The Transportation Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee on Dec. 17 recommended that Phoenix City Council direct staff to reevaluate high‑capacity transit options for West Phoenix instead of adopting a locally preferred light‑rail alignment for the Capital Extension. The subcommittee’s motion to pursue Option 2 — a reevaluation outside the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Capital Investment Grant project‑development timeline — passed with three ayes and one abstention; the proposal will be considered by the full council at its Jan. 27, 2026 policy meeting.

The hearing featured a lengthy staff presentation from city and Valley Metro officials explaining the tradeoffs. Valley Metro and city staff described two paths: Option 1 would adopt an updated Capital Extension route and remain in the FTA’s CIG project‑development process, preserving eligibility for federal discretionary funding; Option 2 would signal a pause in the CIG pipeline to study other high‑capacity alternatives and extend the timeline for reaching West Phoenix. Staff repeatedly warned that a decision to exit the FTA process would require notifying FTA, could require terminating existing design contracts, and would risk forfeiting federal funding under the current application timetable. "We are set for an April 2026 date that we must enter into the next step of that CIG process if we want to continue in that program," staff said.

Staff and Valley Metro also presented cost and timeline estimates. Jessica Mefford Miller, Valley Metro chief executive, cited higher per‑mile costs for this corridor, saying, "The cost per mile of the capital extension is about $498,000,000 per mile," and that the three options before the council average roughly $624 million. Treated as a short corridor (about 1.2–1.4 miles), the project lacks the economies of scale of larger extensions; staff said environmental re‑work would be administrative for the 16th Avenue options but would require a new environmental process for the 7th Avenue proposal, adding 1.5–2 years to the schedule.

Public comment was sharply divided. A large group of neighborhood residents, disability‑rights advocates and transit organizations urged the subcommittee to keep moving forward to preserve federal funding and deliver service to West Phoenix and Maryvale. Patty Serrano, reading a statement from Councilwoman Hernandez, urged support for Option 1, saying, in part, "The Capitol and I‑10 extensions are the only light rail projects with a plan, a design, and with funding. Exiting project development to reevaluate will…jeopardize all future light rail expansion across our city."

By contrast, many small business owners and property owners whose locations are near Indian School Road testified in opposition to alignments that would affect parking, visibility and driveway access. Multiple business speakers said outreach had been insufficient and that construction‑period impacts had previously led to lost customers and closures. "It will be very detrimental to all the businesses," said Suzanne Johnson, a West Indian School Road clinic owner who opposes an Indian School alignment.

Staff clarified that Indian School Road was not one of the three formal Capital Extension alternatives presented to the subcommittee and that it would require separate study before being considered. Staff also reported outreach metrics: roughly 1,600 feedback forms as of Dec. 8 (about 62% favoring continuation of CapEx and 38% favoring reevaluation), over 5,000 website views and extensive social media engagement. The Citizens Transportation Commission on Dec. 4 did not make a majority recommendation for either option.

In discussing next steps, staff said whatever action (or non‑action) by the subcommittee would be reflected in a council report for the Jan. 27 policy meeting. If the full council directs a reevaluation, staff said Valley Metro and city teams would develop a strategic work plan for community engagement and timelines and would notify FTA of the change in project status. Staff also noted that the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (GLBC) has not yet been presented with station locations and that certain station approvals would require state concurrence if within the Capitol Mall boundary.

The subcommittee’s decision reflected competing priorities: several members cited the risk that legislative opposition at the state level could prevent construction in the Capitol Mall area, while others prioritized honoring multi‑decade ballot commitments and preserving federal funding eligibility. The full council will review the staff report and the subcommittee’s recommendation on Jan. 27, 2026.

Action taken: the subcommittee voted to recommend Option 2 (reevaluation of high‑capacity transit alternatives) to the full council; motion moved by Councilman Waring and seconded by Councilman Robinson; vote recorded as three ayes and one abstention by Councilwoman Hodge Washington.