Is there any place in Portland drivers won’t go? Seems like every week there’s another example of a person taking their car in a place cars aren’t allowed. Parks, paths, peoples’ living rooms — and now the Tilikum Crossing. We spent $130 million to make this one of the coolest carfree bridges in the country, and it’s been a big success for bus and rail ridership, in addition to being a lifeline for bicycling and walking. So when I heard about this incident of a man speeding across it, I was shocked; but unfortunately, not surprised.
It happened around 8:40 am on Friday, August 29th. The first reports I received were from people participating in Breakfast on the Bridges, a monthly event where folks hand out free coffee and donuts on downtown bridges to anyone who rolls by. My friend Shawne Martinez (who you can see biking with his young daughter as the driver flies past in the video below) was first to post about it on the Bike Loud Slack channel. “Did anyone catch that car driver going 80 mph over the Tilikum Crossing at Breakfast on the Bridges this morning?” he wrote. “My daughter and I had just crossed the carfree street at the light seconds before.”
Sometimes drivers get confused and make mistakes. That happens. This doesn’t look like that type of situation. It’s very obvious that cars aren’t allowed on this bridge, and judging by the way he was driving, it looks like he did this on purpose.
TriMet shared a statement with BikePortland after they released the video footage (which I obtained through a public records request):
“This was a dangerous and illegal act that could have had tragic consequences.
TriMet has about 9,000 cameras across our transit system. Using video from our cameras, we were able to identify the vehicle by make, model and license plate of the vehicle involved in this case. The Transit Police Division conducted an investigation, but unfortunately, the driver has not been cited. We understand there was a discrepancy with the title, and the vehicle may have been stolen. As a result, the driver could not be positively identified.
Anyone who breaks the law on TriMet property, including Tilikum Crossing, is subject to prosecution and may be held liable. We are committed to working with law enforcement to keep our transit system secure, so we can continue to provide safe, reliable and welcoming public transportation for all.”
Thousands of people use the Tilikum on transit and on the paths every day. We are very fortunate nothing tragic happened here. If you know someone who drives, please check in with them, ask them how they’re doing and make sure they get the help they need.
Watch the video below:
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
The sound from the car’s engine was SO LOUD as the driver smashed the accelerator and sped past us! The only vehicles that we choose to electronically geofence and speed regulate are bicycles and scooters. ♂️
Not sure what’s up with that symbol at the end of my comment?
It’s sociopathic to me that we electronically regulate the speed of new micromobility vehicles and do nothing of the kind for full size automobiles (ICE or EV) which are involved in tens of thousands of deaths per year.
Nothing actual bollards wouldn’t fix. Does the video from trimet have time stamps on it? 80mph seems like a wild exaggeration
Buses and trains have to be able to get through every few minutes, so bollards are impractical and would only serve to slow down already slow transit service.
They have retractable bollards that only take a few seconds to raise and lower.
Do they have ones that never break down? If so, maybe PBOT could use them to power the Bob Stacey elevators.
Reliability is a concern, obviously, but I think the bigger issue is just cost vs. benefit. This doesn’t seem to be a frequent occurrence so I doubt TriMet will be that interested in spending much money to solve it.
Good one!
The last line of your video is the apposite one: “The City [or in this case Trimet] needs to do everything it can to keep cars out of car-free spaces.”
I’ve said it many times before and I’ll say it again: Design AFFORDANCES rule – they dictate not just how something CAN be used but how it WILL be used.
If we make it POSSIBLE for someone to drive a car across the Tillikum Bridge, then someone WILL drive a car across the bridge.
How to keep cars off this bridge? I can’t see a way to do it unless Trimet were to install barriers (gates) that bus and MAX drivers could raise to allow them to pass through. But that would be expensive. Anyway, their design allows it so no one should be surprised when it happens. A lot of the “people are nice and law-abiding” assumptions in Portland’s public-space designs are proving not to work out very well.
One more thing: Wanna bet this guy filmed himself driving across the bridge and put it on social media to show how “fearless” he is? Trimet investigators should look for it.
Can’t say I’m surprised this happened. These days in Portland, there’s hardly any consequences for dodgy behaviour. Look no further than the cars and motorcycles frequently using our MUP’s.
Definitely seems like it was stolen.
I am outraged. This is so unacceptable. Autobollards please, Trimet. Now. Glad nobody was hurt.
Yikes! Coincidentally, the day before, I took one of my grandsons on a “transit adventure” loop (bus -> streetcar -> tram -> streetcar -> bus). When we walked over the Tilikum, I explained how cool it was that Portland had a bridge dedicated to active and public transit. I suppose I’m now glad we didn’t do our adventure one day later.
One possible solution would be a sump buster that would allow trains and buses through but not cars. It wouldn’t stop the oversized pick-up trucks you see today but it would have stopped the car in that video.
I think I like the idea of the old swiss granny with the sub machine gun at the gate in James Bond Goldfinger. She’d deter the lawless.
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/Swiss_Gatekeeper
A quart of oil may contaminate about a million gallons of water*. The oil from one motor vehicle could create a slick extending over several acres. That’s a reason not to break the oil pan of a car intruding on a bridge.
*The article I read had some contradictory numbers, but clearly this is not a good idea.
That’s a pretty easy issue to address; just make a depression for the oil to collect in. Both entrances to the no-car zone are over land anyway.
…
TriMet just told every sociopathic driver looking to skirt freeway traffic “Hey! We won’t be able to see you through your tinted windows! Go ahead and drive across our transit-only bridge.”
I’ve walked and ridden my bike over some of our forbidden transit-only bridges and viaducts, so it’s not totally surprising that someone would do the same thing in a car.
Equivalence is not always a virtue.
Not an equivalence at all; just an observation about human nature.
There’s no telling what other sort of egregious behaviors this driver might engage in.
Crazy but not surprising to see a few comments on your Instagram post defending the driver (for doing it intentionally)–fortunately not many.
I’m sure they would respond differently if they learned that the driver was an auto thief.
If it wasn’t reported stolen then why wouldn’t they cite the driver?
Because they don’t know for sure who the driver was. It’s different than a parking ticket.
I don’t think it was intended this way but this is genuinely one of the funniest things I have ever read on BikePortland
A stoned drunk once drove halfway into the westbound Robertson tunnel.
“We understand there was a discrepancy with the title, and the vehicle may have been stolen.”
What does this mean exactly? They can’t find the registered owner of the vehicle? Was it reported stolen? “may have” is a weirdly vague way of putting it.
it means the registered owner is a cop 🙂
I doubt it. Police officers probably keep track of their own vehicles because they spend a big part of their life sorting out problems with vehicles. Why take a cheap shot at cops with no evidence?
Yeah… where is the car now? Is the owner like “It was stolen for a day and I got it back?” Was it ever reported stolen? How does a discrepancy with the title indicate it was stolen?
Sometimes someone sells a car, but the buyer doesn’t update the title, so it becomes a bit unclear who the proper owner is by looking at DMV records, especially if the buyer then sold the car to someone else who also didn’t attend to the title. I understand this sometimes happens with low value vehicles (paid for in cash) and buyers who want to make themselves harder to track. And, additionally, the vehicle may have been stolen from that buyer who might prefer not to get the cops involved.
I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it could easily account for the statement.
Maybe they looked up the title in the DMV records and noticed something fishy about it that got missed in the initial filing.
We shouldn’t jump to conclusions. I’ve heard that the driver was temporarily experiencing a circumstance of sub-optimal housedness
Well, why is an unattributed slur on people who neither own or rent a residence still up? If we don’t know who was driving the vehicle there’s no reason to talk shit about anybody’s housing situation.