transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy

name	transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy
description	Use when evaluating alternative transit station sites using TOD potential and multi-modal scoring, planning multi-parcel station assembly, profiling holdout risk per parcel, deciding negotiation vs. expropriation sequencing, or integrating station area planning with joint development, zoning coordination, and community benefits packages.

Site Selection Criteria Scoring

Systematic evaluation framework for comparing alternative transit station sites using transit-oriented development (TOD) principles.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Potential (Density, Mix, Walkability)

Scoring framework (0-100 points):

Existing density (0-25 points):

• Current population density:
  • <50 people/hectare: 0-5 points (low)
  • 50-150 people/hectare: 6-15 points (medium)
  • 150-300 people/hectare: 16-20 points (high)

  • 300 people/hectare: 21-25 points (very high)

• Employment density:
  • <20 jobs/hectare: 0-5 points
  • 20-75 jobs/hectare: 6-15 points
  • 75-150 jobs/hectare: 16-20 points

  • 150 jobs/hectare: 21-25 points

Land use mix (0-20 points):

• Diversity of uses within 800m walking radius:
  • Single-use (residential or employment only): 0-5 points
  • Two uses: 6-10 points
  • Three+ uses (residential, office, retail, institutional): 11-20 points
• Jobs-housing balance:
  • Ratio 0.25-0.75 or >2.0 (imbalanced): 0-5 points
  • Ratio 0.75-1.5 (balanced): 6-10 points

Walkability (0-20 points):

• Pedestrian infrastructure:
  • Sidewalks: <50% coverage (0-5 pts), 50-80% (6-10 pts), >80% (11-15 pts)
  • Crossings: Few/unsafe (0-2 pts), Adequate (3-4 pts), Excellent (5 pts)
• Intersection density (walkable blocks):
  • <80 intersections/km²: 0-3 points
  • 80-120 intersections/km²: 4-6 points

  • 120 intersections/km²: 7-10 points

Development potential (0-35 points):

• Underutilized land available for intensification:
  • <10% of station area: 0-10 points
  • 10-30%: 11-20 points

  • 30%: 21-30 points

• Zoning supportiveness:
  • Restrictive (low-density residential): 0-2 points
  • Moderate (mid-rise mixed-use permitted): 3-4 points
  • Supportive (high-density mixed-use as-of-right): 5 points

Example scoring:

Site A (suburban greenfield):

• Density: 8 points (low population, employment)
• Mix: 4 points (single-use residential)
• Walkability: 6 points (some sidewalks, car-oriented)
• Development potential: 28 points (large underutilized sites, supportive zoning)
• Total TOD score: 46/100 (moderate - requires significant investment to realize potential)

Site B (urban infill):

• Density: 45 points (high population + employment)
• Mix: 18 points (residential, office, retail, institutional)
• Walkability: 18 points (complete pedestrian network)
• Development potential: 15 points (limited vacant land, but some intensification possible)
• Total TOD score: 96/100 (excellent - strong existing TOD characteristics)

Multi-Modal Connections (Bus, Bike, Pedestrian, Parking)

Scoring framework (0-100 points):

Bus integration (0-30 points):

• Existing routes within 200m:
  • 0-2 routes: 0-5 points
  • 3-5 routes: 6-15 points
  • 6-10 routes: 16-25 points

  • 10 routes: 26-30 points

• Bus terminal feasibility: On-site (5 pts), Adjacent (3 pts), Remote (0 pts)

Cycling infrastructure (0-20 points):

• Existing bike network: None (0 pts), Some routes (5-10 pts), Complete network (11-15 pts)
• Bike parking capacity: <20 spaces (0 pts), 20-100 (2 pts), 100-500 (4 pts), >500 (5 pts)

Pedestrian catchment (0-30 points):

• 800m walkshed population:
  • <2,000 people: 0-5 points
  • 2,000-10,000: 6-15 points
  • 10,000-30,000: 16-25 points

  • 30,000: 26-30 points

Parking strategy (0-20 points):

• Kiss-and-ride capacity: None (0 pts), <20 spaces (5 pts), 20-50 (10 pts), >50 (15 pts)
• Park-and-ride lot (if applicable for suburban stations):
  • None: -5 points (if demand exists)
  • <200 spaces: 0-3 points
  • 200-500 spaces: 4-8 points

  • 500 spaces: 9-15 points

  • Not required (urban station): 5 points (bonus for car-free access focus)

Example:

Site C (suburban station):

• Bus integration: 12 points (4 routes, adjacent terminal site)
• Cycling: 7 points (some bike lanes, 50-space bike parking)
• Pedestrian catchment: 10 points (5,000 people within 800m)
• Parking: 12 points (30-space kiss-and-ride, 350-space park-and-ride)
• Total multi-modal score: 41/100 (moderate - car-oriented but some transit connections)

Site D (urban station):

• Bus integration: 28 points (12 routes, on-site terminal)
• Cycling: 19 points (complete network, 200-space bike parking)
• Pedestrian catchment: 30 points (40,000 people within 800m)
• Parking: 5 points (urban context, no park-and-ride required)
• Total multi-modal score: 82/100 (excellent - strong multi-modal integration)

Property Acquisition Complexity (Ownership Fragmentation, Land Use Conflicts)

Scoring framework (0-100 points, lower = less complex/preferred):

Ownership fragmentation (0-40 points):

• Number of property owners:
  • 1-2 owners: 0-5 points (simple)
  • 3-5 owners: 6-15 points (moderate)
  • 6-15 owners: 16-30 points (complex)

  • 15 owners: 31-40 points (very complex)

Land use conflicts (0-30 points):

• Residential displacement:
  • None: 0 points
  • <10 households: 5-10 points
  • 10-50 households: 11-20 points

  • 50 households: 21-30 points

• Business displacement:
  • None: 0 points
  • <5 businesses: 3-7 points
  • 5-20 businesses: 8-15 points

  • 20 businesses: 16-25 points

• Institutional/heritage impacts:
  • Schools, places of worship, heritage buildings: +10 points each

Environmental constraints (0-20 points):

• Contamination:
  • None/minimal: 0-2 points
  • Moderate (Phase II required): 3-8 points
  • Severe (remediation >$1M): 9-15 points
• Wetlands/archaeological: +5-10 points each

Legal encumbrances (0-10 points):

• Easements, restrictive covenants: +2-5 points
• Leasehold interests, complex tenancies: +3-7 points
• Litigation, title disputes: +5-10 points

Example:

Site E (simple acquisition):

• Ownership: 5 points (2 owners - railway + municipality)
• Land use conflicts: 0 points (vacant rail lands)
• Environmental: 10 points (moderate contamination - railway operations)
• Legal: 0 points (clean title)
• Total complexity score: 15/100 (low complexity - preferred)

Site F (complex acquisition):

• Ownership: 35 points (18 property owners)
• Land use conflicts: 48 points (30 households + 8 businesses + 1 heritage church)
• Environmental: 5 points (no contamination)
• Legal: 5 points (2 properties with easements)
• Total complexity score: 93/100 (very high complexity - challenging)

Community Impact (Displacement, Gentrification Risk)

Scoring framework (0-100 points, lower = less impact/preferred):

Direct displacement (0-40 points):

• Households displaced:
  • 0: 0 points
  • 1-10: 5-15 points
  • 11-50: 16-30 points

  • 50: 31-40 points

• Vulnerable populations:
  • Low-income households: +5 points per 10 households
  • Seniors (>65): +3 points per 10 households
  • Disabilities: +5 points per 5 households

Indirect displacement (gentrification risk) (0-30 points):

• Neighborhood affordability:
  • High-income area: 0 points (low gentrification risk)
  • Middle-income: 5-10 points (moderate risk)
  • Low-income: 15-25 points (high risk)
• Existing displacement pressure: +5-10 points if area already experiencing rapid rent increases

Cultural/heritage significance (0-20 points):

• Long-term community ties: +5-10 points (established ethnic enclaves, multi-generational residents)
• Heritage resources: +5-15 points (designated buildings, archaeological sites)

Community support/opposition (0-10 points):

• Strong organized opposition: +10 points
• Mixed views: +5 points
• General support: 0 points

Example:

Site G (low community impact):

• Direct displacement: 8 points (4 households, market-rate)
• Gentrification risk: 2 points (high-income area)
• Cultural significance: 0 points
• Community support: 0 points (general support)
• Total community impact score: 10/100 (low impact - preferred)

Site H (high community impact):

• Direct displacement: 32 points (25 low-income households, 8 seniors)
• Gentrification risk: 22 points (low-income neighborhood, rapid rent growth)
• Cultural significance: 15 points (established immigrant community, 2 heritage buildings)
• Community support: 10 points (strong organized opposition)
• Total community impact score: 79/100 (high impact - requires mitigation)

Property Assembly Sequencing

Strategic approach to acquiring multiple parcels, balancing speed, cost, and risk.

Critical vs. Non-Critical Parcels (Blocking Power Analysis)

Methodology: Identify parcels with ability to block or delay project ("blocking parcels") vs. desirable but non-essential parcels.

Blocking power factors:

1. Location criticality:

   • High blocking power: Parcels required for core station footprint, track alignment, or sole access point
   • Moderate blocking power: Parcels needed for preferred design but alternatives exist
   • Low blocking power: Parcels for ancillary uses (park-and-ride, joint development)

2. Owner leverage:

   • High leverage: Single owner controls multiple critical parcels
   • Moderate leverage: Owner of one critical parcel, aware of project
   • Low leverage: Multiple owners, unaware or willing to sell

Example (10-parcel station site):

Critical parcels (acquire first - expropriation if necessary):

• Parcel A: Station box location (100% critical)
• Parcel B: Track alignment (100% critical)
• Parcel C: Primary access road (90% critical - alternative exists but inferior)

Non-critical parcels (negotiate, delay if necessary):

• Parcels D, E, F: Bus terminal expansion (desirable but can phase)
• Parcels G, H: Joint development sites (revenue opportunity but not essential)
• Parcels I, J: Additional park-and-ride (defer to Phase 2 if needed)

Acquisition sequence:

1. Phase 1 (months 0-12): Acquire Parcels A, B, C (critical path)
   • Negotiate first, expropriate if owners refuse or delay
2. Phase 2 (months 6-18): Acquire Parcels D, E, F (bus terminal) - parallel negotiation
3. Phase 3 (months 12-36): Acquire Parcels G, H (joint development) - lowest priority
4. Future (defer): Parcels I, J (park-and-ride expansion) - acquire only if demand warrants

Holdout Risk Assessment (Property Owner Profiling)

Methodology: Profile each property owner to assess likelihood of refusing to sell or demanding excessive compensation.

Risk factors (score each 0-10, higher = higher holdout risk):

Owner motivation:

• Willing seller (property for sale, owner relocating): 0-2 points
• Neutral (open to selling at fair price): 3-5 points
• Reluctant (no desire to sell, but pragmatic): 6-8 points
• Ideological opposition (anti-development, anti-government): 9-10 points

Owner sophistication:

• Unsophisticated (unaware of rights, likely to accept first offer): 0-2 points
• Moderately sophisticated (knows market value, negotiates): 3-5 points
• Highly sophisticated (real estate professional, lawyer, knows leverage): 6-8 points
• Serial holdout (history of holdout tactics in other projects): 9-10 points

Alternative options:

• Strong alternatives (can easily relocate business/residence): 0-2 points
• Some alternatives (relocation possible but disruptive): 3-5 points
• Few alternatives (specialized business, long-term residence): 6-8 points
• No alternatives (unique location, family land, heritage significance): 9-10 points

Total holdout risk score:

• 0-10 points: Low risk (likely to negotiate in good faith)
• 11-20 points: Moderate risk (may require mediation or premium)
• 21-30 points: High risk (likely holdout, plan for expropriation)

Example:

Owner A (Parcel A - critical):

• Motivation: 2 points (willing seller, property already listed)
• Sophistication: 4 points (knows market value)
• Alternatives: 2 points (retiring, relocating)
• Holdout risk: 8/30 (low risk - acquire via negotiation)

Owner B (Parcel B - critical):

• Motivation: 9 points (ideological opposition to transit project)
• Sophistication: 8 points (lawyer, knows leverage)
• Alternatives: 7 points (family business, 40 years at location)
• Holdout risk: 24/30 (high risk - plan for expropriation from outset)

Negotiation vs. Expropriation Decision Matrix

Framework: Decide for each parcel whether to pursue negotiated purchase or proceed directly to expropriation.

Decision criteria:

Negotiate first (if all of the following):

• Holdout risk ≤15/30 (low to moderate)
• Timeline allows 6-18 months for negotiation
• Owner willing to engage in discussions
• Market value is clear (comparable sales available)

Expropriate from outset (if any of the following):

• Holdout risk ≥20/30 (high)
• Critical parcel + compressed timeline (<12 months)
• Owner refuses to negotiate or demands >150% of market value
• Multiple owners with conflicting interests (partition sale unlikely)

Hybrid approach (parallel negotiation + expropriation proceedings):

• Initiate expropriation process (serves notice, starts timeline)
• Continue negotiating in good faith
• If negotiation succeeds: Withdraw expropriation, complete negotiated purchase
• If negotiation fails: Proceed to expropriation hearing
• Benefit: Timeline protection while preserving goodwill

Example decision matrix:

Parcel	Criticality	Holdout Risk	Timeline	Decision
A	Critical	8/30 (low)	18 months	Negotiate first
B	Critical	24/30 (high)	18 months	Expropriate (hybrid)
C	Critical	12/30 (moderate)	12 months	Expropriate (hybrid)
D	Non-critical	15/30 (moderate)	24 months	Negotiate first
G	Non-critical	18/30 (moderate)	36 months	Negotiate first (defer if needed)

Timeline Optimization (Parallel vs. Sequential Acquisition)

Parallel acquisition (acquire multiple parcels simultaneously):

• Advantages:
  • Faster overall timeline (critical for project delivery)
  • Prevents owners from learning of others' negotiations (reduces holdout incentive)
  • Demonstrates project seriousness (signals commitment)
• Disadvantages:
  • Higher upfront costs (staff, appraisals, legal fees)
  • Risk of overpaying (less ability to use early acquisitions as comparables)

Sequential acquisition (acquire parcels one-by-one):

• Advantages:
  • Lower upfront costs (spread over time)
  • Learn from early negotiations (refine approach)
  • Establish precedents (early prices become comparables for later parcels)
• Disadvantages:
  • Longer overall timeline
  • Holdout risk increases (remaining owners know they have leverage)
  • Later parcels cost more (owners demand premium as "last holdout")

Optimal strategy (hybrid):

1. Phase 1 (parallel): Acquire all critical parcels simultaneously
   • Prevents holdouts from blocking project
   • Worth premium cost to secure timeline
2. Phase 2 (sequential): Acquire non-critical parcels sequentially
   • Less time pressure, negotiate better prices
   • Use Phase 1 prices as comparables

Example timeline:

Months 0-3: Initiate negotiations/expropriation for Parcels A, B, C (critical) - parallel Months 6-12: Complete acquisitions of Parcels A, B, C Months 12-18: Negotiate Parcel D (bus terminal) - sequential Months 18-24: Negotiate Parcels E, F - sequential Months 24-36: Negotiate Parcels G, H (joint development) - sequential, low priority

Station Area Planning Integration

Coordinating property acquisition with broader planning objectives to maximize transit investment and community benefits.

Joint Development Opportunities (Air Rights, Adjacent Parcels)

Methodology: Identify parcels suitable for joint development (mixed-use, TOD) to recover costs and catalyze area transformation.

Air rights development (above station):

• Feasibility factors:
  • Structural capacity (station designed to support building above)
  • Zoning permits (as-of-right or requires approval)
  • Market demand (residential, office, retail)
• Financial model:
  • Air rights lease revenue (annual rent from developer)
  • Upfront capital payment (lump-sum for air rights)
  • Cost recovery (offset station construction costs)

Example:

• Station cost: $150M (including structural capacity for overbuild)
• Air rights: 300,000 sq ft residential development above station
• Developer payment: $30M upfront + $2M/year ground lease (30 years)
• NPV of air rights: $30M + ($2M ÷ 6% cap rate) = $30M + $33M = $63M (42% cost recovery)

Adjacent parcel development:

• Acquire surplus land beyond immediate station needs
• Develop or sell for TOD (mixed-use, residential, office)
• Capture land value uplift from transit investment

Example:

• Acquire: 5 hectares (3 ha for station, 2 ha surplus)
• Pre-transit value: $5M/ha × 5 ha = $25M
• Post-transit value (after station opens): $15M/ha × 2 ha (surplus) = $30M
• Land value capture: $30M - ($5M/ha × 2 ha) = $20M net gain
• Plus development revenue: Sell to developer or enter joint venture for additional returns

Zoning and Planning Approvals Coordination

Methodology: Align property acquisition with zoning changes to enable TOD and streamline approvals.

Pre-acquisition zoning strategy:

1. Identify zoning constraints (low-density residential, height limits, parking minimums)
2. Initiate zoning amendment process before or concurrent with acquisition
3. Coordinate with municipal planning department (Official Plan amendment, zoning by-law)
4. Public consultation (integrate with station planning consultation)

Timeline coordination:

• Optimal: Complete zoning approval before property acquisition
  • Benefit: Acquire at lower value (based on existing zoning, not TOD potential)
  • Risk: Zoning approval may fail, leaving acquisition unjustified
• Alternative: Acquire first, then rezone
  • Benefit: Certainty of land control
  • Risk: Pay higher price (sellers aware of TOD potential)

Example:

Site: Suburban station area, currently zoned low-density residential (R2 - max 2 storeys) Proposed zoning: Mixed-use, high-density (MU-3 - max 12 storeys, no parking minimums)

Strategy:

1. Year 1: Initiate Official Plan amendment + zoning by-law (station area plan)
2. Year 1-2: Acquire properties at current use value (R2 zoning) - $500K-$800K per property
3. Year 2: Zoning approval (MU-3)
4. Year 3+: Property values increase to $2M-$3M each (TOD potential realized)
5. Result: Acquired 15 properties for $10M total, post-zoning value $35M (land value capture)

Community Benefits Packages (Affordable Housing, Parks)

Methodology: Integrate community benefits into station development to secure political support and mitigate displacement impacts.

Affordable housing:

• Inclusionary zoning: Require 10-25% affordable units in joint developments
• Direct provision: Transit agency builds affordable housing on surplus lands
• Example: 500-unit joint development, 20% affordable (100 units) at 80% AMI rents

Parks and public realm:

• Station plaza: Public gathering space (0.5-1.0 hectare)
• Green corridors: Pedestrian/cycling connections to station (500m radius)
• Example: 0.8 ha station plaza + 2 km multi-use trail along transit corridor

Community facilities:

• Childcare: On-site or adjacent to station (supports working families)
• Library/community center: Co-locate with station (attract riders, serve community)
• Example: 200-child daycare in station podium + 1,000 sq m library branch

Local hiring and procurement:

• Construction jobs: 10-20% local hiring targets
• Operating jobs: Priority hiring from station area residents
• Example: 150 construction jobs, 30 local hires; 50 permanent station jobs, 15 local hires

Financial impact:

• Community benefits cost: $20M-$50M (affordable housing land, park development, facilities)
• Benefit: Political support, faster approvals, reduced opposition
• ROI: Difficult to quantify but reduces project risk and enhances ridership

---

Automated Scoring Calculator

transit_station_scorer.py - Systematic evaluation tool for comparing transit station site alternatives.

Calculator path: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy/transit_station_scorer.py Input schema: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy/transit_station_site_input_schema.json Scoring config: ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy/config/scoring_criteria.py

Features

5 Scoring Categories (all normalized to 0-100 scale):

1. TOD Potential (0-100, higher better) - Density, mix, walkability, development potential
2. Multi-Modal Connections (0-100, higher better) - Bus, bike, pedestrian, parking
3. Acquisition Complexity (0-100, LOWER better) - Ownership, displacement, environmental
4. Community Impact (0-100, LOWER better) - Displacement, gentrification, heritage
5. Holdout Risk (0-30, LOWER better) - Owner motivation, sophistication, alternatives

Composite Scores:

• Desirability (40% weight): Average of TOD Potential + Multi-Modal
• Feasibility (40% weight): Inverse of average Complexity + Community Impact
• Overall (100%): Weighted composite with 4-tier recommendation system

Normalization: Raw component scores normalized to true 0-100 scales for clarity:

• TOD Potential: Raw max 126.5 → 100
• Multi-Modal: Raw max 95 → 100
• Exceptional sites score in high 90s (e.g., 96/100) rather than exceeding 100

Recommendation Tiers:

• ≥75: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED — Strong overall performance
• 60–74: RECOMMENDED — Good balance of benefits and feasibility
• 45–59: CONSIDER WITH CAUTION — Moderate challenges present
• <45: NOT RECOMMENDED — Significant obstacles

Usage

# Score a single site
cd ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy
python transit_station_scorer.py samples/site_a_urban_infill.json

# Score with custom output path
python transit_station_scorer.py samples/site_b_suburban_greenfield.json \
  --output $CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR/Reports/2025-11-15_143000_site_b_analysis.md

# Compare multiple sites side-by-side (--compare flag)
python transit_station_scorer.py \
  samples/site_a_urban_infill.json \
  samples/site_b_suburban_greenfield.json \
  samples/site_c_complex_urban.json \
  samples/site_d_balanced_suburban.json \
  --compare

# Compare two finalists with custom output
python transit_station_scorer.py finalist_1.json finalist_2.json \
  --compare --output $CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR/Reports/finalist_comparison.md

Input format: JSON with 6 sections

• site_identification (ID, name, location, station type)
• tod_characteristics (density, mix, walkability, development)
• multi_modal_connections (bus, bike, pedestrian, parking)
• acquisition_complexity (ownership, displacement, environmental, legal)
• community_impact (displacement, gentrification, heritage, support)
• holdout_risk (motivation, sophistication, alternatives)

Output: Console report + timestamped JSON file with detailed breakdowns. When --compare is used, outputs a ranked comparison table with trade-off analysis.

Console Output Format

================================================================================
TRANSIT STATION SITE SCORING: Meadowlands Greenfield Station
================================================================================

SCORING RESULTS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOD Potential:              36.0/100  (higher is better)
Multi-Modal Connections:    65.8/100  (higher is better)
Acquisition Complexity:     28.5/100  (LOWER is better)
Community Impact:           10.0/100  (LOWER is better)
Holdout Risk:                3.0/30   (LOWER is better)

COMPOSITE SCORES:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desirability Score:         50.9/100
Feasibility Score:          80.8/100
OVERALL SCORE:              70.7/100

RECOMMENDATION:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED - Good balance of benefits and feasibility

Key Strengths:
  ✓ Low acquisition complexity (28/100)
  ✓ Minimal community impact (10/100)
  ✓ Low holdout risk (3/30)

Key Challenges:
  ⚠ Limited TOD potential (36/100)

================================================================================

✓ Assessment complete. Detailed results saved to site_b_scoring_results.json

Sample Site Benchmarks

Reference performance from the 4 included sample sites (in samples/ directory):

Rank	Site	Overall	TOD	Multi-Modal	Complexity ↓	Community ↓	Holdout ↓	Recommendation
1	Site B: Greenfield	70.7	36.0	65.8	28.5	10.0	3.0	RECOMMENDED — Good feasibility
2	Site A: Urban	64.9	83.6	84.2	69.3	36.5	20.0	CONSIDER — High TOD, high complexity
3	Site D: Balanced	63.3	61.2	73.7	39.8	25.5	12.0	RECOMMENDED — Balanced trade-offs
4	Site C: Complex	44.2	83.6	84.2	69.3	78.5	27.5	CAUTION — High impacts

↓ = Lower is better for this metric

Key insights from benchmark data:

• Site B (Greenfield) wins on feasibility despite lower TOD potential — low complexity and low holdout overcome the TOD gap
• Site A (Urban) has highest TOD (96) but acquisition/community scores drag overall result
• Site D (Balanced Suburban) offers the best middle ground across all five categories
• Site C (Complex Urban) demonstrates that TOD alone cannot overcome severe community/holdout challenges

When using --compare with multiple sites, the output ranks all sites by overall score and highlights trade-offs (e.g., can low TOD be addressed through future development? Are acquisition challenges surmountable with additional budget or time?).

Save reports to: $CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR/Reports/YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS_transit_station_scoring_<site_id>.md

Documentation: See README.md for complete methodology, interpretation guide, and examples.