Antisocial and unruly behaviour are concerns on the Pakenham train line.
By Allister Hayman
SECURITY FEARS on the Pakenham train line grew last week after claims Connex officers avoided the line and were scared to check passengers’ tickets.
The report in a Melbourne newspaper claimed fare evasion was rife on “rough lines” including Pakenham because officers feared assault and patrolled the line only during the day if Connex’s fine quotas needed a boost.
But Connex spokesperson Andrew Cassidy disputed the claims.
“We don’t consider any lines to be rough,” he said.
“No line is better or worse than another and no line is targeted or avoided by officers over another.”
The Pakenham line was identified as one of the most dangerous in statistics issued last April, which showed sex attacks and assault had increased on the public transport network.
Senior Sergeant Chris Marlow, of Pakenham Police, said police were concerned about security on the Pakenham line, but most incidents occurred outside their area.
“The Pakenham line was number one for assault and that does have an effect on the confidence of passengers, but we didn’t think the problem serious enough to warrant extra patrols in our area, which we would struggle to do with our resources, anyway,” he said.
Inspector Shayne Pannell, of the Transit Safety Division, said it was difficult to say where most incidents occurred.
“People might get on the train down at South Yarra and something will happen that’ll escalate and then they’ll get out at Dandenong and it’ll be reported there,” he said.
Insp Pannell refused to say if incidents had increased since April, but said a recent internal survey of security across the network had identified the Pakenham line as of special concern.
“At the Pakenham end, the major concerns are antisocial behaviour, not necessarily criminal behaviour kids on trains being unruly, that kind of thing,” he said.
Insp Pannell said 12 transit safety police at the Dandenong division patrol the upper end of the line, but could not confirm how frequently.
Alex Makin, of the Public Transport Users Association, said the obligation for safety must ultimately rest with the operator, and not police.
“The primary role of the revenue protection officers should be the safety of passengers, not fare evasion,” he said.
“People need encouragement and the mere physical presence of a safety officer increases confidence.”
Connex has 300 ticket inspectors divided over three shifts, with higher concentrations on the evening shifts.
But, Mr Cassidy said it was impossible to say how frequently officers worked the Pakenham line because they roved across the entire network.
“It’s Connex policy not to fix inspectors to specific lines,” he said.
“That would create an element of predictability, which repeat offenders could exploit.”
Critics claim the roving policy enables inspectors to bypass certain lines, leaving others under patrolled, particularly at the end of the line.
Shadow transport spokesman Terry Mulder said the Opposition was concerned Connex was reneging on its security commitments.
“Connex has a deal that after 9pm they’ll provide 80 percent coverage, but evidence we have from officers is that the level is not being achieved and is less than half of that,” he said.
Mr Makin had similar concerns.
“Connex uses the roving inspectors to prop up the averages to meet its security obligations,” he said.
“But a roving inspector can jump on the line at Caulfield then jump off two stops later and that meets their obligations for that line,” he said.
“If you ask any passenger if 80 per cent of their evening travel is patrolled by inspectors they’ll say no, and until the government provides a yardstick, with safety as its primary concern, Connex will continue to do as little as necessary to meet its obligations.”
Mr Makin said security could be improved by providing a constant visible safety presence and more frequent service.
