Is it just me or is no one addressing the most obvious disadvantage of this plan? Building a city along a "line" is simply a terrible idea. As far as I can tell, every major city in the world is based around a downtown "core" with less dense areas radiating outward from it, except where geographical barriers prohibit this. The advantages of this model are so manifold that I can't even begin to enumerate them—everything from (relatively) short commute times to equidistant access to central services from every direction. I cannot think of a single advantage of having a city that is a straight line.
Major cities in the world were built before linear mass transport like trains were invented, often around a single building of importance like a castle, church, or factory.
I guess it simplifies transport a great deal? You can just stack everything up and send it back and forth at high speeds, sort of like a conveyor belt. I suppose the natural equivalent is shipping and settlement along rivers like the Nile in Egypt?
One of their claims is that you can travel end-to-end in 20 minutes. If that actually worked and was easy to use I think most of your advantages would not be super relevant.
