imo it's more abt limitations, not abt opportunities. You get all the stuff a line project provides, but better, if you build in all directions. You get higher

imo it's more abt limitations, not abt opportunities. You get all the stuff a line project provides, but better, if you build in all directions. You get higher density, cheaper housing, more businesses, less segregation, less maintenance cost. And you'll definitely need to travel longer depending on the needs that are usually nonconstant for people, at some point youll need something from the other end while in a dense classic area,because of density, there's more stuff that you may need that's also closer to you. All this project is just about creating a lot of limitations and thinking about ways to reduce those limitations with a huge cost while not having a clear defined benefit. You get the same stuff as in this project by just living close to a subway with the advantage that you still get more stuff because of density while the city remains much more flexible to dynamic demand (buildings can be easily adapted for businesses or for living, you get more area to create parks, etc). Inelastic cities are very vulnerable to the demand change (when demographics are changing(aging or ppl having more kids, the demand for specific infra changes too) or when some businesses that do employ a lot of ppl are closing and unemployment rises quickly because the gap can't be filled that fast) And I've just barely touched the surface - the maintenance cost and knowledge and custom parts needed for this project are not sustainable in any way