Investment Scenarios

Infrastructure & Budget
pace plus 10
pace plus 50
funding options

Pace’s future depends on how much investment is available. ReVision explores what the suburban network could look like under different funding scenarios — from modest improvements to a full transformation.

Investment Scenario Tradeoffs

  • Existing Service
  • Plus 10 Limited Investment
  • Plus 50 Ridership
  • Plus 50 Coverage
  • Walking Access to Transit
  • 42% of jobs

  • 42% of jobs

  • 37% of jobs

  • 56% of jobs

  • Job Access
  • 7% Increase

  • 86% Increase

  • 30% Increase

  • 15-30 Min Frequency
  • A few more routes

  • Nearly all routes

  • A few more routes

  • 40-60 Min Frequency
  • Most routes

  • Only a few

  • Maintains Increased Frequency

  • Weekend Service Frequency
  • Most routes run on Sunday

  • Maintains Increased Frequency

  • Maintains Increased Frequency

Scenario 1: Pace Plus 10

This represents a 10% increase in service, bringing Pace close to pre-COVID levels. Key improvements include:

  • More weekend service
  • Slightly better frequencies on key routes
  • Updates to local networks in targeted areas

Plus 10

Scenario 2: Pace Plus 50 — Ridership Focus

With funding to increase service by over 50%, this network would focus on high-demand corridors. Key features:

  • Frequent buses (every 15–30 minutes) on more routes
  • Consistent service every day of the week
  • Prioritizes areas with the greatest potential to grow ridership

Plus 50 - Ridership

Scenario 3: Pace Plus 50 — Coverage Focus

This version also increases service by over 50%, but spreads it wider to reach more places. Key features:

  • Buses every 60 minutes in more communities
  • Greater reach in lower-density areas
  • Emphasizes access over frequency

Plus 50 - Coverage

Why This Matters

Each scenario reflects a different goal — and level of investment. They show how strategic funding decisions can unlock access, improve equity, and better connect the region.

Ridership vs. Coverage

San Antonio’s land is not equally productive — and that has big consequences for the city’s financial health. Urban3’s analysis flips the script on how we typically measure value. Instead of simply looking at the total tax revenue from a property, they ask: how much value is produced per acre of land? When you consider land as a finite resource, this question becomes crucial. Just like we wouldn’t judge a car by how far it can go on one tank without knowing the size of the tank, we shouldn’t judge development by its total value without considering how much space it consumes.