# Transit Station Site Acquisition Strategy

> 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.

- Skill: `reggiechan74/transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 24 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add reggiechan74/transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/reggiechan74/transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: reggiechan74 (https://skillmd.com/u/reggiechan74)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/reggiechan74/transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy

---


## 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

```bash
# 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.