“You can’t beat decadence”: Reader upset about bike parking garage

Plans for a bicycle tower in Saarbrücken have been sharply criticized by many readers – the high costs of construction and operation as well as financing from taxpayers’ money have met with great resistance. Others have instead called for pragmatic infrastructure measures based on the Dutch model. Further debate revolves around the role of politics, the use and possible impact of parking fees and the added value of safe parking for cyclists.

Criticism of costs and economic efficiency

Some 27 percent criticized the high construction and operating costs of the bicycle parking garage as disproportionate and doubted the economic viability of the project. Many readers find the payback period too long and consider the effort a waste of resources.

“Almost 25,000 euros for a bicycle park is an irresponsible waste of resources. For example, for 3,000 euros you get good carbon gravel. When did this state go off track in its resource management?” For original comments

“You can’t beat it in terms of decadence. Build a luxury tower for 144 bikes for an absurd 3.5 million euros. At full capacity and a monthly rent of 30 euros, it will be almost 68 years before the investment costs are recovered. And that’s not including running costs.” For original comments

“You build a parking garage for about 24,305 euros per bike. Just to get the money back, at 30 euros a month and at full capacity, it would take 67 years. Then there are maintenance and cleaning costs per year. The building certainly won’t stand for 100 years. So the question of whether it’s a million-dollar cemetery is a stretch. Such madness happens because politicians don’t have to pay for it themselves.” For original comments

Criticism of financing and tax resources

With a share of 26 percent, readers expressed grave concerns about financing projects with taxpayer money and demanded more transparency and personal responsibility from decision makers. Equalization of state finances is often said to pave the way for unnecessary spending.

“When it comes to tax waste worth millions and billions, German politicians and civil servants are at the forefront. If such projects do not bear fruit, those responsible will have to take personal responsibility. Then this waste will stop very quickly.” For original comments

“Saarlanders are smart. With the money of other citizens, they build well and high.” For original comments

“It is not surprising that the city is happy with its own contribution of 400,000 euros. It doesn’t matter if the remaining 3,100,000 euros are also tax money.” For original comments

Pragmatic bicycle infrastructure requests

For some readers (14 percent) this is clear: there is a need for thoughtfully developed cycleways based on tried and tested models, rather than expensive, ideology-driven prestige projects. They rely on simple solutions, maintaining existing pathways and role models such as the Netherlands.

“The Netherlands has demonstrated for decades that large bicycle parking garages are full when the existing infrastructure makes cycling possible and attractive. Most people living in cities do not need a car and could save huge costs if Germany followed the Dutch example.” For original comments

“Re-beautify the bike lane, remove potholes and root humps and make it simple and clean from a traffic perspective. No, we cyclists don’t need an entire 4 lane road, what we need is a smooth bike lane on the sidewalk.” For original comments

I’d put up a conventional bike garage, maybe two or three stories with a ramp. There will also be space for a cargo bike or trailer. However, I do not need to erect a monument to myself.” For original comments

Politics and prestige are the subject of debate

For eleven percent of those who commented, politicians and prestige projects were the main distractions: They criticized the lack of responsibility, waste and the desire to define the lighthouse – even at the expense of future generations.

“Every politician wants to abandon his prestige project, you don’t want to be seen as a gray mouse. Then it doesn’t matter whether you flirt with financial bankruptcy. The responsibility will fall to your successors.” For original comments

“Saarbrücken, the hull of the Titanic, the flagship of the SPD, has been torn apart, but the band is still playing on the upper deck! You can easily burn money there with climate nonsense and all sorts of changes. After all, our Chancellor is also raving about additional funds in Belem.” For original comments

“Park safely and dry – progress for cyclists?”

With a seven percent share, some readers recognize bike towers as a safe and attractive advancement for cyclists. They see the project as an improvement to outdated and poorly maintained bike parking and a step towards promoting cycling.

“Saarbrücken as a role model, a great idea, more and more citizens are using bicycles every day, they are aware of the environment and CO2 emissions from other means of transport. The tower offers a safe and dry alternative to other parking lots where you read that there are many junk bicycles strewn about.” For original comments

Discussion of prices and rules

About four percent of readers discussed the opportunities and risks of possible bike parking fees. While some criticize higher prices and fear wild supply chains, there are also suggestions for consistent enforcement of rules and costs.

“Quote: “If it costs parking, I won’t use it. I’m afraid parking charges will also ensure that a number of bikes will be chained up in the wild somewhere.” End of quote. Then you just need to prohibit stray chains and wheel removal, as you know on wrongly parked motor vehicles.” For original comments

“Just get rid of free parking – will the euro come in? At least citizens are used to things like that and it will impact the right people.” For original comments

Another perspective

The remaining 11 percent combined ironic tips about politics and spending, concerns about technology and suggestions about alternative cycling infrastructure and project conditions. Its significance and cost are questioned cynically, but technical and pragmatic comments are also provided.

“I think the people who built something like that knew what they were doing. Thinking so naively prevents independent thought. Convenient. It only cost about 3.5 million. Actually, otherwise we’d just be juggling billions. Yes, we have it.” For original comments

“That sounds like extreme over-engineering. How high are the annual maintenance costs for these technical marvels? What’s the plan B if something breaks down? So how does anyone get their bikes?” For original comments

“As a train passenger for decades, I can say that the only real thing is a folding bike that folds very small. Then you don’t need an expensive parking garage…” Continue to original comment

How should Saarbrücken handle public funds and promote sustainable mobility? Join the discussion: Is the Velo Tower a flagship project for modern cities – or ultimately just expensive symbolic politics? Your opinion matters – share your views and arguments in the comments.