> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Our response to proposals for new wayfinding totems
- URL: https://www.betterstreetsforbirmingham.org/post/our-response-to-proposals-for-new-wayfinding-totems/
- Published: 2025-11-01T16:42:27.000Z
- Updated: 2026-08-04T10:32:50.000Z
- Author: Better Streets for Birmingham
- Tags: Consultation, birmingham city centre, birmingham city council, city centre, infrastructure, pedestrians, response, signage, Walking, walking infrastructure, wayfinding, #Migrated-1785839530335, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2026-08-04 10:32

> We have submitted this response to a Birmingham City Council consultation that closes on Friday 28 November. You can [submit a reply to the consultation](https://www.birminghambeheard.org.uk/bcc/wayfinding-totems/?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) and point to our response.

We support the rollout of more wayfinding totems to improve the walkability of the city centre. We believe the underpinning design of [Interconnect](https://www.cityid.com/birmingham-interconnect?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) is adequate, however they require revenue maintenance which has been lacking as the city centre evolves at pace.

We do not see the need to consult on the placement of totems - although historically the placement has been questionable and obstructive on canal paths - and feel that they should be expanded throughout the city as part of new development contributions to local areas. [Legible London](https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs-and-communities/legible-london?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) has proven how much more walkable a city becomes with wayfinding. Core walking zones and green travel districts as defined in the [Birmingham Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan](https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/file/28472/interim%5Flocal%5Fwalking%5Fand%5Fcycling%5Finfrastructure%5Fplan%5F2023?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) should be prioritised.

We would contend, however, that wayfinding totems are inappropriate for directing cyclists along routes. While the maps are useful for the immediate locality, they do not account for cycle routing as part of a wider journey and requires cyclists to stop to read them.

Cycle signage should be consistent across the city and be in line with [Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD)](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org) and [LTN 1/20 standards](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-120?ref=betterstreetsforbirmingham.org). This should include the destination, cycle route number, and the travel time in minutes. Directional signage should be supported with road markings and repeater signs, while ‘End of cycle route’ and ‘cyclists dismount’ signage needs to be replaced with positive instructions (LTN 1/20 13.4 and 13.7).

We request that a cycling signing strategy is produced for routes and implemented to improve navigability. This is increasingly necessary given the use of shared use areas as cycle infrastructure in the city centre.

Rather than wayfinding signage, many rely on satellite navigation apps for walking and cycling. Unfortunately it is the case that routes are not kept up-to-date on these apps and Birmingham City Council must ensure it is actively engaging on a continuous basis with mapping data providers so that people can plan safe routes around the city.

---