The results of the "Have Your Say" survey in relation to the Inkerman Street Safety Improvement Project have been published. A total number of 1,742 participants in the survey were asked if they preferred either Option A or Option B. Option A includes kerbside protected bike lanes with the removal of 116 car parks and Option B consists of on-road buffered bike lanes with the removal of 20 car parks.
Engagement Summary Report for ROAD SAFETY ON INKERMAN STREETThe Results of the Survey
44.3% of participants voted for Option A, 42.4% for Option B and 13.2% for neither option. What this does show however, is a clear preference (55.6%) for less parking loss and less cycling infrastructure, as voted by most participants. It is reasonable to combine the preferences for Option B with “preference for neither” which gives 55.6% versus 44.3% for Option B, because that option is the less detrimental for residents, community support groups, medical and health practitioners and business owners who are wholly reliant on vehicular access.
Most of the respondents who selected “preference for neither” advocated for zero loss of parking. The report states “Participants who did not support either design option felt the proposed design options were not a good investment, could contribute to safety issues, reduce amenity, and negatively impact local residents and businesses. The second most common theme among respondents was a concern about the loss of parking on Inkerman Street (n=84) that would come from either of the proposed design options with many stating the current level of parking was limited (n=113)”.
People who live on Inkerman Street more commonly selected Option B (55.1%), as did those who said they run a business on Inkerman Street (61.9%). This is hardly surprising, as this cohort stand to be most impacted by the enormous loss of parking posed by Option A.
A Flawed Survey
An Inkerman Street resident said, “The survey was highly constrained with only two options and if you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. It's also important to recognise that surveys are not necessarily impartial. Organisations commonly design surveys to achieve predetermined outcomes and in this case Council officers may wish to see a certain policy enacted. This raises the very real risk of the survey being gamed”.
Further, the survey results were influenced by people who do not live in immediate proximity to Inkerman Street. About half of the participants (866) live in other suburbs and half (876) live in St. Kilda East (n=512) and Balaclava (n=364) of the total number of 1,742 participants.
It is questionable whether 50% of the respondents really do live in the area - there was no evidence required of this. The question should be asked of Council about how they have ensured these survey results are accurate.
The voluntary nature of surveys runs headlong into conflict with game theory – specifically selection bias. People with sufficient motivation to undertake voluntary surveys are not necessarily representative of the apathetic majority.
For example, Bicycle Network asked its 50,000 members to vote for Option A. This organisation's reach is enormous and can't be underestimated when it comes to the influence they wield over surveys of this type. They're experts at lobbying all levels of government and garnering support from members to provide the loudest voice to decision makers in relation to the installation of protected cycling infrastructure.
While nobody can deny cycling is an excellent mode of transport, and is cleaner, greener, and healthier than driving, it's not always an option; particularly for Victoria's rapidly ageing population and those with disabilities.
Not an Anti-Bike Campaign
Unfortunately, Inkerman Street bike lane debate has become abusive and aggressive with Option A campaigners accusing residents of being 'selfish' or 'anti-bike'.
A local resident said, “Just look at the vandalism spree which took place on Inkerman Street on Sunday 17 March 2024, where three individuals glued dozens of anti-Save Inkerman Street posters to public / council and private property, including rubbish bins, power poles, park buildings and infrastructure, bus stops, the milk bar (without the owner's permission), and traffic lights”.
Defacing literally dozens of public assets, this criminal damage took hours of community volunteers' time and effort to remove, as the posters were firmly glued to everything. A resident confronted one of the individuals responsible and took a close-up photograph. There is clear video footage of the vandals, which has been submitted to Victoria Police, Council, and the EPA. Many of the posters remain firmly affixed to public property and are awaiting Council's removal.
An Inkerman Street resident said “These bike lobby activists have missed the point completely. They fail to understand this is NOT about being anti-bike, anti-safety, or pro-car. This is about fair and equitable ACCESS for residents and businesses who have traded on the street for decades; many of whom provide vital essential services to the community. While these activists are young and able bodied, many in our community are not. While they could easily handle walking 500 meters to their homes, many in our community cannot. They are not confined to a wheelchair and dependent on twice weekly movement skills training sessions to retain their mobility. While they claim to want a cleaner, greener Inkerman Street, they spent half their weekend maliciously polluting and defacing it. Go figure”.
Council Decides
Ultimately, it falls upon the Council to weigh the feedback received and ensure a balanced approach that addresses all the concerns voiced by local residents and businesses in relation to this project. Let’s just hope they get it right.
