April 1 is usually a day for pranks. For laughter. Smiles. Mischief. The Queensland bus industry can be forgiven for thinking they were part of an intricate April Fool’s Day this year when a new tender was dropped by Queensland’s Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR).
But it wasn’t. To kickstart April, the department released a new invitation to offer (ITO) for nine new routes devised for the Queensland towns of Ipswich and Logan. These new routes had been advocated for by both the community and operators supplying bus services to the region for quite some time.
Instead of giving these operators the first right of offer, the ITO signalled a change in approach from TMR for the nine routes. However, a 10th route was handed out to an existing operator.
“We thought it was interesting that the TMR offered first right of offer to an operator for one route, but put the other nine routes out to a public tender,” Queensland Bus Industry Council (QBIC) executive director Jason O’Dwyer told ABC.
“Operators in the area and QBIC were not given the courtesy of a phone call regarding going to open tender.
“One might expect that after 40-plus years of successful partnership with successive governments, the department and services to the public that these operators may have deserved a call from Translink explaining the decision, not to mention QBIC as well given our 100 years of history in representing operators in Queensland.”
It’s a concerning moment in time for all of the state’s bus industry. Pre-existing arrangements were thrown out the window as operators who have forged up to 50 year histories of Queensland owned and operated business, now ponder what the future holds if Translink awards the nine new routes to operators from outside the area. Will they then start stripping more contracts from existing companies? Or is it just a one-off move to inspire more competition in the region?
O’Dwyer was left pondering how TMR reached its decision to “have a new operator in an area that already has operators”.
O’Dwyer went on to question the impact on layover facilities, passenger interchanges and driver rest areas which are already congested with three current operators, including Brisbane City Council.
“How it could be more efficient use of government money to have a fourth operator at these sites? It doesn’t pass the lunchroom test,” he says.
- Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to receive the latest news and classifieds from Australasia’s bus and coach industry
- Don’t miss a second and subscribe to our monthly ABC magazine
“Some operators have been advocating for these routes for the best part of 10 to 15 years, they’ve identified the need, done the modelling and advocated for it both locally and with the department – it’s well within their expertise to deliver.”
Adding to the confusion is a provision in the ITO that stipulates a new depot is included as part of the contracts. O’Dwyer says the most recent discussions with TMR is that it wishes to own depots. However, he says that he sees from the ITO that the land is being leased seemingly in contradiction to what’s been advised to industry.
Part of the contract is the chance to run an estimated 37 state-managed buses and depot infrastructure that will be allocated by the government. An initial government investment would see more than $24 million poured into the network to grow it and reduce congestion. The depot mentioned in this ITO would be the first to be owned by the government.
“The suggested depot will be in the middle of nowhere, so there’ll be significant dead running for the successful operator on some routes,” O’Dwyer says.
“From a network planning, attraction and retention perspective, the industry is left scratching its head. Will the new operator will be given a flat block of land with demountable buildings, running on generators, servicing new routes with little to no accessible bus stops, appropriate street furniture or accessible footpaths for those with disabilities?
“The industry finds it hard to recruit drivers, let alone in a depot with at best temporary buildings – you need decent facilities to attract and retain drivers. The whole project seems rushed and not well thought out.”
The opportunity to submit for the ITO will close on June 11 after having been through two deadline extensions.
In response, a spokesperson from TMR told ABC it has commenced the ITO process as part of the state’s plan to provide a “frequent, accessible, reliable and safe public transport network”.
“The ITO has been open since Tuesday April 1, 2025 and will close on Wednesday June 11, 2025,” the spokesperson says.
“To date there has been significant interest from the industry and we look forward to further announcements following the tender evaluation process.”
The spokesperson didn’t comment on why TMR has changed its process to make it an open tender except for the 10th route that has already been awarded, nor how the depot will work between the government and operators.
Like many modern metro bus service contracts in Australia, zero-emissions bus technology is also built into the contract. Earlier this week, ABC reported that Translink had revealed more details on how the power sourcing for running zero-emissions buses would be arranged at the Ipswich depot.
“The state will ensure the New Chum depot has access to power from day one,” Translink says on updated documents for the contract’s Invitation to Offer (ITO) process.
“This may be in the form of diesel generators until such time as an electrical connection can be arranged. As such, the State Electricity Procurement Arrangement does not currently exist for the purposes of sharing.
“The state will also supply diesel fuel and AdBlue for the diesel buses from day one. As such, the offeror does not need to cost depot electricity and diesel/AdBlue bus fuel costs in their offer.”
Once the depot has been upgraded to accommodate battery electric buses, Translink says the state will review this arrangement to consider additional electricity requirements for charging.
“At this point, the state will be happy to share relevant extracts of the State Electricity Procurement Arrangement as it relates to the charging KPI,” Translink says.
“For clarity, the offeror does not need to cost electricity supply in their offer.”
This has led to more head-scratching on the bus industry’s side, with O’Dwyer saying this change in approach limits operators from being able to trade power and off-set costs.
“My understanding of interstate ZEB operations is that they have the ability to trade power with retailers and generators to significantly off-set costs to make electric depots more financially viable,” he says.
“By locking operators into a power sharing deal with the government, it ties the hands of operators behind their backs.
“This just leaves operators with the operation of the contract, but even then, the government has approved the routes and set the timing, so the profit margin isn’t that great.”
O’Dwyer says the industry is voicing its concerns about what precedent this sets for future contracts in the state. O’Dwyer’s main goal is to ensure Queensland avoids from following other Australian states that have tendered networks to new operators who have no experience in the area, namely New South Wales and its Sydney bus contracts, and found issues with service delay, cancellations, passenger complaints and driver shortages.
“We’re in discussions with the department and listing our concerns – we’ve said this model is a failed playbook,” he says.
“We don’t want our state making the same mistakes, so government needs to better engage with our industry. We cannot have a race to the bottom on price, as it will be the passengers and taxpayers that will ultimately suffer.”
Read more:
- GoZero sells 50 per cent stake in Foton Mobility Distribution
- BIC pens open letter to Vic premier regarding supply crisis
- Bus service frequency on the up in regional Victoria
- Plans to add bus boosters to one of Auckland’s busiest roads
- Better public transport called for in new Infrastructure Victoria plan