> No way, terminology is what we are arguing about
Not really, my original point was that it's stupid to have intense car traffic surrounding the pedestrian part of La Rambla. But either way, your terminology argument is completely invalid too, as demonstrated by the examples.
> Only examples you were able to find are either temporary pedestrian zones or roads without physical reconstruction.
So, to sum up, according to you, my argument is invalid because, excluding the proof that I gave you, I have no proof :) Hilarious.
Because I asked you for examples of 100% pedestrian streets with sidewalks and you couldn't show any of them, only "ex non-pedestrian streets" and "temporary pedestrian", so yes, it only proves my point, thank you for it. La Rambla is not only for pedestrians, deal with it.
So what about numbers of air pollution level? Any comments? Or you "feel" something else, what can't be described by numbers? Pretty sure you will try to ignore this part again, because you have nothing to say :)
> Because I asked you for examples of 100% pedestrian streets [you showed only] "ex non-pedestrian streets"
These streets are 100% pedestrian.
> So what about numbers of air pollution level? Any comments? Or you "feel" something else, what can't be described by numbers? Pretty sure you will try to ignore this part again, because you have nothing to say :)
I have already commented on this in the rest of the thread. If you're interested, feel free to read that and also consider how diesel exhaust (NO2 / NOx) gets converted into other pollutants and that isn't accurately captured by the numbers you sent me. Whilst other pollutants tend to damage your lungs in a way that you can't immediately feel, diesel exhaust causes choking and feels like suffocation. And there's plenty of the latter in the streets of Barcelona - let's not pretend that inhaling exhaust from 15+ year old diesels is great for your health, that's pretty dumb.
But I suspect that you aren't really interested in any of that and won't do any of the reading required to understand this point, that is why I didn't bother to type it up in the previous post.
Not really, my original point was that it's stupid to have intense car traffic surrounding the pedestrian part of La Rambla. But either way, your terminology argument is completely invalid too, as demonstrated by the examples.
> Only examples you were able to find are either temporary pedestrian zones or roads without physical reconstruction.
So, to sum up, according to you, my argument is invalid because, excluding the proof that I gave you, I have no proof :) Hilarious.