![](\"https:\/\/assets.sitespeaker.link\/embed\/skins\/default\/play-icon.png\"\/){kind=icon}
Listen to this article<\/p>\n Listen to this article<\/p>\n
The basics:<\/p>\n
Point Pleasant Beach<\/a> Borough Council rejects ferry ordinance in 3-2 vote The Borough Council rejected a proposal June 16 to launch direct ferry service<\/a> between Manhattan and Point Pleasant Beach this summer with a 3-2 vote.\n<\/p>\n The ordinance would have established a licensing framework for ferry operations, allowing Seastreak to move forward with a limited pilot program.\n<\/p>\n The vote followed several hours of discussion and public comment. Residents voiced concerns about traffic, parking, pedestrian safety, emergency access, and whether the proposal had first gone through the borough\u2019s traditional zoning and land-use review process before its advancement.<\/p>\n The seasonal route, announced in May,<\/a> would have connected Lower Manhattan and Point Pleasant Beach in approximately 75 minutes on select summer weekends. Seastreak described the service as a pilot program to test demand and determine whether regular ferry service to the Ocean County borough was both operationally and financially viable before making larger, long-term investments.\n<\/p>\n Opposing the process<\/p>\n Some residents supported the proposal and pointed to its potential economic benefits.\u00a0Meanwhile, opponents largely argued they were not against ferry service itself but against what they viewed as a rushed approval process.\n<\/p>\n Several speakers contended the proposal lacked sufficient detail regarding traffic management, passenger drop-offs and other logistical concerns. Others argued Seastreak and the property owner should first have gone through the planning and zoning review process.\u00a0The debate ultimately centered less on the ferry itself than on the question of process.<\/p>\n Councilman John Dixon, one of three members who voted against the ordinance, argued the borough should follow its established approval procedures.\n<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a process that you have to go through,\u201d Dixon said during the meeting. \u201cWe\u2019re fast-tracking this and violating all our rules. This is nuts.\u201d\n<\/p>\n There\u2019s a process that you have to go through. We\u2019re fast-tracking this and violating all our rules. This is nuts. Mayor speaks out<\/p>\n Supporters of the ordinance countered that the measure would not have granted immediate approval for ferry operations. Instead, they argued it would have established rules governing ferry service while still requiring planning board oversight and additional approvals before any service could begin.\n<\/p>\n Dixon along with Council members Kitty Stillufsen and Andy Cortes voted against the measure, while Michael Ramos and Caryn Byrnes voted in favor.\n<\/p>\n Mayor Doug Vitale <\/a>supported the proposal. He expressed disappointment during the meeting and following the vote. In a Facebook post,<\/a> Vitale argued the ferry represented an economic opportunity for the borough.\n<\/p>\n At a time when local businesses are looking for every advantage, when we have an opportunity to attract new visitors and possible new residents \u2026 these council members chose to say no. \u201cAt a time when local businesses are looking for every advantage, when we have an opportunity to attract new visitors and possible new residents, and when other shore communities are actively pursuing economic growth, these council members chose to say no,\u201d Vitale wrote.\n<\/p>\n He also contended the ordinance would have created a clearer regulatory framework for ferry operations while still preserving Planning Board oversight.\n<\/p>\n \u201cLeadership is about vision,\u201d said Vitale. \u201cIt\u2019s about recognizing opportunities when they present themselves and having the courage to pursue them. It\u2019s about putting residents and businesses first. Unfortunately, last night\u2019s vote demonstrated the exact opposite.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \u2018Whole purpose of the pilot\u2019<\/p>\n Seastreak officials expressed similar frustration.\n<\/p>\n \u201cThe whole purpose of the pilot was to determine whether service was logistically and economically viable before making larger investments and commitments,\u201d Seastreak President James Barker said in a statement issued after the vote. \u201cWithout the ability to test the concept on a limited basis as we proposed, it becomes very difficult to move forward.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\nSeastreak<\/a> planned weekend service to Manhattan<\/a>
\nResidents raised concerns about traffic, parking, safety
\nFerry operator canceled 2026 pilot, redeployed vessels<\/p>\n
\u2013 John Dixon, Point Pleasant Beach councilman<\/p>\n
\u2013 Doug Vitale, Point Pleasant Beach mayor<\/p>\n