Residents were surveyed by what EY Sweeney called "computer-assisted telephone interviewing", and via face-to-face interviews. An artist's impression of the elevated rail line as it passes through Murrumbeena. The poll found that among 2640 interviews done via phone and door-to-door polls, 82 per cent of residents were either "strongly in favour" or "in favour". But several angry residents affected by the elevated rail plan said that door-to-door pollsters in at least one street in Carnegie had deliberately avoided houses with a "No sky rail" sign on their front fence. The poll follows transport groups such as the Public Transport Users Association, the RACV and the Bus Association of Victoria voicing their support for "sky rail".

Public Transport Minister Jacinta Allan said the new research showed there was strong support for the plan to remove nine level crossings by elevating parts of the Cranbourne-Pakenham line. "This project is good for business, good for passengers and good for these communities," she said. "The support of locals is bolstered by strong support from transport experts and advocates." Ms Allan conceded some were concerned about the project, but said they were being listened to. "We know some local residents continue to have concerns about the project and we will continue to work closely and support them," she said. Public Transport Users Association spokesman Daniel Bowen said the survey appeared to reflect that, while some residents were concerned about the elevated rail plans, "most people just want the crossings removed, and as quickly as possible".

Several residents opposed to the plan criticised the poll. Edward Meysztowicz, whose home is directly affected by the elevated rail plan, said the survey was "directed towards a conclusion supporting elevated rail". He described the poll as part of a public relations-led process that amounted to "persuasion by statistics" that were "very easily abused to support one argument or another". Mark Nicoll is a Murrumbeena resident who lives 500 metres from the rail line. He is opposed to the project because it includes only two rail lines, and he argues more tracks are needed to cope with future growth. He received one of the "robo-calls" asking for his views on the project. He said the recording had given him four options for why the project needed to be built as an elevated rail structure.

"I pressed the fifth option – 'don't know' – and then all it did was repeat the questions," he said. "I then said, 'This is bullshit', and the survey stopped – the phone went click." Opposition planning spokesman David Davis said the poll should be discounted in the debate about whether the project should proceed. "No one could accuse them of pushing hard for high levels of validity," he said. "There was no option in any of the surveys I've heard of that allowed you to support rail under road. It's as dodgy as all get out."