Ferries have already run from inside the Marina. The Genentech commuter ferry was using docks inside the Marina in 2025, and the Tideline ferry did until the pandemic. My terms for any Berkeley ferry are the same wherever it lands: WETA pays for it, including the dredging and every year of operation; Berkeley’s long-term costs are small and written down before construction; and the service is added in steps, each one after the step before it has shown riders. The City said in 2021 that “no funds will be required from the City to subsidize operation of the ferry service.” That belongs in a signed agreement.
The pier has been closed since 2015. In 2021 the City priced a recreation-only rebuild at $20 million to $55 million, money it did not have. The current plan builds the ferry into a new pier so WETA pays part of it. The pier is designed for a 50-year life, and the shared pieces — the structure from shore to the landing, the breakwater — are still to be split under “a reasonable cost-sharing method” nobody has written down. The Marina already carries $163 million in unfunded infrastructure needs.
The parking study cited in the environmental review puts weekday ferry parking demand at 421 spaces. Swimmers, anglers, sailors and dog walkers park in the same lots, and many of them are seniors who need to park close to where they are going. The City’s parking counts covered only July and August 2024. In August 2026 the Bay Conservation and Development Commission voted to require a major permit for the City’s parking plan.
The City has named both tradeoffs and quantified neither. The asks below put a number on each one before the construction vote.
In its May 2025 comments on the scope of the environmental review, the Berkeley Waterfront Community Coalition asked the City to study three in-Marina sites: the former D&E dock near the Hornblower docks and the DoubleTree, the Hornblower docks themselves, and the docks used by the Genentech ferry and, until the pandemic, the Tideline ferry. It wrote that a central Marina site “adds only two minutes’ travel time to San Francisco,” based on the Genentech ferry’s schedule.
The Marina’s breakwaters already protect the basin, and the basin is dredged for maintenance whether or not a ferry comes. The coalition wrote that an in-harbor dock “reduces need for new dredging” and that dredging costs “could be shared over the years with WETA.”
A landing by the hotel puts ferry riders next to the lots that dog walkers and park visitors use. That is why the hotel lease and the parking plan below matter: the lots near the landing should go to recreation, and riders should park farther out or be dropped off.
The draft environmental report, published in February 2026, lists a “Berkeley Marina Basin” alternative as considered and rejected. Its reasons: some docks would have to be removed; the pier would stay closed, so the project would not “enhance public access”; and the ferry operator told the consultant by email that maneuvering inside the basin would slow the trip. No cost is given. The same section rejects a pier without a ferry because “WETA would only provide project funding if the ferry is included.” The pier is being put where the ferry wants it so that WETA will help pay for the pier. That is a financing choice, and it should be made with the in-Marina cost on the table.
The ferry would land on the north side of the rebuilt pier, behind a new breakwater. Design and environmental work is paid for by the State Coastal Conservancy ($2.96 million), the Alameda County Transportation Commission ($5.14 million) and WETA (about $3 million). The City’s project page also lists Measure T1, the Marina Fund and the Capital Improvement Fund. The design phase is expected to finish in 2027. There is no construction date.
Two ridership figures are in circulation. WETA says “over 1,000 average weekday passengers.” Critics read the draft environmental report as 915 weekday departures from Berkeley. Those may describe different things, which is one reason the break-even number should be published.
| Cost | Who pays under the 2021 terms | Every year? | What Berkeley should get in writing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ferry terminal, float, gangways, charging | WETA | Upkeep, yes | WETA owns and maintains them |
| Dredging for the ferry | WETA, “including any needed dredging” | Yes | WETA pays initial and maintenance dredging for the life of the service |
| Ferry operations | WETA; “no funds will be required from the City” | Yes | No City operating subsidy |
| Recreation pier beyond the landing | City | Upkeep, yes | A published cost and annual upkeep |
| Shared structure: pier to the landing, breakwater | “A reasonable cost-sharing method,” not yet set | Yes | The formula, in dollars, before the construction vote |
| Ferry parking | Not assigned; 2021 FAQ capped it at about 250 to 300 spaces | Yes, if built | WETA pays for any parking built for riders |
I could find no signed agreement that puts the 2021 terms into binding form. The shared structure is the item to watch: it is the cost most likely to land on the Marina Fund.
Test before step 02: every condition below is met, and construction money is in hand in full, so the City does not start a project it cannot finish.
Inside the Marina if the study bears it out. Test before step 03: the landing and charging are complete.
Free, time-limited recreation parking; ferry riders in underused spaces; a drop-off zone; arrivals counted. Test before step 04: ridership at the break-even number published before construction, reported every year.
A ferry parking structure only if the counts show it is needed, paid for by WETA.
Below 60% of the forecast, WETA carries out a plan it published in advance — service levels, subsidy, who pays — and Berkeley still pays no operating subsidy.
Spinnaker Way and the north side of the Marina turn over often. A time limit keeps all-day commuters out of the spaces closest to the parks and the off-leash area without charging the people who use them now.
Marina Boulevard toward the south end of the Marina, and underused parking east on University Avenue, about a ten-minute walk. Daytime cars on Marina Boulevard’s dirt shoulder also discourage overnight camping there.
A rider dropped at the pier needs no parking space. State regulators approved Waymo service in an area that includes Berkeley in August 2026; Waymo has not said when it will start. A drop-off zone costs little and works for any of these.
The City owns the land under the Marina hotel. With a ferry landing beside the hotel, a new lease is the chance to return the hotel’s parking lots and dock to City control, and to give the northernmost lot to visitors to Sí Se Puede Park.
Construction cost, dredging, wave conditions, trip time, parking and effects on boaters, laid beside the $105 million pier plan, before any construction vote.
In the City–WETA agreement. If WETA cannot commit, the Council revisits the project before committing construction money.
WETA pays for ferry elements, all dredging and all operations. No City operating subsidy.
And the annual cost to Berkeley over the pier’s 50-year life.
Next to Berkeley’s share of the combined pier and terminal, so the Council can see what tying the ferry to the pier saves the City or costs it.
Service levels, subsidy and who pays if riders come in at 60% of the forecast.
Weekends, afternoons, swimmers, anglers, sailors, dog walkers, and where they park.
The report’s own traffic study finds that intersection at level of service F in every peak today, with 58 seconds of delay per car in the morning and 98 in the evening. The ferry adds 12 and 25 seconds. The report says no fix is required because state law took intersection delay out of environmental review, and defers a signal study to a later phase. Ferry peaks are the hours the ramps back up and the hours people drive out to the parks.
A repaired sidewalk on Marina Boulevard, lighting standards for any new or expanded lot reviewed with the Golden Gate Bird Alliance, and the dredging plan’s effects on wildlife.
The regional Water Transit Authority names San Francisco–Berkeley/Albany in its ferry network. Regional Measure 2 raises bridge tolls and earmarks money for it.
The first effort is abandoned over dredging, funding and conflicts with Marina use.
The Berkeley pier closes for structural failure.
WETA lists the Marina among sites for expanded service. Regional Measure 3 raises tolls again. The City and WETA sign a memorandum of understanding.
The City’s waterfront director says neither the City nor WETA is considering a terminal inside the Marina.
The City publishes its Pier-Ferry FAQ with the cost terms quoted on this page.
The Berkeley Waterfront Community Coalition asks that the environmental review study three in-Marina landing sites.
The draft environmental impact report is published; public comment closes April 28.
The Bay Conservation and Development Commission requires a major permit for the City’s Marina parking plan. State regulators approve Waymo service in an area including Berkeley.
Council authorizes, on consent, an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for up to $25 million toward the project’s landside work. Nothing has been awarded.
The State expedites court review of any environmental lawsuit against the project.
Design and environmental phase complete. No construction date set.
It comes from waterfront engineers I’ve met with and from a flyer circulated by waterfront advocates. It has not been published as a study, and the draft environmental report gives no cost for the in-Marina site it rejected. Pricing it properly is Ask 00.
I found the 2021 FAQ and references to a 2019 memorandum of understanding. I haven't found a signed cost agreement.
“Over 1,000 average weekday passengers” and “915 weekday departures” may count different things.
Reported as 12–7 by the Berkeley Waterfront Community Coalition. I haven't read the minutes.
A waterfront commissioner estimates more than 200. I haven't seen a count.
Everything on this page is sourced to a public document or named press account. If you think I've read one of them wrong, tell me and I'll correct the page.