San Francisco BART Shutdown Cuts Off Train Service Across Region
The San Francisco Bay area's largest train system shut down Friday after a computer problem, leaving thousands of workers across the region without access to a critical commuting option.
The rare shutdown included the Bay Rapid Transit's entire 131-mile network, which funnels riders from the suburbs into Oakland and downtown San Francisco and is a key transit mode for the region's airports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
Uber's New Shuttle Is Basically a Bus, but Worse
Beyond the jokes about Uber inventing bus lines are serious questions about what its shuttle service will mean for struggling transit systems, air quality, and congestion. Every few years, a Silicon Valley gig-economy company announces a 'disruptive' innovation that looks a whole lot like a bus. Uber rolled out Smart Routes a decade ago, followed a short time later by the Lyft Shuttle of its biggest competitor. Even Elon Musk gave it a try in 2018 with the 'urban loop system' that never quite materialized beyond the Vegas Strip. And does anyone remember Chariot? Now it's Uber's turn again. The ride-hailing company recently announced Route Share, in which shuttles will travel dozens of fixed routes, with fixed stops, picking up passengers and dropping them off at fixed times. Amid the inevitable jokes about Silicon Valley once again discovering buses are serious questions about what this will mean for struggling transit systems, air quality, and congestion. Uber promised the program, which rolled out in seven cities at the end of May, will bring 'more affordable, more predictable' transportation during peak commuting hours. 'Many of our users, they live in generally the same area, they work in generally the same area, and they commute at the same time,' Sachin Kansal, the company's chief product officer, said during the company's May 14 announcement. 'The concept of Route Share is not new,' he admitted — though he never used the word 'bus.' Instead, pictures of horse-drawn buggies, rickshaws, and pedicabs appeared onscreen. CEO Dara Khosrowshahi was a bit more forthcoming when he told The Verge the whole thing is 'to some extent inspired by the bus.' The goal, he said, 'is just to reduce prices to the consumer and then help with congestion and the environment.' But Kevin Shen, who studies this sort of thing at the Union of Concerned Scientists, questions whether Uber's 'next-gen bus' will do much for commuters or the climate. 'Everybody will say, 'Silicon Valley's reinventing the bus again,'' Shen said. 'But it's more like they're reinventing a worse bus.' Five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report that found ride-share services emit 69 percent more planet-warming carbon dioxide and other pollutants than the trips they displace — largely because as many as 40 percent of the miles traveled by Uber and Lyft drivers are driven without a passenger, something called 'deadheading.' That climate disadvantage decreases with pooled services like UberX Share — but it's still not much greener than owning and driving a vehicle, the report noted, unless the car is electric. Beyond the iffy climate benefit lie broader concerns about what this means for the transit systems in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, Boston, and Baltimore — and the people who rely on them. 'Transit is a public service, so a transit agency's goal is to serve all of its customers, whether they're rich or poor, whether it's the maximum profit-inducing route or not,' Shen said. The entities that do all of this come with accountability mechanisms — boards, public meetings, vocal riders — to ensure they do what they're supposed to. 'Barely any of that is in place for Uber.' This, he said, is a pivot toward a public-transit model without public accountability. Compounding the threat, Philadelphia and Dallas have struggling transit systems at risk of defunding. The situation is so dire in Philly that it may cut service by nearly 45 percent on July 1 amid a chronic financial crisis. (That, as one Reddit user pointed out, would be good news for Uber.) Meanwhile, the federal government is cutting support for public services, including transit systems — many of which still haven't fully recovered from COVID-era budget crunches. Though ridership nationwide is up to 85 percent of pre-pandemic levels, Bloomberg News recently estimated that transit systems across the country face a $6 billion budget shortfall. So it's easy to see why companies like Uber see a business opportunity in public transit. Khosrowshahi insists Uber is 'in competition with personal car ownership,' not public transportation. 'Public transport is a teammate,' he told The Verge. But a study released last year by the University of California, Davis found that in three California cities, over half of all ride-hailing trips didn't replace personal cars, they replaced more sustainable modes of getting around, like walking, public transportation, and bicycling. And then there's the fact cities like New York grapple with chronic congestion and don't need more vehicles cluttering crowded streets. During Uber's big announcement, Kansal showed a video of one possible Route Share ride in the Big Apple. It covered about 3 miles from Midtown to Lower Manhattan, which would take about 30 minutes and cost $13. But here's the thing: The addresses are served by three different subway lines. It is possible to commute between those two points, avoid congestion, and arrive sooner, for $2.90. So, yes, Uber Route Share is cheaper than Uber's standard car service (which has gotten 7.2 percent pricier in the past year) — but Route Share is far from the most efficient or economical way to get around in the biggest markets it's launching in. 'If anything,' Shen said, 'it's reducing transit efficiency by gumming up those same routes with even more vehicles.' This article originally appeared in Grist at Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at
%3Amax_bytes(150000)%3Astrip_icc()%2FTAL-lead-image-WHENTOCHECKIN0525-ecceb22640e040debdb3ec424aec72d3.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Travel + Leisure
an hour ago
- Travel + Leisure
When You Check in for a Flight Matters—Here's Why
Prior to the advent of the Internet, passengers used to have to wait until they were at the airport to check in for their flights. Sounds prehistoric, right? Fortunately, these days, most airlines allow you to check in online, starting at least 24 hours before your flight departs. In fact, they'll even send you emails and texts reminding you to do so. Still, many passengers who are accustomed to checking in at the airport ignore these alerts. Why check in online so far in advance, especially if you have to visit a counter anyway to check a bag? It turns out there are several reasons you should check in early. Ideally, you can pick your seat for free when you purchase your flight, but that's usually not the case if you're flying coach. If you want to save money and are willing to risk getting a middle seat, your seat will most likely be assigned at check in. In most cases, the earlier you check in, the greater your chances of scoring a window or aisle seat. Some airlines, especially if you're flying on an international itinerary with different airlines, don't allow you to choose a seat—even if you're willing to pay for it—until check in. In that case, the sooner you check in, the sooner you can pick one. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, airlines are allowed to oversell flights, within reason, to compensate for no-shows. If there aren't any no-shows, and the plane is overbooked, the airline is allowed to bump passengers to a later flight. One of the criteria they sometimes use to determine who gets bumped is check-in time. If you checked in last, you may be the first to be bumped. Travelers with luggage approaching a check-in counter at the airport. South_agency/Getty Images A spokesperson for Delta tells Travel + Leisure that checking in early in person is also essential if you're checking a bag. 'For most U.S. airports, when traveling domestically, baggage must be checked in at least 45 minutes before scheduled departure time.' If you're flying domestically without checking a bag, you only have to be checked in 30 minutes prior to departure. Why the extra 15 minutes for passengers who want to check a bag? Before your bag is loaded onto the plane, it has to be sorted and go through TSA screening. If you check in after the 45-minute cutoff time, you can still board the flight, but your bag probably won't make it, and there's a good chance you'll have to leave it behind. For international flights, you have to check in even earlier—at least 60 minutes before your scheduled departure—if you're checking a bag. Check-in cutoff times vary by airline, so it's important to be familiar with your airline's policy. You should also look up the requirements for the airport you'll be flying out of. According to the Delta spokesperson, some airports require passengers to check in even earlier than the airlines do. For example, if you're flying domestically out of JFK and are checking a bag, you must be checked in at least 60 minutes prior to the departure time. At LGA, meanwhile, the minimum check-in time for flying domestically with a checked bag is 45 minutes. Even if you selected your seat when you purchased your flight and you're not checking a bag, it's wise to check in as early as possible. For starters, this ensures that as soon as you get to the airport, you can just make your way to security. It may also increase your chances of getting upgraded. Some airlines allow you to request upgrades at check in, and date and time of the upgrade request are often a consideration when it comes to determining who gets upgraded. If there's only room for one more upgrade, and you submit your upgrade request two hours before another passenger with your same status puts in theirs, you may be more likely to get it. It's important to note that just because you check in online 24 hours prior to your flight, that doesn't mean that you can rock up to the airport 30 minutes before your scheduled departure. 'Delta recommends arriving at the airport two hours prior to domestic and three hours prior to international flights,' says the Delta spokesperson. To keep lines at the counter down, the airline also prefers that you check in via the Fly Delta app or at Most airlines share this sentiment. To make the process even more seamless, see if your airline offers an automatic check-in option. For example, Southwest allows passengers to add EarlyBird Check-In, starting around $15 each way, when they purchase their flights. If you get EarlyBird Check-In, which is complimentary in Southwest's 'Anytime' class fares, you'll have peace of mind knowing that you'll be automatically checked in 36 hours before departure. Passengers without this perk can't check in until 24 hours prior to departure. The sooner you check in on Southwest, the sooner you can choose a seat and board the plane, which is helpful when it comes to getting precious overhead bin space. Singapore Airlines, meanwhile, has an auto check-in box under the 'Manage Booking' tab that you can tick after you purchase your flight and up to 48 hours before departure. It doesn't cost extra, and it ensures that you'll be automatically checked in. If you do have to check in at the airport at the last minute, don't stress too much about the long lines at the check-in counters inside. Many airports now have self-serve kiosks where you can check yourself in, so look for those. Major airlines at major airports also have curbside check-in counters where you can check in and drop off any bags you want to check. These curbside counters usually have much shorter lines. It's a convenient service that ranges from free to a few bucks, plus a recommended per-bag tip.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Reprises One of the Worst Things He Did in His First Term
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Donald Trump won the presidency in part on promises to deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records. But his earliest executive orders—trying to undo birthright citizenship, suspending critical refugee programs—made clear he wants to attack legal immigrants, too. In our new series, we'll track the Trump administration's attempts to exclude an ever-growing number of people from the American experiment. One of President Donald Trump's defining moments during his first term was a travel ban against Muslim-majority countries. Now in his second term he's reprised that policy, introducing a new travel ban on Wednesday night that bars nationals of 12 countries from entering the U.S. starting on Monday. That announcement came on the heels of the administration's assault on international students, banning them from enrolling at Harvard University. The State Department is also looking to revoke Chinese students' visas while also pausing all upcoming interviews for international students scheduled to study here in a few short months. Meanwhile, the government's legal defense has taken a beating in the case of the migrants unlawfully deported to El Salvador—and, separately, a Maryland man who was wrongfully sent there is now headed back to the U.S. Here's the immigration news we're keeping an eye on this week: After ordering the secretary of state to come up with a list of countries that pose national security threats to the U.S., Trump made it official: We have a new travel ban. Starting on Monday, people from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen will be restricted from entering the U.S. Nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela will also be partially restricted from entering the country. The order says that admitting people from these countries would be 'detrimental' to U.S. interests for varying reasons: It claims they have 'deficient' vetting and screening information of their citizens, 'significant' terrorist presence, and a high 'visa-overstay rate,' and they do not cooperate when the U.S. government deports their nationals. On Truth Social, the president shared a video explaining the new travel ban and cited the recent attack in Colorado, where an Egyptian man threw Molotov cocktails at people participating in a march for Israeli hostages. The suspect was an Egyptian national who had overstayed his visa but had applied for asylum. (Egypt is not on the travel ban list). Immigration authorities also arrested his wife and five children with the intention of deporting them—all of them are Egyptian nationals who were part of the same asylum application—but a federal judge has temporarily blocked that move. There are some exceptions, including green card holders, dual citizens, certain athletes traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup and Olympics, Afghans who worked for the U.S. government and are holders of a special immigrant visa, and close relatives of U.S. family members and diplomats. Taken all together, the American Immigration Council estimated the 19 countries listed in the travel ban have populations of over 475 million people. They are predominantly Muslim and African, reminiscent of Trump's 2017 travel ban, which was challenged in court before the Supreme Court ultimately let a revised version stand. 'The latest travel ban will have devastating consequences for tens of thousands of people,' said Elora Mukherjee, clinical law professor at Columbia University and director of the school's Immigrants' Rights Clinic. 'Resulting in family separations, harming refugees and asylum-seekers, and throwing the lives of prospective international students who intended to study in the U.S. into disarray.' It's been more than two months since over 260 immigrants were accused of being members of foreign gangs, forced onto planes and summarily deported to El Salvador, with no notice, evidence, or court hearing. The Trump administration has been defending their deportation in a messy legal battle that took a new turn this week: U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered the federal government to offer each deportee a court hearing. The Trump administration deported these men within roughly 24 hours of the president signing an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Though these men are no longer on American soil, Boasberg's most recent order grants them class-action certification so they can still sue the Trump administration over violations of their due process rights. That's significant because throughout this legal battle, the Trump administration has argued the men are completely under the custody of El Salvador now and the U.S. government's hands are tied. Boasberg acknowledged that but affirmed that none of the plaintiffs were granted habeas corpus—a Constitutional right allowing anyone to contest the legality of their detention—before being shuttled on to a plane and deported to El Salvador, so the federal government must 'fix its legal wrongs.' Even the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration had violated their due process rights and declared that immigrants are entitled to them under the Fifth Amendment. Boasberg's order will force the Trump administration to come before a judge with any and all evidence they have indicating that each deportee is in fact a member of a foreign gang. (Court documents indicate the evidence is nothing short of thin.) Then on Friday, another big development dropped: ABC News reported that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man the Trump administration admitted was deported in error to El Salvador, was on his way back to the U.S. He's been at the heart of the Trump administration's legal battle over the Alien Enemies Act, with the Supreme Court ordering the federal government to 'facilitate' his release from El Salvador's custody. That hard-fought moment arrived Friday, but at the same time a two-count indictment was also revealed against Abrego Garcia. It alleges that he participated in a conspiracy to transport undocumented migrants through the U.S., though Abrego Garcia has not yet responded to the new charges. The Trump administration has been pulling all the levers it can find to limit entry of international students at college campuses around the country. Harvard has been in the president's crosshairs ever since it refused to accept a list of demands from the administration and sued the federal government. The Trump administration retaliated by announcing it was cutting off Harvard's ability to enroll international students. A federal judge blocked that order and it's currently being hashed out in court. Secretary of State Marco Rubio jumped in to announce he had instructed U.S. embassies and consulates around the world to stop processing any new student visa appointments. In an internal cable viewed by Politico, Rubio said the State Department is taking a closer look at the existing screening process of student visitors and would develop new guidance in the coming days—it's not clear if it's been issued yet or not. Rubio also announced he would be 'aggressively' revoking visas of Chinese students specifically who are currently studying in the U.S., targeting 'those with connections to the Chinese Community Party or studying in critical fields.' The new action prompted over 30 higher education groups to come together and send a letter to Rubio, noting that in the 2023–24 academic year there were over 1 million international students in the U.S., which resulted in $44 billion worth of nationwide economic impact. Over the last few weeks, the Trump administration has deployed a new strategy in pursuit of the president's mass deportation goals. Undocumented immigrants will show up to court hearings in an effort to follow the rules and find a way to remain in the U.S. legally. But as they stand before a judge, they learn that the government has dropped their immigration case. As they go home, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents ambush them and promptly arrest them. Historically, ICE has avoided immigration enforcement at and around courthouses, especially over noncriminal proceedings, because they want to encourage people to follow proper immigration procedure. However, under the law, they are technically allowed to make arrests in federal courthouses. And that's exactly what's been happening over and over again around the country, in Chicago, San Francisco, New York City and Phoenix. A similar situation happened to Carol Mayorga, an undocumented immigrant from Hong Kong whose legal name is Ming Li Hui. Mayorga came to the U.S. on a tourist visa 20 years ago, but she's remained here ever since. She became a mother of three children and is a waitress at a local diner in a rural Missouri farming town. During a routine appointment to renew her work authorization, Mayorga was detained for hours, then shackled and transported to a Missouri jail. She remained there for over a month, while her community rallied support to push for her release. The diner where she was employed raised over $20,000 for Mayorga and her children, garnering a story in the New York Times about how the largely Trump-supporting community was questioning his deportation policies in cases like Mayorga's. 'I voted for Donald Trump, and so did practically everyone here,' said a friend of Mayorga's. 'But no one voted to deport moms. We were all under the impression we were just getting rid of the gangs, the people who came here in droves.' This week, Mayorga was finally released from jail after ICE determined she was eligible for the Deferred Enforced Departure program, which applies to certain residents of Hong Kong. It's only valid until February 2027, and Mayorga still has a deportation order against her.
