For example, recently he’s been asking a lot of questions about the total amount of money the city is actually spending to support motorists compared to the amount it spends to support other forms of transportation such as public transit, bicycles or pedestrians.

Pedestrians are a particular interest of Mr. Fowler. He has a disability so he doesn’t drive. He walks or takes the bus. He thinks, for example, the city should pay more attention to the difficulties pedestrians face, particularly in the winter when the city’s idea of plowing sidewalks is to leave an inch or so of snow that quickly turns to ice.

He also thinks, and he’s been badgering city council for years, that there should be a pedestrian advisory committee to make recommendations for change to the city. So far that suggestion has been dismissed out of hand.

Mr. Fowler, by the way, has also managed to do one more thing that the City of London, with its 3,000 employee and tonnes of computer power, has as yet been unable to accomplish – he streams council and committee meetings to the internet using his hand-held cellphone camera.

There he was Monday night, for example, standing at the front of committee rooms 1 and 2 as council’s community and protective services committee heard from the aging and disabled communities about proposed changes to its bus pass policy so he could catch the speakers over the faulty sound system and bring the information live to whomever wanted to watch.

Mr. Fowler also spoke briefly to Monday night’s meeting about this issue of who is really being subsidized when it comes to moving about the city. He pointed out that, as far as he’s been able to determine so far, that motorists will get a road subsidy of at least $51.5 million this year; public transit will get a subsidy of about $21.2 million; pedestrians will get a subsidy of about $1.7 million; and cyclists a subsidy of about $300,000.

Is that fair? Well, if the argument was based simply on number of vehicles vs. the number of real pedestrians (people without cars) you’d say no contest. But if the city’s goal was to make this a more pedestrian friendly city (and it is) and to enhance public transit so road building and widening costs were reduced (and it is) and to encourage more people to use bicycles (and it is), then the argument might run in different directions.

That would be Mr. Fowler’s point.

A similar point was expressed by another speaker Monday night. If London was really committed to public transit it might consider why a couple of European cities are trying – free transit service for everyone. Now there’s a concept even Mr. Fowler would applaud.

CHECK OUT HIS BLOG

By the way, if you want to check out Mr. Fowler’s blog, From My Bottom Step, you’ll find it here.