Route 5, again, reveals the lowest suitability in the variables of
Factor 2. Land Use row in Table 6 shows that by implementing
Route 5, 0.46 km2 of highly-developed lands and 1.58 km2 of
medium-developed lands are consumed by its operation. In addition,
it also interferes with 1.32 km2 of major highways and
0.84 km2 of secondary roads, such as county highways. Compared
to Route 2, which consumes the least amount of resources in the
Factor 2 variables, Route 5 demands about 0.24 more km2 of highlydeveloped
land uses and 1.22 more km2 of primary highways. If the
built environment is the highest concern in selecting a route, this is
a substantial difference.