## 4 HRS Results  
To facilitate the representation of safety issues in GIS and analyze the highway route selection process, the road section was divided into 20-m interval segments. For each segment, the design factors outlined in Table 1 were determined for the existing road. The descriptive summary of the geometric and environmental parameters of the road is shown in Table 5.  
The process depicted in Figure 3 was followed to evaluate the existing alignment and propose a preferred alignment. Multiple segments may have more than one alternative alignment to choose from. Figure 14 shows closer views with Google Earth Maps of Quseir Road, including existing, preferred, and alternative alignments at specified distances. Each distinct part of the road was studied and compared to valid design alternatives by calculating the average threat scores of each segment. Figure 13: Lineament Density Map of the Road Zone Characterized from 1 (Very High) to 10 (Very Low). First, at 20-m intervals, the coordinates of each station point along the road centerline and the corresponding design factors, including horizontal and vertical geometric characteristics, hydrology data, and geology data, were retrieved for the existing alignment and all investigated alternatives. Subsequently, the design parameters were normalized using the risk intensity values specified in Table 1. Design factor weights (\(w_{i}\)) generated through the DEMATEL process were then applied to each normalized design parameter. A threat score for each segment (\(TS_{i}\)) was calculated using Equation (10) and presented on threat raster maps using GIS. For segments with multiple alternatives, the preferred alternative is determined by the one with the least average threat score (\(TS_{All}\)) determined from Equation (11). Figure 15 shows the threat raster maps of the studied alternatives that resulted from Step 3 of the HDO methodology. Figure 16 and Table 6 present the resultant Threat Score for both the existing alignment and the alternative alignments studied. It includes the distance studied, the name of each alignment (existing or alternative), and the values of minimum, maximum, and \(TS_{\text{AVg}}\) along the distance. The alternatives with the least average threat scores in each segment are then connected to form a preferred alignment, depicted in green in the figures. Figure 14: Google Earth Maps of Quseir Road of Existing, Preferred, and Alternatives Alignments at Specified Distances (**a**) KM 0+000–KM 10+000. (**b**) KM 10+000–KM 22+000. (**c**) KM 22+000–KM 34+000. (**d**) KM 34+000–KM 40+000. (**e**) KM 55+000–KM 62+000. (**f**) KM 62+000–KM 66+000. (**g**) KM 66+000–KM 71+000. (**h**) KM 71+000–KM 81+000. (**i**) KM 81+000–KM 91+000. Figure 15: _Cont._  
Figure 16: Quseir Road (Existing and Preferred Alignments) (**a**) DEM Map. (**b**) Threat Raster Map. Figure 15: Threat Raster Maps of Existing, Preferred, and Alternative Alignments at Specified Distances. (**a**) KM 0+000–KM 10+000. (**b**) KM 10+000–KM 22+000. (**c**) KM 22+000–KM 34+000. (**d**) KM 34+000–KM 40+000. (**e**) KM 55+000–KM 62+000. (**f**) KM 62+000–KM 66+000. (**g**) KM 66+000–KM 71+000. (**h**) KM 71+000–KM 81+000. (**i**) KM 81+000–KM 91+000. The threat raster maps displayed in Figure 16 illustrate how the threat scores vary between segments. For instance, between KM 0+000 and KM 10+000, the existing alternative exhibits a minimum TS value of 1.12, a maximum of 5.44, and an average TS (\(TS_{\text{Avg}}\)) of 2.69. In contrast, the preferred alignment demonstrates minimum, maximum, and \(TS_{\text{Avg}}\) values of 0.52, 4.68, and 2.27, respectively. In this section, the alignment was enhanced by eliminating horizontal curves with large radii and small deflection angles.