No more free rides for bikes on all but one Willamette River ferry - Updated
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on August 5th, 2011 at 10:17 am
By September 1st, it will cost $1 to take your bike across the river on two of the three Willamette River ferries. People on bikes had previously been lumped in with walkers and were free to ride.
The three ferries that currently operate on the Willamette River are all located in areas full of great roads that are popular with weekend explorers, bike tourers, and event rides. The Canby Ferry (between Canby and Wilsonville) is on a route to Champoeg State Park, and the Wheatland and Buena Vista ferries (east of Salem) are gateways to some of the best rural riding roads in Oregon.
UPDATE: The Buena Vista began charging people with bicycles $1 on August 5th and the Wheatland Ferry will do the same starting September 1st (the Canby Ferry will remained free for bike-riding passengers).
I've heard from two readers recently who were caught off guard by the change. Both of them were curious why people walking were still free but bike-riding passengers must pay the new fee.
(Photo © J. Maus)
"So, if you carry your bike...are you a pedestrian?" asked one reader. "Strictly speaking, if you walk your bike on the ferry as the sign says, are you not a pedestrian?" asked another.
"We also talked to bike groups in the area and they said they'd be happy to pay."
— Bob Taber, Marion County ferry maintenance supervisor
Marion County operates the Wheatland and Buena Vista ferries. According to maintenance supervisor Bob Taber, the price increase was spurred when the ferry was faced with shutting down over a lack of funding. "It doesn't pay for itself," said Taber via telephone this morning, "It actually costs us money."
When faced with the prospect of needing a new boat several years ago, Taber said they held some meetings in Buena Vista. They heard loud and clear that the community valued the ferry and didn't want to see it go. After those meetings, a grant and donations helped keep the ferry afloat.
"We also talked to bike groups in the area and they said they'd be happy to pay."
Taber says he probably gets more bikes than cars riding the ferry in some months. "We're going back and forth all day some weekends, picking up bikes... And that is costing us money... There's quite a few bikes out there. It's a nice riding area and people can do a big loop out by the wildlife preserve and back via the ferry."
The Canby ferry is run by Clackamas County. They too will begin charging people with bicycles $1. I haven't heard back from them as to what spurred the change, but my hunch is they got wind of Marion County's plan and figured they needed more revenue too.
So remember, when headed out for a ride to Champoeg State Park or into the excellent roads in Polk County outside Salem, stash a dollar bill in your patch kit so you can cross the river.
CORRECTION, 8/8: The original version of this story reported that the Canby Ferry would also be changing its fees to $1 for bike passengers. I have since learned that information is not true. Bikes will remain free on the Canby Ferry. I regret the error and any confusion it might have caused. — Jonathan Maus
Email This Post
Possibly related posts 
I for one do not mind paying for such a wonderful service. $1 is cheaper than riding Trimet!
RecommendedYeah, maybe a folded Brompton still rides for free, but if we want to believe our bikes are vehicles, why would we think we don't have to pay? Makes sense if they're doing full loads of cyclists only.
RecommendedI'm surprised they let pedestrians ride free this entire time...
yeah, $1 isn't much to save all that time to ride to the nearest bridge...
I still like the novelty of the ferry...
Recommendedit makes sense that you charge someone in a car. that car weighs a couple few thousand pounds. my bike weighs less than i do and takes up hardly more space than i do. why are we charging cyclists now? is it the number of cyclists using it? is it because cyclists are operating a vehicle? there's very little difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian, size and weight wise. so what gives? it's a buck, i've been on the canby ferry twice. i don't mind paying a buck, but why?
RecommendedThe ferry uses a lot of fuel, no mater if its cars or bikes. Plus, the Ferry operates on call. So, if you arrive on the far side of the river it will almost immediately make the crossing to get you.
I've biked onto the ferry as the only passenger and it seems like such waste.
RecommendedPoint taken, although the Canby Ferry, at least, is electric and runs on catenary.
Recommendedwhy should you have to pay your way like everyone else, is that what you're asking?
Recommendedthe ferry is a machine that requires maintainance and personnel costs. transportation is not free.
so why not charge pedestrians, too?
RecommendedMy guess is supply and demand:
"Taber says he probably gets more bikes than cars riding the ferry in some months."
If the demand is there, the market will bear higher costs. Sure, it's technically a government-provided service, but any service for which a "user fee" is charged is somewhat subject to market forces nonetheless.
RecommendedAll I'm sayin' is that the supply is static but the demand is (supposedly) increasing: therefore, higher prices. There isn't the demand from peds to support jacking up the price. Bizness is bizness, no'msayin?
RecommendedRiding I-5 is nuts now, if you want to cross boons bridge, had a feeling this was coming. :( we take up so much space on the thing.. LOL
RecommendedI understand the rational of the ferry operators (this costs money) and I understand the rational for cyclists (we are pretty much pedestrians with a bit more luggage).
The way to avoid this conflict is to charge all bicyclists and peds $1. Peds cost just as much as cyclists for a ferry to bring over the river. They are essentially the same as cyclists and this policy will bring in a bit more revenue for ferry operators.
Recommendedthey should absolutely charge bikes and peds the same to avoid the problem
RecommendedWhat problem is this exactly? The freeloading pedestrians? Bikers paying a buck and walkers free doesn't seem like a problem to me...I don't think we should lump peds in with cyclists. We can pay a buck for the service, and there are a lot of us. Peds - not so many.
RecommendedWhy not lump them together? They cost the same to ferry across. There might be more bicyclists than peds, but even if there are 10 bicyclists to every ped, more paying users = more revenue, which was the point of charging bicyclists in the first place.
RecommendedI suspect there are very few peds on any of these ferries. They are a long walk from anywhere on at least one side of each crossing.
RecommendedThat's exactly what I was thinking. They're a long way from anywhere, I can't imagine too many pedestrians using the ferries. For cycling, on the other hand, they're important connectors for some beautiful routes in the valley. Totally worth it.
RecommendedI think this is a good thing. Everyone should pay their fair share for such a great service. We can't all be GE ;)
Recommendedlets help get ppl into Portland from the Westside of town via Bike routes, safely... once you get into these subby cities its crazy mix of roads.
RecommendedI'm supportive -- $1 is definitely worth is -- but surprisingly have mixed feelings. One of my favorite rides crosses both Canby & Wheatlend Ferries, if I pack my own vittles I can get 4-6 hours of entertainment for $2. Still pretty cheap thrills but it used to be FREE!
Thinking about it though, $1 seems steep compared to the $2 to $4 toll for passengaer cars. I could probably lose a few pounds but I hardly weigh half an SUV and I certainly don't take up half as much space on the ferry deck. The problem isn't $1/bike is too pricey; $2-4/car is too cheap.
But then: supply & demand. With a motor turning the pedals it's easy to drive 20 min out of your way and take the freeway or River Rd. bridges to save a few bucks. Using my own legs: not so much.
Oh ain't life so unjust?
RecommendedHaving ridden this ferry a total of 0 times, I'm still okay with it costing a dollar. In fact, I'd be fine with it costing $1 even if I was solely on foot. I assume it's not powered by magical unicorn dust, so that means it's not free to run. It is good to know I need $1 when I do go out there though.
RecommendedI have been riding my bike across the Buena Vista ferry since I was 10 years old (and I'm now 51). I am DELIGHTED to pay $1 for the privilege of seeing the ferry start up, cross the river to get me, and then deposit me on the far bank. In fact I have been contributing my $1 voluntarily since the ferry started up again this summer.
You can make the same argument for pedestrians. But there are way more cyclists than walkers using the ferry, so I think the biker vs. walker issue is a red herring.
RecommendedI understand how the absence of peds may have caused the ferry operators to overlook the matter, and I understand why it might be a reason they shouldn't bother to revisit the matter. And I also see many reasons why we shouldn't moan too much about it as cyclists.
But I don't see how it follows that it's right for cyclists to be charged a toll and not peds, and nobody here has explained it yet. So I think the "fewer pedestrians" argument itself is actually the red herring.
RecommendedQuite reasonable on the face of it to charge a buck for bikes for the service. However, the rate for passenger motor vehicles is $2 ($3 on the Buena Vista), so given the relative vehicle weight & space demands, the proportionate bike fee should be something like $0.25.
How about bumping the auto rates up a buck at the same time? Oh, that's right, we can't subsidize bicyclists, who never pay their fair share, but motor vehicle subsidies are sacrosanct.
RecommendedJust rode this ferry on Tuesday and somehow missed seeing anything about the fares for bikes. I'm glad to pay for the service just hope I'm not too forgetful about it. It would be nice if they offered a punch card that you could prepay for x number of crossings. If you don't happen to have cash are you supposed to cross I-5?
RecommendedI'm not being ungrateful but to review from north to south: the Sellwood bridge is notoriously bad, the RR bridge to LO is illegal to cross as is the 205 bridge, the Oregon City bridge is out for two years and the shuttle is a forty minute wait. Besides the Canby Ferry there is only I-5 which is terrible (and until a week or two ago impassable due to shoulder work).
A $1 bill makes an excellent tire-boot if you have a sidewall blow-out, so you might as well have one in your patch kit anyway!
RecommendedI certainly don't mind paying, and am surprised that it took this long to implement bike fares. Last Sunday a friend and I rode from SW Portland to Eugene, and our route crossed both the Wheatland and Buena Vista Ferries. (approx. 145 miles.) I'd been meaning to comment on the Forums about the posted upcoming fare increase, but Jonathan beat me to it. I think the Buena Vista charge actual starts today (Aug 5).
RecommendedThese ferries are a wonderful piece of our heritage, and delightful (not to mention convenient) to ride. I have no problem with this service costing a dollar. Bikes take up lots more room than pedestrians (hey, just ask TriMet!) and it doesn't seem unreasonable. But if they also wanted to charge pedestrians 50c, I certainly wouldn't oppose that.
Now if only we could get the Hood River toll bridge to apply the same logic and let bikes cross for, say, 50 cents.
"stash a dollar bill in your patch kit so you can cross the river." Yikes! I forget that there are people who will go out on a long ride without carrying money and/or ID to get themselves out of a jam if something goes wrong. Good advice then, I guess.
RecommendedIf you have a problem paying for the ferry ride, feel free to start your own (I love this country!)...
RecommendedThe many times that I rode down that direction from Vancouver as a poor teenager, I would have to imagine that the $1 toll would have noticeably changed my usage of those ferries.
At the same time, I have to wonder how much these cost to operate and how much it would cost to instead just build a bridge. We obviously have plenty of ferries that have been supplanted by bridges in the area, so why are there these three holdouts?
It's worth noting that the Wheatland ferry is even the first recorded ferry in Oregon.
Recommendedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_ferries_in_Oregon
Since it seems to be about the cost of actually moving the ferry back and forth across the river, then I am all for a fee to keep 'em moving. But I think it would be fair for pedestrians to pay a fee as well...however, in all the trips I've made across the Canby ferry, I have never seen anyone on foot.
Recommendedbecause of the rural locations of all 3 ferries, i would imagine pedestrian use is virtually nil.
RecommendedJeff, that seems like the possible reason the ferry operators overlooked charging a pedestrian toll. But if it is supposed to be a persuasive argument for not charging it, then why?
Recommended"It doesn't pay for itself," said Taber via telephone this morning, "It actually costs us money."
Jonathan, can you get some verification on this? :-P
RecommendedThe ferries having difficulty meeting operating expenses isn't just an 'out of the blue' problem. I don't remember the figures, but some time back, the Oregonian did a story about budget shortfall too, and possible closure as a result. This has been a looming problem for awhile now.
If people that ride bikes can help keep the ferry going, that's great. I'd like it if the ferry operators would make available, the number of bikes that use the ferry, just as another example of the power of non-motorized transportation.
That historic tidbit RonC provided about how the ferry used to be powered, by river current flashboard, was fantastic. I wonder what were the specific reasons that system was phased out.
Been a long time since I've ridden one of these little river ferries, but especially as part of a bike ride, they can't be beat. Such a great change of pace to be able to have a nice little trip across the river...away from torrents of raging motor vehicles. $1 is no big deal. Only thing I don't like about charging money for this and that, is that the fee often turns into a baseline that subsequently, over a period of time is progressively raised, raised, raised. So ten years from now, will the fee still be $1 ?
Kind of funny, and petty, for some of the people that ride bikes to complain about 'not fair treatment', because people that walk aren't getting charged. Like others have said...'hardly anyone walking rides the ferries'. Okay...so no problem; let the ferry operators also assign a fee to people that walk and ride the ferry. Probably '0' revenue will be collected, but the complaint about them not paying will be over.
RecommendedThe Canby Ferry loop is one of my favorite rides from the house. Good to know! I often don't ride with cash so I would have been bummed.
RecommendedI think the reason they don't charge for people walking (pedestrians) is because there simply aren't that many of them so they are not on their radar as a distinct user group. There are lot of people bicycling, so it makes sense for them to perceive that as a distinct group and then consider a fee for them.
Recommendedthis would be hard to justify legally. bicyclists walk on to the ferry; they take little space - unless the charge is for bike storage. it's a way to make money, of course. if you walk & have several large bags? a big-ass stroller? anything that takes up space like a bike does?
there's a lot of pressure from uninformed, angry people to "make bikes pay their way". this is another outcome of that.
RecommendedLook at the picture. 10 bicycles, no pedestrians. What JMaus says is the Truth.
How is it hard to justify legally? What laws have they broken, and who is going to sue them? Bicycle discrimination? Are cyclists a protected from "discrimination" the same way minorities, handicapped people etc. are protected? (No)
RecommendedEither that, or it's because cyclists have a "bad rep" in the community, wink
RecommendedIt's fun to note that the original Canby Ferry was not motor driven, but rather ran on a cable and was powered by an angled splashboard lowered into the river to catch the current.
RecommendedThere are five rationales I know of for waiving service fees for non-motorized users. "Service fees" can be tolls, fares, licensing costs, etc.
1. They tend to be poorer. Charging them would be socially unjust, and ultimately counterproductive.
2. They are less often engaged in commercial enterprise while traveling.
3. There are so few of them, not even administrative costs would be covered by the fees they are charged.
4. Their travel causes a much lower negative environmental (air, water, noise, congestion, road wear, safety) impact. If what they pay should be proportional to their impact, then they owe practically zero.
5. Due to the impacts I mentioned, there should be financial incentives for using non-motorized transport, and disincentives for using motorized.
In other words, these are five reasons we put motorized and non-motorized transportation facility users in distinct groups and afford the groups different treatment. If, for a particular case, we want to know whether it's right for cyclists to be charged fees and pedestrians not to be, we might ask ourselves if these two groups can be split on the same criteria. (If you can think of more criteria, or you think not all of mine are valid, then you can choose your own ones and run this test with those.)
1. The peds who would use the ferry are probably not poorer than the cyclists who would. If so, it's not by much.
2. Neither cyclists or peds are likely to be on the job or commuting on the ferries. Perhaps peds are a bit less likely.
3. The administrative costs of charging peds a toll is practically zero.
4. Cyclists and peds cause about the same impact. Peds slightly less, perhaps.
5. I think there is no need to discourage bicycle traffic over the ferries. (But perhaps we are at a tipping point where there soon will be.) I don't see how encouraging pedestrian traffic on them is practical or necessary.
It seems that for all the justifications for charging cyclists a fare, the justifications for charging peds are about strong -- maybe slightly weaker. If so, then it only seems right that peds pay a fee too, if a slightly lower one than cyclists pay.
As cyclists, how much should we lobby, if at all, for pedestrian fares to be instituted alongside cyclist fares? That's a separate ethical question.
RecommendedYou can still cross the river for free, you just have to leave your bike behind. The toll isn't $1 for bicyclists, it's $1 for bikes. I imagine the average cyclist out there is on a bike that cost $500-$5000 and it isn't the owner's sole source of transportation. Suck it up and pay a buck. It's really no big deal.
RecommendedYou can have a car painted any color you want, as long that color is black!
RecommendedBetter carry a buck if you do the Harvest Century
RecommendedIf Mrs Dibbly & I are on our tandem, do we both have to pay? What if someone has a child on a trail a bike? What if someone is on a tandem alone, or pulling a trail a bike alone? Or is on a bike pulling a bike trailer loaded with 8 small bikes and a monkey?
I'm just being cranky, of course. It's probably reasonable, but they ought to charge 50 cents for pedestrians. That would seem fairer.
RecommendedUuuh, isn't the automobile rate 75¢?
RecommendedIt's a dollar people. Nothing wrong with paying your share of a service that you use. Just because we are saving the planet does not men we get to do it for free. If you want to ride the ferry for free, walk.
RecommendedCouldn't we just as easily make the same kind of speech to a pedestrian complaining about a $1 ped toll? If so, then isn't it just as right that peds are charged a toll?
RecommendedI'll gladly pay the one dollar fee. How much do you think it costs to run that ferry across the river? More than a dollar, I'll guaratee that. I've been on the Canby side on my bike with the ferry on the other side; the ferry came across, picked me up, and dropped me on the Wilsonville side of the river. That's service!
I would be willing to bet that there are no more than ten pedestrians that ride that ferry per year.
RecommendedCanby Ferry's website says you can buy a punch-card-- it sounds to me like it's more for cars at the $2 rate than for bikes, but I don't see why they wouldn't sell one to a cyclist!
RecommendedI don't mind paying the dollar at all to keep the service going. It's fun...
RecommendedIMPORTANT UPDATE/CORRECTION:
The original version of this story reported that the Canby Ferry would also be changing its fees to $1 for bike passengers. I have since learned that information is not true. Bikes will remain free on the Canby Ferry. I regret the error and any confusion it might have caused.
Recommended