Originally Posted by LeftCoaster
Burnaby is not Vancouver. Surrey Is not Vancouver. Coquitlam is not Vancouver.
He doesnt live in an alternate Vancouver, he lives in VANCOUVER. No one ever said anything about Metro Vancouver. The City of Vancouver has over 600,000 people making it larger than London and there is no freeway serving the City of Vancouver, Highway 1 touches the border then turns north.
All traffic in the City of Vancouver is surface streets.
Whatever . I'm pretty sure that people who live the area don't stop driving their cars when they reach Burnaby just so that they won't be counted as Burnaby traffic . If we're going to quibble then okay , let's quibble . Firstly , Vancouver has a freeway . Secondly , simply by virtue of it being in the city proper and having access ramps within said jurisdiction it serves local traffic . Thirdly , Granville , Cambie , and the Dunsmuir/Georgia viaducts are also freeways by definition so your contention that all Vancouver traffic is surface is flat-out wrong . Or perhaps now you'd like to debate the definition of a freeway ? Perhaps instead you'd prefer to argue that a freeway can only be used by people who live in a specific jurisdiction ?
If , on the other hand , you don't want to argue the minutiae then just admit that Vancouver has freeways since , after all , it does whether you count only the city proper or the GVRD . Of course , again , if you want to argue that Vancouver has no freeways (even though it does) on false technicalities about "local traffic" then the same applies to London which also has a freeway serving local traffic .