DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit Auth. V. Etienne OATH Index No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transit Auth. V. Etienne OATH Index No Transit Auth. v. Etienne OATH Index No. 1467/08 (May 16, 2008) Respondent found guilty of falsifying timesheets on 36 occasions and submitting false mileage reimbursement requests. Termination of employment recommended. ______________________________________________________ NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS In the Matter of TRANSIT AUTHORITY Petitioner - against - GRAMATONE ETIENNE Respondent ______________________________________________________ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KEVIN F. CASEY, Administrative Law Judge The Transit Authority brought this proceeding, under section 75 of the Civil Service Law, charging respondent, civil engineer Gramatone Etienne, with submitting false timesheets and expense reports from January 2005 to January 2006. At a three-day hearing that concluded on March 19, 2008, petitioner relied upon documentary evidence and an investigator’s testimony. Respondent testified in his own defense. For the reasons below, I find that petitioner established that respondent falsified his timesheets on 36 occasions and submitted false mileage reimbursement requests, and recommend termination of his employment. ANALYSIS Background Respondent inspected construction work performed by a private contractor at various bus depots. Every two weeks he submitted a timesheet to his supervisor. As a non-managerial employee who worked in the field, respondent was required to confirm the times that he started and finished work each day. In four specifications, petitioner alleged that respondent routinely submitted false time sheets from January 2005 to January 2006. A fifth specification alleged that - 2 - respondent submitted false mileage reimbursement requests in September 2005 (ALJ Ex. 1). Respondent denied that he committed any fraud, insisted that he routinely worked a full day, and asserted that his supervisor regularly allowed him to work through lunch. There is little doubt that respondent ignored timekeeping procedures, but it was not clear that he falsified timesheets on all of the dates alleged by petitioner. There was, however, sufficient proof that respondent falsified his timesheet on 36 occasions and submitted false requests for mileage reimbursement. Petitioner relied primarily on documentary evidence gathered by its Office of the Inspector General. Based upon an anonymous complaint regarding respondent’s work hours, investigators reviewed documents, conducted surveillance, and interviewed witnesses. Investigator Charles Lienau summarized the results of those efforts. Respondent monitored the John McCullough Company’s installation of heavy-duty parallelogram lifts, under contract B-33054, at the following depots: Kingsbridge, near 215th Street, Bronx; Mother Clara Hale, near 146th Street, Manhattan; East 126th Street, Manhattan; Ulmer Park, near 25th Avenue, Brooklyn; and Liberty, Yonkers (Pet. Ex. 1). When not in the field, respondent went to his office at 2 Broadway in lower Manhattan. Respondent’s flexible schedule allowed him to begin his eight-hour shift from 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and he accounted for his hours and work on bi-weekly timesheets (Pet. Ex. 1 at 5-6). Respondent’s supervisor, John Goonan, issued several memoranda regarding the time confirmation procedures. In 2002, Goonan advised his staff, including respondent, to call from a depot telephone when he arrived and left each day. Respondent could use a cell phone only if a specific person was available to confirm his presence at the work site. If the third party was unavailable, respondent had to use the depot’s phone (Pet. Ex. 15). In May 2004, Goonan told respondent and his colleagues to punch in and out each day at the depot clocks used by drivers and mechanics (Pet. Ex. 5A). In a November 2004 memo- randum, Goonan instructed his staff that, if there was no operating punch clock, they had to swipe their employee identifications at the nearest subway station. This method, called “back- swiping,” electronically recorded arrival and departure times. In a handwritten note, dated June 6, 2005, Goonan reminded respondent that if he used the back-swipe method he had to do so “at the start and finish of each day” (Pet. Ex. 5D). If there was no station near the depot, the - 3 - employee had to call Goonan from a landline telephone, but Goonan told investigators that he did not strictly enforce the landline requirement (Pet. Exs. 1 at 16 and 5C). Timesheets For most of 2005, respondent routinely wrote on his timesheets that he worked from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Pet. Ex. 3). In late October 2005, he began to vary his schedule and reported that he started at 8:45 or 9:10 a.m. (Pet. Ex. 3). Throughout the year, respondent also reported on his timesheets that he only worked on contract B-33054 (Pet. Ex. 3). Respondent testified that Goonan allowed him to leave work after seven hours when he skipped lunch (Tr. 295). If he started at 7:00 a.m. and worked through lunch, respondent left at 2:00 p.m. and wrote on the timesheet that he had worked to 3:00 p.m. (Tr. 294). According to respondent, there was no way to note that he “worked through lunch” on a timesheet and it was “Transit Authority policy” to write 4:00 p.m. even if he only worked to 3:00 p.m. (Tr. 295-96). At first, respondent suggested that working through lunch was an unusual event, limited to exceptional days, such as when the contractor poured concrete (Tr. 238). He later claimed that he worked through lunch “many days” and eventually said that he skipped lunch “almost every day” (Tr. 293, 298). Respondent also admitted, contrary to his timesheets, that he did not work exclusively on contract B-33054. He claimed that Goonan told him to use that contract number if another contract was “out of funds” (Tr. 299, 344). Respondent’s testimony regarding his timesheets was inconsistent, improbable, and uncorroborated. There was no evidence to support the claim that he had permission to work through lunch and leave after seven hours. Nor was there any evidence to confirm that it was impossible to write the correct hours on his timesheet. Likewise, there was no evidence to support his claim that he had authority to enter incorrect contract codes on his timesheets. Time Cards After visiting bus depots and interviewing managers, investigators reported that every depot, including Yonkers and College Point had functioning time clocks. At Kingsbridge, when the time clock occasionally ran out of ink, employees had to sign a log. Respondent’s name was not in the log for 2005 (Pet. Ex. 16). Goonan gave investigators all of the weekly punch cards that respondent submitted in 2005. There were only eight cards, which covered dates from March 12 to May 27, 2005. On each card, the date was handwritten and at least once each week there was a workday without - 4 - any times punched. Investigators noted some odd similarities. There were identical entries for May 4 and May 12, 2005; respondent punched in at 9:08 a.m. and punched out at 3:53 p.m. (Pet. Ex. 1, p. 10). Similarly, on May 5 and May 13, 2005, respondent failed to punch in but he punched out at 4:05 p.m. (Pet. Ex. 10). Respondent offered conflicting testimony regarding his use of punch cards. At first, he testified that most of the depots did not have time clocks (Tr. 239). He later conceded that there were time clocks at many locations, including Ulmer Park, Mother Clara Hale, and Kingsbridge (Tr. 281-82, 285, 288-89). As for College Point, he testified that he did not know where the time clock was located, he claimed that Goonan told him that there was no clock there, and he insisted that he could not use that clock because it lacked a New York City Transit logo (Tr. 284-85). Contradicting Investigator Lienau, respondent testified that there was no time clock at the Yonkers depot (Tr. 285-86). Respondent also insisted that, if there was a working clock, he gave punch cards to Goonan every two weeks in 2005 (Tr. 289-90). The evidence demonstrated that respondent routinely failed to use time clocks that could have easily documented his arrivals at and departures from work sites. Respondent’s inconsistent and implausible testimony regarding the time clocks was not credible. MetroCard Usage Except for College Point and Yonkers, there are subway stations within three blocks of the depots where respondent worked. For example, the Ulmer Park depot in Brooklyn is less than two blocks from the D train’s 25th Avenue station (Pet Ex. 16). Respondent testified that he did not know that there was a subway station near the Ulmer Park depot even though he worked there for several months (Tr. 286). Petitioner issued respondent a MetroCard. A printout of that card’s usage identified respondent’s location at specific times. Although the printout understated respondent’s subway usage, because he occasionally entered the subway system by displaying his employee identification, it showed that some timesheet entries were false. For example, at 3:54 p.m. on December 30, 2005, respondent entered the Wall Street subway station, located a short walk from his office in lower Manhattan, but he wrote on his timesheet that he worked until 4:45 p.m. that day (Pet. Exs. 3 & 7). - 5 - Evidence Regarding Phone Calls Respondent offered odd testimony regarding his phone calls to Goonan. He claimed that there were no landline phones at the bus depots and he had to wait until after 9:00 a.m., when Goonan arrived for work, to call via cell phone (Tr. 302-04). These claims were not credible. It is difficult to believe that there were no landline phones at various bus depots. Furthermore, if the purpose of the phone call was to confirm respondent’s arrival time, he could call Goonan’s office phone and leave a message rather than wait an hour or more to check in.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix H – Cultural Resources H-1 New York City Transit, Fulton Street Transit Center, New York
    PROPOSED FULTON STREET TRANSIT CENTER FULTON, DEY, CHURCH, & WILLIAM STREETS AND BROADWAY BLOCK 79, LOTS 15, 16, 18, 19 AND 21 NEW YORK, NEW YORK PHASE IA ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for: New York City Transit New York, New York Prepared by: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. New York, New York October 2003 MTA New York City Transit Fulton Street Transit Center DEIS APPENDIX H: CULTURAL RESOURCES H.1 INTRODUCTION New York City Transit (NYCT) is planning to construct the Fulton Street Transit Center (FSTC) in the vicinity of Fulton Street and Broadway, covering portions of Fulton Street, Dey Street, Church Street, William Street and Broadway, with direct impacts to Block 79, Lots 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21, New York City, New York (see Figures 1 and 2). The Proposed Action includes: • Construction of a new Entry Facility building at Block 79, Lots 15, 16, 18, 19 and 21, designed to connect subway passengers with other elements of the FSTC; • Construction of a pedestrian tunnel underneath Dey Street, the Dey Street Passageway, from the Entry Facility at Broadway and to the redeveloped World Trade Center (WTC) site and RW service at the Cortlandt Street station at Church and Dey Streets; • Improvements to the Fulton Street AC underground mezzanines and JMZ entrances and mezzanines, by widening the existing facilities; • Installation of stairways at the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Maiden Lane and Broadway, and installation of stairway, escalator and an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) elevator at the southwest corner of Dey Street and Broadway to improve street access; • Rehabilitation of the existing 23 and 45 stations at Fulton Street; and, • Creation of a new, paid RW - E and an unpaid E to the FSTC connections along Church Street at the Chambers Street and WTC - Cortlandt Street stations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Retrospective of Preservation Practice and the New York City Subway System
    Under the Big Apple: a Retrospective of Preservation Practice and the New York City Subway System by Emma Marie Waterloo This thesis/dissertation document has been electronically approved by the following individuals: Tomlan,Michael Andrew (Chairperson) Chusid,Jeffrey M. (Minor Member) UNDER THE BIG APPLE: A RETROSPECTIVE OF PRESERVATION PRACTICE AND THE NEW YORK CITY SUBWAY SYSTEM A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Emma Marie Waterloo August 2010 © 2010 Emma Marie Waterloo ABSTRACT The New York City Subway system is one of the most iconic, most extensive, and most influential train networks in America. In operation for over 100 years, this engineering marvel dictated development patterns in upper Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. The interior station designs of the different lines chronicle the changing architectural fashion of the aboveground world from the turn of the century through the 1940s. Many prominent architects have designed the stations over the years, including the earliest stations by Heins and LaFarge. However, the conversation about preservation surrounding the historic resource has only begun in earnest in the past twenty years. It is the system’s very heritage that creates its preservation controversies. After World War II, the rapid transit system suffered from several decades of neglect and deferred maintenance as ridership fell and violent crime rose. At the height of the subway’s degradation in 1979, the decision to celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the opening of the subway with a local landmark designation was unusual.
    [Show full text]
  • D. Rail Transit
    Chapter 9: Transportation (Rail Transit) D. RAIL TRANSIT EXISTING CONDITIONS The subway lines in the study area are shown in Figures 9D-1 through 9D-5. As shown, most of the lines either serve only portions of the study area in the north-south direction or serve the study area in an east-west direction. Only one line, the Lexington Avenue line, serves the entire study area in the north-south direction. More importantly, subway service on the East Side of Manhattan is concentrated on Lexington Avenue and west of Allen Street, while most of the population on the East Side is concentrated east of Third Avenue. As a result, a large portion of the study area population is underserved by the current subway service. The following sections describe the study area's primary, secondary, and other subway service. SERVICE PROVIDED Primary Subway Service The Lexington Avenue line (Nos. 4, 5, and 6 routes) is the only rapid transit service that traverses the entire length of the East Side of Manhattan in the north-south direction. Within Manhattan, southbound service on the Nos. 4, 5 and 6 routes begins at 125th Street (fed from points in the Bronx). Local service on the southbound No. 6 route ends at the Brooklyn Bridge station and the last express stop within Manhattan on the Nos. 4 and 5 routes is at the Bowling Green station (service continues into Brooklyn). Nine of the 23 stations on the Lexington Avenue line within Manhattan are express stops. Five of these express stations also provide transfer opportunities to the other subway lines within the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Corporations: Beginning 1800
    Active Corporations: Beginning 1800 DOS ID Current Entity Name 5306 MAGNOLIA METAL COMPANY 5310 BRISTOL WAGON AND CARRIAGE WORKS 5313 DUNLOP COAL COMPANY LIMITED 5314 THE DE-LON CORP. 5316 THE MILLER COMPANY 5318 KOMPACT PRODUCTS CORPORATION 5339 METROPOLITAN CHAIN STORES, INC. 5341 N. J. HOME BUILDERS CORPORATION 5349 THE CAPITA ENDOWMENT COMPANY 5360 ECLIPSE LEATHER CORP. 6589 SHERWOOD BROS. CO. 6590 BURLINGTON VENETIAN BLIND COMPANY 6593 CAB SALES COMPANY 6600 WALDIA REALTY CORPORATION 6618 GATTI SERVICE INCORPORATED 6628 HANDI APPLIANCE CORPORATION 6642 THE M. B. PARKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 6646 ALLIED BANKSHARES COMPANY 6651 SYRACUSE PURCHASING COMPANY, INC. Page 1 of 2794 09/28/2021 Active Corporations: Beginning 1800 Initial DOS Filing Date County Jurisdiction 06/08/1893 NEW YORK WEST VIRGINIA 05/16/1893 NEW YORK UNITED KINGDOM 09/17/1924 ERIE ONTARIO 09/18/1924 SARATOGA DELAWARE 09/19/1924 NEW YORK CONNECTICUT 09/12/1924 NEW YORK DELAWARE 10/27/1924 NEW YORK DELAWARE 10/27/1924 NEW YORK NEW JERSEY 10/24/1924 ALBANY OHIO 11/18/1924 NEW YORK NEW JERSEY 02/15/1895 ALBANY PENNSYLVANIA 02/16/1895 NEW YORK VERMONT 11/03/1927 NEW YORK DELAWARE 11/09/1927 NEW YORK DELAWARE 11/23/1927 NEW YORK NEW JERSEY 12/02/1927 NEW YORK DELAWARE 12/12/1927 NEW YORK OHIO 12/16/1927 NEW YORK NEW JERSEY 12/14/1927 NEW YORK GEORGIA Page 2 of 2794 09/28/2021 Active Corporations: Beginning 1800 Entity Type DOS Process Name FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION EDWARD C. MILLER FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION ALFRED HEYN FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION DUNLOP COAL COMPANY LIMITED FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION THE DE-LON CORP.
    [Show full text]
  • Leisure Pass Group
    Explorer Guidebook Empire State Building Attraction status as of Sep 18, 2020: Open Advanced reservations are required. You will not be able to enter the Observatory without a timed reservation. Please visit the Empire State Building's website to book a date and time. You will need to have your pass number to hand when making your reservation. Getting in: please arrive with both your Reservation Confirmation and your pass. To gain access to the building, you will be asked to present your Empire State Building reservation confirmation. Your reservation confirmation is not your admission ticket. To gain entry to the Observatory after entering the building, you will need to present your pass for scanning. Please note: In light of COVID-19, we recommend you read the Empire State Building's safety guidelines ahead of your visit. Good to knows: Free high-speed Wi-Fi Eight in-building dining options Signage available in nine languages - English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Japanese, Korean, and Mandarin Hours of Operation From August: Daily - 11AM-11PM Closings & Holidays Open 365 days a year. Getting There Address 20 West 34th Street (between 5th & 6th Avenue) New York, NY 10118 US Closest Subway Stop 6 train to 33rd Street; R, N, Q, B, D, M, F trains to 34th Street/Herald Square; 1, 2, or 3 trains to 34th Street/Penn Station. The Empire State Building is walking distance from Penn Station, Herald Square, Grand Central Station, and Times Square, less than one block from 34th St subway stop. Top of the Rock Observatory Attraction status as of Sep 18, 2020: Open Getting In: Use the Rockefeller Plaza entrance on 50th Street (between 5th and 6th Avenues).
    [Show full text]
  • The New York City Waterfalls
    THE NEW YORK CITY WATERFALLS GUIDE FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS WELCOME PLAnnING YOUR TRIP The New York City Waterfalls are sited in four locations, and can be viewed from many places. They provide different experiences at each site, and the artist hopes you will visit all of the Waterfalls and see the various parts of New York City they have temporarily become part of. You can get closest to the Welcome to THE NEW YORK CIty WATERFALLS! Waterfalls at Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park in DUMBO; along the Manhattan Waterfront Greenway, north of the Manhattan Bridge; along the Brooklyn The New York City Waterfalls is a work of public art comprised of four Heights Promenade; at Governors Island; and by boat in the New York Harbor. man-made waterfalls in the New York Harbor. Presented by Public Art Fund in collaboration with the City of New York, they are situated along A great place to go with a large group is Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park in Brooklyn, which is comprised of 12 acres of green space, a playground, the shorelines of Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn and Governors Island. picnic benches, as well as great views of The New York City Waterfalls. These Waterfalls range from 90 to 120-feet tall and are on view from Please see the map on page 18 for other locations. June 26 through October 13, 2008. They operate seven days a week, You can listen to comments by the artist about the Waterfalls before your from 7 am to 10 pm, except on Tuesdays and Thursdays, when the visit at www.nycwaterfalls.org (in the podcast section), or during your visit hours are 9 am to 10 pm.
    [Show full text]
  • 1981 FINAL REPORT Development of UNDE R CONTRACT: DOT-OS-50233
    DOT/RSPA/DPB/-50/81/19 Planning and JANUA RY 1981 FINAL REPORT Development of UNDE R CONTRACT: DOT-OS-50233 Public Transportation Conference Proceedings Terminals Pre pa red for: Office of University Research Washingt on, D.C. 20590 U.S. Deportment of Transportation S.G.,t.I.u. LtdttARV Research and Special Programs Administration tiJ J :) 3 T,:'1 :I;:))'.''; f ... f\l?;)' NOTICE This document is disseminated tmder the sponsorship of the Department of Trans­ portation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Technical Report Documentation Page I , Roporr No. 2. GoYe Mt,\~f"'lt At~e!s1on No. J. Rec1p1enf s Cotalog No, DOT/RSPA/DPB-50/81/19 4 . T itle end Subr1de 5. Report D ote Planning and Development of Public Transportation January 1981 Terminals 6. Pe,fo,m,ng 0,9,on, zotion Code 8. Pe,fo,m1ng O,gon110t1on Report ,....,o . I 7. Atori sJ ester A. Hoel, Larry G . Richards UVA/529036/CEBl/107 /i:-nitnr~'l 9. P e ,lorm 1n9Or9on1 1ot 1on Nome ond Address 10. 'Nork Un,t No. (TRAISJ Department of Civil Engineering School of Engineering and Applied Science 11. Controct or G,ont No, Univer sity of Virginia, Thornton Hall DOT-OS-50233 Charlottesville, VA 22901 13. Type of Repo, r ond Period Cove red 12. Sponsoring Agency Nome ond A ddre ss Office of University Research Final Report Research and Special Programs Administration u . S . Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Design Guidance Broadway & Jefferson
    EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE BROADWAY & JEFFERSON APARTMENTS 412 BROADWAY | Seattle, Washington BROADWAY-JEFFERSON ACQUISITION I, L.P. | LORIG ASSOCIATES | ANKROM MOISAN ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS DPD Project No.: 3010211 July 15, 2009 PROJECT GOALS 1 ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD POPULATION 2 CATALYST FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 3 REINFORCE A TRANSPORTATION HUB Create a successful mixed-use building that serves the housing and Anticipate future development patterns about the south end of Broadway and As the proposed development sits on the seam between two shopping/service needs of the large PcaptiveQ population associated with realize the potential of this location. Redevelopment of Yesler Terrace as a neighborhoods, First Hill and the Central District, the corner location major medical institutions surrounding the proposed development, which mixed-income community and in-\ lling of numerous surface parking lots in takes on some importance as a prominent intersection. It is also a double the daytime population of the area. Market rate apartments shall close proximity to the site will, over time, increase the number of people point of arrival and departure as bus riders of] oad and disperse in all be designed to appeal to medical workers, academic staff and students staying in the area after working hours with attendant needs for shopping directions to their places of employment. Pedestrian traf\ c is heavy, wanting to live nearby their work. Street front retail shall address the and recreation. Understand that the street is part of the social infrastructure if intermittent. The design should accommodate and celebrate the current lack of neighborhood services at this location. de\ ning a neighborhood. Design spaces that engage the street and contribute to pedestrian commuter.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 New York Adventure Celebrating Broadway and the 74Th
    2020 New York Adventure Celebrating Broadway and the 74th Annual Tony Awards ® Friday, June 5 – Monday, June 8 Trip includes*: • Welcome reception on Friday evening with an in-depth introduction to New York and its theatre world • Tickets to the 74th Annual Tony Awards (third mezzanine seating included in trip price, upgrade available) • 2 Broadway shows (Friday and Saturday evenings; subject to availability; the earlier you register the better chances of securing your selected shows and best possible seats) • A private visit to the Kings Theatre (opened in 1929), one of the city’s largest and most ornate movie palaces, which recently underwent a $90M restoration • An intimate discussion and performance by Broadway cast members from a hit Broadway musical, accompanied by the keyboardist from WICKED • Lunch on Saturday afternoon • Post-show dessert and discussion on Saturday evening • Guided stroll into Central Park to study its brilliant design and view the world-renowned Bow Bridge and take in the stunning views • Guided stroll through Strawberry Fields, Yoko Ono’s Central Park memorial to John Lennon, along with a discussion of Lennon’s assassination and its impact on New York, followed by a view of the world-famous 1885 Dakota Apartment House • A walking and coach exploration of the elegant Beaux Arts and Art Deco apartment houses and other Upper West Side locals and Fifth Avenue • A coach exploration of Prospect Park South in Brooklyn • Three nights accommodations at The Millennium Broadway (you may opt out of hotel if you wish to
    [Show full text]
  • Deposits Service Guide
    DEPOSITS SERVICE GUIDE JUNE 17, 2021 DTCC Public (White) Copyright IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION The contents of all Service Guides constitute "Procedures" of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") as defined in the Rules of DTC. If Participants or other authorized users of DTC's services fail to follow these Procedures precisely, DTC shall bear no responsibility for any losses associated with such failures. From time to time, DTC receives from outside sources notices, other documents, and communications concerning financial assets. Although DTC may make certain of such documents and communications, or extracts therefrom, ("Information") available to Participants and other authorized users, it shall be under no obligation to do so nor, having once or more done so, shall DTC have a continuing obligation to make available Information of a certain type. Information is not independently verified by DTC and is not intended to be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate professional advisor. Therefore, Participants and other authorized users are advised to obtain and monitor Information independently. In addition, nothing contained in Information made available to Participants and other authorized users shall relieve them of their responsibility under DTC's Rules and Procedures or other applicable contractual obligations to check the accuracy, where applicable, of Participant Daily Activity Statements and all other statements and reports received from DTC and to notify DTC of any discrepancies. DTC DOES NOT REPRESENT THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY INFORMATION (AS DEFINED ABOVE) PROVIDED TO PARTICIPANTS AND OTHER AUTHORIZED USERS, WHICH IS PROVIDED AS-IS. DTC SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS RELATED TO SUCH INFORMATION (OR THE ACT OR PROCESS OF PROVIDING SUCH INFORMATION) RESULTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM MISTAKES, ERRORS, OR OMISSIONS, OTHER THAN THOSE CAUSED DIRECTLY BY GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF DTC.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2019 from Astoria to Lower Manhattan and Back
    100Days and 100Nights From Astoria to Lower Manhattan and Back March 2019 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT RIDERS COUNCIL 1 2 NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT RIDERS COUNCIL Acknowledgments PCAC report producers Ellyn Shannon, Associate Director Bradley Brashears, Planning Manager Sheila Binesh, Transportation Planner Shaun Wong, Data Intern Uday Schultz, Field Intern Special thanks to Lisa Daglian, Executive Director William Henderson, Executive Director Emeritus Andrew Albert, NYCTRC Chair Angela Bellisio Kyle Wong Candy Chan NYC Transit staff NYCTRC Council Members: Burton M. Strauss Jr., Stuart Goldstein, Christopher Greif, William K. Guild, Marisol Halpern, Sharon King Hoge, Trudy L. Mason, Scott R. Nicolls, and Edith M. Prentiss 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................ 3 AM/PM PEAK FINDINGS.................................................................................................... 7 AM RIDER EXPERIENCE..................................................................................................... 8 AM RIDER EXPERIENCE: REAL-TIME DATA.......................................................................... 19 PM RIDER EXPERIENCE....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Skyscrapers and District Heating, an Inter-Related History 1876-1933
    Skyscrapers and District Heating, an inter-related History 1876-1933. Introduction: The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between a new urban and architectural form, the skyscraper, and an equally new urban infrastructure, district heating, both of witch were born in the north-east United States during the late nineteenth century and then developed in tandem through the 1920s and 1930s. These developments will then be compared with those in Europe, where the context was comparatively conservative as regards such innovations, which virtually never occurred together there. I will argue that, the finest example in Europe of skyscrapers and district heating planned together, at Villeurbanne near Lyons, is shown to be the direct consequence of American influence. Whilst central heating had appeared in the United Kingdom in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries, district heating, which developed the same concept at an urban scale, was realized in Lockport (on the Erie Canal, in New York State) in the 1880s. In United States were born the two important scientists in the fields of heating and energy, Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) and Benjamin Thompson Rumford (1753-1814). Standard radiators and boilers - heating surfaces which could be connected to central or district heating - were also first patented in the United States in the late 1850s.1 A district heating system produces energy in a boiler plant - steam or high-pressure hot water - with pumps delivering the heated fluid to distant buildings, sometimes a few kilometers away. Heat is therefore used just as in other urban networks, such as those for gas and electricity.
    [Show full text]