Blogging Bayport Alameda

October 25, 2016

No bus shelter from the storm

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:05 am

To add to the list of people Tony Daysog doesn’t support from yesterday with slight modifications based on added info about the APC’s residents:

  1. Renters
  2. Seniors
  3. Poor people Formerly homeless Veterans
  4. Formerly homeless families with children
  5. Bus riders seeing shelter from inclement weather

Back when Tony Daysog was termed out and sought to run for the AC Transit seat, he tried to beef up his transit creds by making all these claims about his work on the City Council.  But one of the more disappointing things that he did was to help tank efforts by the City to get bus shelters installed in the City which would have been funded by advertising on the shelter itself.  Unfortunately for Tony Daysog, but fortunately for voters, the record was quickly corrected.  From the factchecker:

Tony’s positioning of the ARTS (Alamedans for responsible transit shelters) group as a group of arts (small a) enthusiasts is just plain wrong. They were citizens who were concerned about a) bus shelters in neighborhoods and b) against advertising on bus shelters if they had to be put in.

The ARTS group was formed at the suggestion of Mayor Johnson, while Councilmember Daysog took to the Don Roberts show (and the council dais) to deride the weather concerns of Alameda riders. “It’s not like we live in Seattle” was my favorite quote. The council minutes discreetly report that Tony stated that the “rainy season is being overstated.”

Further, it was Mayor Johnson and City Manager Flint actually met with the ARTS group.

Tony, as you refused to speak with anyone but ARTS and were not involved in any of the actual discussions except at the council where you agreed with the majority, it would be helpful for me (and voters I would imagine) for you to explain which “hammer” you were dropping to make things move forward.

And, true to form when the agenda item came up in 2004 to approving the siting criteria of how bus shelter would be placed, Tony Daysog abstained. Leadership!

The worst part of all this is that even though the initial plan was to have 24 bus shelters built, much less than that number were built because Tony Daysog carried the water for the anti-bus shelter group.  A group that used dog-whistle tactics like creating mock billboards on bus shelters featuring fried chicken advertisements.


  1. You know what you get when you get bus shelters? More people who ride the bus. For someone who is so concerned about traffic, don’t you think he should be concerned with getting more people to ride the bus.

    Comment by Angela — October 25, 2016 @ 7:44 am

  2. Interesting side fact, The bus shelter group was the same group that he carried water for on the senior facility on bay farm.

    They referred to bus shelters as drug shelters.

    Comment by jkw — October 25, 2016 @ 8:28 am

  3. Improved bus service is a good idea. Bus shelters are a good idea since they increase and improve service.

    But ask yourself if you want one in front of your house.

    As good an idea as they may be, there are reasonable objections to them.

    Comment by dave — October 25, 2016 @ 8:42 am

    • Well dave, there are many things that are inconvenient that we as a society choose to tolerate. You aren’t at risk of a bus route in front of your house, let alone a shelter, but it’s good of you to point out that people who object are not necessarily unreasonable.

      Comment by MI — October 25, 2016 @ 9:17 am

  4. Hot Daysog, I’m 2 for 2.

    Comment by MP — October 25, 2016 @ 8:45 am

    • Fear not, there is a Vella-series in development. However, the extent of that endorsement could only be stretched over two days, at best.

      Comment by CD — October 25, 2016 @ 10:25 am

  5. This is probably more of an issue for non-rush hour bus travel. As it is now, morning buses (and ferries) to SF are usually packed. A bus shelter’s effect on someone’s decision to drive, or not, to work e.g. in SF is probably very marginal. I do anything I can to avoid driving to SF — tough to get in, tough to get out – and never do it on a whim. For other travelers, having a place to sit out of the sun and out of the rain is nice – or, more importantly, bearable — and may encourage some to bus rather than drive. But who wants their front yard to look like a minor league baseball park — without getting paid for it? Was the plan to put shelters with ads only in commercial zones? I believe there are some, on Santa Clara, without ads.

    Comment by MP — October 25, 2016 @ 9:21 am

    • MP, I thought we had a no billboard ordinance which was the basis for the objection.

      Comment by MI — October 25, 2016 @ 7:54 pm

      • I think the point was that more roofed bus stops would have been built if they could have paid for themselves with advertising. Not my favorite, but more appropriate in a commercial zone. All of the buses I have ridden the last few years (20, O, OX, W) have routes that go at least part way through residential areas. There probably would be a conflict with the billboard ordinance(s)

        Comment by MP — October 26, 2016 @ 8:04 am

  6. Wow. I would have never conceived there would be such a thing as an “anti-bus shelter” position. I guess it could only happen in Alameda.

    Just another reminder…if you live out in the countryside, there is lot’s of open space, virtually zero traffic, and no bus shelters for hundreds of miles.

    Comment by brock — October 26, 2016 @ 9:20 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at