And should they deny him the position, it is not guaranteed that Ford will continue as the director of the SFMTA. In fact, many board members are now questioning his loyalty and dedication to the SFMTA.

According to SF Streetsblog, Supervisor Scott Wiener said, “I like and respect Nat Ford but it’s also very important that we have an executive director of the MTA who is completely focused on the agency, and who wants the job. And it seems like Mr. Ford is looking elsewhere and we need a complete focus on MTA.”

Chairman Ross Mirkarimi also pointed out that the pay history of directors has risen because they “are always looking for the next best thing.” He said that this system is a “self-perpetuating cycle [created] by the transit directors themselves and by the industry that supports the rotation of these transit directors so that they keep earning more money each time they relocate, and there is no end in sight. The theory behind this is, in order to get someone that’s competitive and comparable to the industry standard, we have to spend $50,000 more each time we get a new director. Pretty soon we’re gonna be at $400,000 for a new director. I find that absurd.”

It seems that members of the SFMTA board itself are fed up with their directors’ preoccupation with their wallets rather than our transit system. If Nathaniel Ford is booted from the SFMTA, let’s hope that his replacement won’t just be another addition to this self-perpetuating cycle.

Should he get the job, the city will have 60 days to find his replacement.

According to the SF Chronicle, the top candidates for replacing him as the future chief of the SFMTA (and future earner of the highest salary on the city payroll) are:

1. Edward Reiskin – Director of the SF Public Works Department who “has no direct transportation background but a deep well of management experience is well liked by supervisors and the mayor.”
2. Carter Rohan – Deputy Executive Director for the Municipal Transportation Agency and and former Capital Projects Director, described as a “a veteran transportation executive.”
   
3. Stuart Sunshine – Currently working for a “private-sector construction management and engineering firm” and “held several senior positions in city government, including the top job at Muni on an interim basis.”
4. Debra Johnson – Director of Administration at the MTA who is “leading contract negotiations with Muni operators.”

The SF Chronicle article also goes on to list the several, multi-faceted problems the new chief would face in this time of transition and scrutiny for the SFMTA. To read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/06/BA7T1I4CJO.DTL

Who do you think would be the best chief? What qualifications and experience should we expect from them?

• The track at Church and Duboce Streets has deteriorated and has numerous defects. The track was inspected on August 12, 2009, and re-inspected on October 20, 2009. CPUC staff have yet to receive any plan for correction.
• Sunset Tunnel has numerous violations including that the Automatic Train Control System (ATCS) is not operating in the tunnel. The SFMTA is not following its own regulations regarding speed restrictions in a non-functioning ATCS area. The SFMTA responded to a CPUC staff inquiry stating that the ATCS never functioned in the tunnel; however, the SFMTA did not provide any documentation to verify the claim. The SFMTA has yet to provide a plan for restoration of the ATCS.
• A June 3-4, 2010 inspection of the Church Portal noted numerous deficiencies including induction damaged loop cable supports, cable not properly supported, cables rubbing switch rods, junction box problems, and others. A follow-up inspection on January 7, 2011, noted the same deficiencies.
• The ATCS functions poorly in the Market Street Tunnel and appears not to operate at the Embarcadero Station. The SFMTA continues to delay replacing the induction loop cable. The situation may have contributed to an incident on October 1, 2010, in which one Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) hit another LRV at the Embarcadero Station. This accident caused major damage to both LRVs. Both train operators had minor injuries and were transported to a hospital.
• SFMTA did not have a blue flag/blue light procedure in place until January 2011. This is a safety procedure required to prevent injury to personnel working underneath or around LRVs. Despite a May 12, 2010 SFMTA bulletin and a December 7, 2010 SFMTA memorandum requiring this procedure, on December 14, 2010, CPUC staff witnessed Muni employees working without a blue flag or blue light.
• The last Triennial Audit of the SFMTA occurred in October 2008. Of the 49 Corrective Action Plans created by the SFMTA, 17 remain open. Several of these are significant and relate to the SFMTA’s track inspection program and the documentation of that program. In several recent meetings with CPUC staff, the SFMTA has not been able to provide a status report on the open Corrective Action Plans.
• In the CPUC staff inspections of SFMTA from July 17, 2009 through January 2011, numerous material problems with SFMTA are documented. Of the 29 inspections, 26 required responses and Corrective Action Plans, which have not yet been received. The inspection reports required a response within 30 days.
• SFMTA must submit final accident investigation reports within 60 calendar days of the accident. The SFMTA has eight accident investigation reports still outstanding for 2009 (some 13 months late) and 25 accident reports from 2010. Each of these late reports is a separate violation.

Despite these penalty threats, the SFMTA is optimistic and have expressed their confidence in being exonerated of all accusations.

The incident occurred at 9:50 P.M. at Third St. and Grove Ave. According to AC Transit’s spokesperson Clarence Johnson, the bus had stopped to let a passenger off when a group of 8 young males in their late teens/early 20s approached the bus. One of them stepped onto the bus, looked towards the back of the bus, and got back off. Seconds later, someone, presumably from the group of 8, fired multiple shots at the bus.

Since the shooting, AC Transit bus drivers have been reluctant to drive through this area, demanding better protection and assurance of their safety. According to this article, this shooting was the 5th violent incident this year, following last year’s 10. Even with so many disturbances, AC Transit has not installed security cameras on all buses because, according to Johnson, each camera costs $14,000, and with their budget woes, many of these buses are going to stay camera-less. So as a temporary security measure, AC Transit arranged for deputy police officers to escort the 72-line in north Richmond on Thursday evening.

But without a permanent fix that assures safety of the drivers and passengers, drivers warn that they will abandon this route in the near future.

Sources: