waterfront — and Manhattan’s especially — is rather isolated from the city and not that close to the major job hubs. To make the ferries more dependable than, say, the subway, the trips will have to take less time, and it’s tough to see that happening especially when connecting bus rides are involved.

The other issue is one of demand. Does the demand exist to run ferries every 20 minutes? Do enough people live near the East River waterfront to fill up the boats? Pier 6 at the Brooklyn Bridge Park, for instance, is far from everywhere, and even though bikes will be allowed on board the boats, it’s probably faster just to ride over the bridges. Even in Williamsburg where waterfront development has been most pronounced, boats every 20 minutes seems aggressive.

Still, the city is trying, and that’s what counts. If the ferries lighten the load on the L train in the morning and take a few more cars off the road, perhaps they can work out after all.

You may also like

26 comments

Jonathan R February 2, 2011 - 2:46 pm

So $9MM from the city, and a $3.00-or-plus fare for a ride that doesn’t include transfers to the subway system?

What Speaker Quinn neglects to point out is that the density of Queens and Brooklyn is not now and will never be comparable to midtown Manhattan, and that’s why they aren’t as attractive to businesses and residents as they might be. The watery edges of the city would be poor candidates for additional density, because about half the area circumscribed by the radius of demand of a transit stop is underwater.

Reply
Phillip Roncoroni February 2, 2011 - 3:44 pm

Can I get a ferry ride from Yorkville to Bayside, Queens so my commute isn’t a ridiculous 90-minutes each way, please? It was actually quicker for me to bike to work when I used to do that, mostly because the Q27 is a piece of garbage.

Reply
Edward February 2, 2011 - 3:53 pm

You take subway or LIRR to Manhattan? Just curious as to why it’s so long a commute? I’d think #7 express to Grand Central and Lex Ave Line uptown would take less than 90 mins, but then again I’ve only done the Manhattan-Bayside commute once.

Reply
jj February 2, 2011 - 3:56 pm

whenever Christine Quinn opens her mouth , an angel loses its wings

Reply
Edward February 2, 2011 - 4:38 pm

“Whenever Christine Quinn opens her mouth…”

You scared me for a minute, I thought it was gonna get all raunchy up in here!

Reply
Jerrold February 2, 2011 - 9:56 pm

Did you think that Quinn was playing Monica Lewinsky to Bloomberg’s Bill Clinton?

Reply
Al D February 2, 2011 - 4:18 pm

This is the same type of gimmicktry as the TLC-backed dollar vans, and skirts, at a large cost, the fundamental issue. Our subway system needs an overhaul and expansion, and the same goes for our bus system. There was going to be some sort of limited stop bus service from Williamsburg to Greenpoint to Midtown. The city should fund that instead and help serve those new developments that have pushed lines such as the L over capacity. Further, the L isn’t even that convenient to these developments.

It’s the same turf war type of thing as when Gov. Christie killed ARC. “I’m not buying a flashy, new terminal in another state, even if my constituents are the chief benefactors!” Heaven forbid.

It’s the same here. Because the City’s influence in the MTA is limited, it will only give limited support to it (the MTA), in spite of itself (the City that is). So, what sense does a limited ferry service make if it runs infrequently (compared to the L), has limited hours (subway = 24/7) and doesn’t take me to near my destination?

This City and this region need a comprehensive, fully thought out transportation plan, and an implementable one at that.

Reply
Marc Shepherd February 2, 2011 - 5:09 pm

Well, the thing is: this can be implemented now. For new subways, you’re talking about a 20-year lead time, and that’s assuming you can somehow attract and preserve funding over such a long period. Many transit expansion projects die after an election, when someone new comes in with a different agenda. Look at how Chris Christie was able, in a matter of months, to undo 20 years of work on ARC.

Reply
al February 3, 2011 - 3:02 am

The one upside to waterborne transportation is that they can be up and running in 1-3 yrs depending on funding. NYC is blessed with this natural aquatic highway network that it does not fully exploit.

I’ve always wondered if a fast (40-50mph) hydrofoil service to LGA or JFK was economically feasible at taxi level fares or (even $10) from 34th st and Downtown. They could be powered with LNG fueled combined cycle gas turbine systems to lower operation costs. Add at ultra low floor articulated bus as a shuttle at LaGuardia. The JFK ferry would need new docking facilities, adjacent to AirTrain station at Leffert Blvd Long Term Parking, in the Bergen Basin.

Reply
Phillip Roncoroni February 2, 2011 - 4:30 pm

I reverse commute.

So it’s 10 min to walk to Lex. The 6 down to 59th for the N/Q to Queenboro Plaza. Then the 7 local, which, after Junction tends to have numerous long waits because trains are being diverted to the yard and sometimes they dump us at Willets for the next train into Main St.

Then the Q27, which in the morning is a zoo because all the high school students from Cardozo have no concept of forming a line. So it takes between 75-90 min.

When I biked, I would go over the 59th St. Bridge and there were various bike paths along the way. That averaged 70 min. Quickest ride ever was 63 min.

Reply
AlexB February 2, 2011 - 4:37 pm

I don’t think the city is taking into account how dependent people are on their metrocards. If you can’t use your metrocard, even as a discount to the total cost of the ride, people aren’t going to use these nearly as much as they otherwise would.

I really like this proposal and think I will use it for some trips, particularly if it’s the weekend and I am on my bike. However, the ferry should go farther; it’s scope is too limited. It should go north up to Socrates Sculpture Park in Astoria and Yorkville in Manhattan, and possibly to Ditmars, Randall’s Park or even a destination in the South Bronx. At the southern end, I’m really surprised they haven’t extended it to Red Hook, especially now that the Smith-9th stop is out of commission for so long. Stops at 39th St and 58th St piers in South Brooklyn would also make sense, although I’d imagine they wouldn’t have great ridership.

A final destination at Staten Island would really open up a ton of new trip options. It’s a transit hub for a population of half a million people. Very few of the other stops have connections to anything at all.

Reply
anon February 2, 2011 - 6:12 pm

What about powering the fare system with Metrocard? That seems to be the only way to make this feasible. In terms of jurisdictional hurdles, the system could be similar to the arrangement with the PA (Metrocard accepted as payment for PATH, but with revenues dedicated to the operating agency). Free transfers and payment flexibility are the only way that this service could be competetive.

Reply
SEAN February 2, 2011 - 8:30 pm

I agree, but remember the ferry is not going to be a subway substitute. The goal is to leverage the use of the waterways around the city.

Lets not forget about the Rockaways, where an enormous housing complex was recently built by Benjamen Beachwood called Arverne by the Sea. They have a ferry to lower Manhattan, but it runs only once per day each way if I recall correctly. The ferry is faster than the A Train wich takes upwards of an hour to lowar Manhattan & nearly 75 minutes to 42nd Street. http://www.arvernebythesea.com

Reply
Sharon February 2, 2011 - 10:09 pm

I support it as long as there is no tax subsidy. This mayor has turned out to be an ideological pig in his third term throwing any rational thoughts out. These ferry’s pollute far more than private cars and dirty buses. All previous efforts fell way short. All areas that have density have subways which is faster and cheaper. Lets spend the money to pay down the mta’s debt. A good start would be wholesale reworking of every job title to align with riders needs and not union payroll padding. Station agents = station security. Conductors = train security. Think of the reduction in fare evasion and vandalism this would help with and all the other mta jobs that could be cut that cleans up all the vandalism and filth

This mayor has created traffic jams and dangerous driving conditions in my part of brooklyn by making formally two lanes in each direction into one lane in each direction roads. The aggressive drivers no cut into the center yellowed off land to speed around the law abiding drivers . I almost got smashed head on twice since the lanes were put into effect vs never in 15 years prior.

Reply
VLM February 2, 2011 - 11:18 pm

Wow, Sharon, even for you, this is a crazy talk. The mayor has “created traffic jams” by making streets one way? No, that makes streets safer. It’s drivers who aren’t stopped by the cops that have made things more dangerous.

I can’t even touch your ramblings about employment policies at the MTA.

Reply
BrooklynBus February 3, 2011 - 2:39 pm

First of all, you can repeat what Sharon said correctly. She said making two lanes in one direction into one lane, not making streets one way. And yes cutting capacity in half doubles the amount of traffic if it is not diverted elsewhere. So depending on the number of vehicles, there definitely can be new traffic jams created as a result of this. What about that can’t you understand?

And you expect a cop to magically appear every time someone violates the law?

Reply
paulb February 3, 2011 - 9:59 am

I guess nine mill over three years isn’t much by city spending standards. Maybe the city is just tossing a bone to the residents of those new “luxury” apartment buildings along the East River on the Brooklyn/Queens side. Talk about a life apart. If you don’t have a cargo bike/scooter/car, think twice.

Reply
Yanir Maidenberg February 3, 2011 - 10:47 am

I have an idea that would kill 55 birds in one stone. If the MTA invests in opening an Avenue C/Avenue D stop on the L train (Which would be a deep one, I know) then people can take the L train to one of these ferries, which would stop next to the ConEd facility on 14th Street.
What do you guys think? In my opinion, the fact that a bus will be required to arrive at the ferry landing on 34th Street will be quite a turn off for people. Also, the Ave C stop would provide ABC City residents an easy access to the L train

Reply
paulb February 3, 2011 - 11:52 am

I’ve wondered the same thing and with enough money anything is technically feasible–this would take A LOT of money–but I’ve never heard this being put forward by city transit honchos.

Reply
tacony palmyra February 3, 2011 - 12:42 pm

In addition to being deep, isn’t the track essentially running downhill after 1st Ave, to descend into the tunnel under the East River? I would think building a station further east would require the track to be straightened to a level grade at the station, which would require a steeper grade on the descent before and/or after the station. I’m no engineer but it sounds like an incredible undertaking. I don’t know how steep a slope the trains can take. The space between 1st and Bedford might be the minimum necessary to clear the River.

Reply
Alon Levy February 3, 2011 - 4:03 pm

Yes, this is exactly why the MTA has ruled out a station at Avenue C when railfans asked for it.

Reply
Chris G February 3, 2011 - 4:01 pm

If it is not tied to the bus and subway system it is useless. We already have too many damned separate ticket systems in this area.

It can cost a little more, but it has to be reasonable and it MUST be tied to the current metrocard/its replacement. For example bus and subway unlimited it is 104/m. This can be done as a 120/m for bus/subway/ferry. but to charge a separate fare and then they need a metrocard anyway helps no one but the contractors that you know will run this thing instead of the city.

Reply
Andrew February 3, 2011 - 6:08 pm

This makes no sense. How many recently discontinued bus routes could be reinstated with $9 million of city subsidy?

Reply
Anon256 February 9, 2011 - 2:44 pm

The total net annual savings from the 2010 bus service cuts was $60 million (plus $17.6 from the subway service cuts). It’s difficult to convert this to a number of “routes”, but for example:
– To unwind the “Brownstone Brooklyn Restructuring” (B71 cut, B69 rerouted, B77 merged into B61, B75 merged into B57 and B61) would cost $3.0 million a year.
– To restore the X90 (for its 620 daily riders) would cost $0.8 million a year.
– To restore the W train (and undo the related N/Q changes) would cost $3.4 million a year.
Regular ferry service is definitely more useful than the X90, but probably less useful than the W train. This should give an idea of the level of subsidy the city should be aiming for in the long run (though it might make sense to pay more for the first year or two, to help build a market).
(Source: http://www.mta.info/mta/news/b.....0-nyct.pdf )

Reply
Anon256 February 9, 2011 - 4:14 pm

By far the closest subway station to the water is Roosevelt Island. Maybe we should be looking at ways to use this as a transfer point? A service could make several stops along the East Harlem/Upper East Side waterfront and then end at Roosevelt Island for transfer to the F (maybe continuing to Pier 11 at rush hour). This would serve people who currently have a long walk to the 4/5/6, whereas the City’s proposal above would serve people who currently have a somewhat shorter walk to the G. (Ridership on these lines should tell you something about the relative size of the two markets.)

Reply
On the waterfront, $3 billion for redevelopment :: Second Ave. Sagas March 17, 2011 - 1:10 am

[…] Plan.” The city has identified 130 projects — along with an expanded ferry service introduced last month — that planners hope will “catalyze waterfront investment, improve water quality, and […]

Reply

Leave a Comment