Comparison of apportionment methods for assigning trip data to rezoned traffic analysis zones: A case study of Toronto, Canada

摘要

Due to regional development impacts, existing traffic analysis zones may be rezoned. Apportioning data to new traffic analysis zones is essential to ensure data analysis consistency and comparability. The traditional method uses area to apportion data. This study introduces six methods in apportioning trip data, including the traditional method (M1); the residential land use counted method (M2); the population counted at the dissemination area (DA) level method (M3); the integrated method using both residential land use and the population in DAs (M4); the population counted at the dissemination block (DB) level method (M5); and the integrated method using both residential land use and the population in DBs (M6). These methods are demonstrated in the case of Toronto, Canada using trip data from 2001 and 2016. Results from the six methods are compared and analyzed using mapping, Getis-Ord Gi* hot-spot analysis, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Our findings show that the traditional method and the population counted in DAs method are significantly different (p 0.05) from the residential land use counted method and the integrated method using both residential land use and the population in DAs and the integrated method using both residential land use and the population in DBs. These results provide references for selecting appropriate apportionment methods, which is the basis for transportation planning and policymaking.