The idea is to conect the waterway system with the Metro System with an overlay of pedestrain movement. But, this PM has its own dynamics!
Contiguity: This is the key element. Also, this contiguos line needs to be spatially modulated on the scale of the activity too.
Activity centres generate pedestrians: They need to be distributed generously along the route and hence supply pedestrians to the foreseen network from multiple sources and at various times of the day/ night. Any weak linkages would break the contiguity and the network fails, simply because, segmented patches can't survive as wholesome pedestrian environments. The Metro terminal and the water transport terminals are two end point activity generators. Simply by linking them with paving, we do not get them to have pedesrian traffic flowing through. (Here, we are assuming that the same folks will fill the link simply for modal split.)
Posting these activity generators is an excercise that happens in the design management of the overall preceinct. So, unless we are working on the precinct we do not get the pedestrian network in place.
There are a couple of Legislative support mechanism that needs to be put in place for us to have any opportunity at creating “precinct management” or “urban design project making”. 1. Land Pooling/ Reconstitution Act and 2. Land Tribunal (for grievance redressal).
All our efforts hit a road block unless we have the Land Pooling/ Reconstitution Act. And when we need to exercise that Act, we would hit a worse nightmare unless there is the Land Tribunal!