Reimagining Little Rock’s Public Transit
A Call for Community-Driven Solutions
Public transportation in Little Rock is a reflection of the city itself: perforated, stretched thin, and circumnavigated in favor of private interests. I’ve lived the experience of relying on the city’s busing system when I didn’t have a car, and I know first-hand the struggles of unreliable, infrequent buses that often fail to connect people with where their destinations.
Little Rock’s public transit woes go beyond inconvenience. They reflect deeper issues: certain political and social forces resist building a transit system that truly serves the citizens of Little Rock.
Rock City Metro is a transit system without a city, alienated from the people it was established to serve. But it fails to develop in ways that benefit all of Little Rock’s citizens, largely due to the meddling of wealthy private interests and antiquated development ideals rooted in a longstanding car-centric, oil-based economic ideology.
We can change that but not if we wait for city leaders and government committees to finally get it right. Community-driven solutions that put power in the hands of the people—that’s where the solution lies.
The Inefficiencies of Little Rock’s Public Transit
It’s often difficult for car-owners to understand the extra lengths and time it takes to use public transit in Little Rock. For example, when I lived in Capitol View and needed to get to FareMarket’s warehouse on Scott Hamilton Dr., I could make it in about 10 minutes by car. On the city bus, however, the trip can take more than an hour, not including the last mile, which has to be walked.
Missing a bus on a route like that can leave you stranded and paying exorbitant fees for Uber or Lyft, especially during rush hour. One day, the last bus simply drove past me by, and I ended up paying $60 for an eight-mile ride due to surge pricing.
The trolley system, another symbol of inefficiency, is more a novelty for tourists than a meaningful transportation option for locals. It connects the downtown area with Argenta in North Little Rock, offering tourists and barhoppers a quaint ride along Second Street. But if you live in working-class neighborhoods like South Main, Capital View, or Stifft Station, the trolley is no use. All it serves in these neighborhoods is to reinforce the divide between parts of the city that serve outsiders, not the everyday places where live.
These aren’t just inconveniences. They limit the economic mobility of our citizens and restrict low-income people to their immediate vicinities, contributing to larger issues of food apartheid and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. For people without a vehicle, public transit—when it works—is an ineffective lifeline.
The Failure of Top-Down Political Solutions
In 2016, there was a real opportunity to improve public transit in Little Rock. A tax increase was proposed that would have provided more funding for bus routes, particularly in underserved areas. The initiative was voted down, however, largely due to the efforts of Americans for Prosperity, a Koch Brothers-backed group that campaigned against the tax. They argued it was a waste of taxpayer money, that Little Rock didn’t need expanded public transit, and that the funds could be better spent elsewhere (maybe that police budget that makes up 27 percent of city spending?).
This was a classic example of top-down political solutions failing the people they’re supposed to serve. The proposal had the potential to address some of the city’s biggest transportation issues, but it was blocked by oil tycoons with no stake in the everyday lives of Little Rock’s residents. As a result, the transit system continues to deteriorate, and the people who need it most are left without reliable options.
What makes this failure even more frustrating is that the resistance to expanding public transit often comes from wealthier areas of the city. When the idea of extending bus routes to neighborhoods like Chenal was floated, there was significant pushback from residents.
Though hard evidence of the motivations behind this opposition is scarce, there have been reports that some didn’t want public transit bringing poorer residents, or even homeless individuals, into their communities.
Similar issues have been documented in other cities, like Atlanta, where suburban areas have historically resisted public transit expansions for fear of who it might bring into the area. Whether or not this is explicitly the case in Little Rock, it’s clear that political resistance to transit improvements is deeply entrenched.
A Parallel to School Integration & Busing
This resistance to improving public transit mirrors another aspect of Little Rock’s history: the busing system that was created to integrate schools. Hannah Arendt’s critique of forced busing during the Civil Rights era resonates with the current debate over public transit.
Arendt argued that trying to solve deeply rooted political and economic problems through social means—like forcing schoolchildren to solve social problems rooted in socioeconomic policies—was misguided because it failed to address the deeper issues of housing and economic inequality. The same is true for public transit.
Neighborhoods in Little Rock remain segregated—socially, economically, politically, and geographically—not because people want to live in isolated bubbles but because the political and economic forces that shape the city have never changed.
Public transit has the potential to shift some of these barriers but only if it’s designed to connect communities rather than perpetuate their isolation. Unfortunately, the current system does little to foster integration. Instead, it reinforces racial and economic divisions, between those who can afford cars and those who rely on city transit that comes late or not at all.
The Social & Environmental Necessity of Public Transit
The case for better public transit goes beyond convenience or equity. It’s also about the future of our city in the face of climate change. Mayor Frank Scott, Jr. has made headlines for his efforts to electrify the city’s vehicle fleet, but this is a half-measure. While it’s a step in the right direction, switching to electric vehicles does little to address the underlying power dynamics: Little Rock is oil-dependent.
A robust public transit system could do far more to reduce emissions than simply swapping out city-owned gas-powered cars for electric ones. Studies show that a single city bus can take up to 40 cars off the road, reducing traffic congestion, lowering emissions, and contributing to cleaner air. Yet despite the clear environmental and public health benefits of better transit, there has been no real effort from city hall to expand the bus or trolley systems.
Economically, public transit makes sense. The cost of owning a car in Arkansas is significant: between car payments, insurance, fuel, and maintenance, it can easily reach over $6,000 a year. For those struggling to make ends meet, that’s a significant burden. By comparison, a monthly public transit pass in Little Rock costs $36. For many, reliable public transit could provide much-needed financial relief.
Urbanization Without Cities
The failure to invest in public transit is part of a broader problem that urban theorist Murray Bookchin described as “urbanization without cities.” He argued that modern cities have become sprawling, disconnected, and focused on endless growth rather than creating spaces that are livable and human-centered.
Little Rock is a great example of this kind of urbanization. The city has expanded outward, with more and more subdivisions popping up on the outskirts, but the infrastructure that connects these areas has not kept pace.
The focus on building highways and maintaining car infrastructure reflects an unsustainable, petroleum-centric vision of the city. Little Rock’s public transit system needs to be reimagined as a way to bring the city together, to create connections between neighborhoods, and to provide opportunities for people to move freely without being forced to buy a car.
Community-Owned & Controlled Public Transit
The solution lies, not in waiting for city officials or state governments to act, but in taking matters into our own hands. One particularly compelling model is community-owned and controlled public transit.
It is possible for neighborhoods to invest in and manage their own bus routes. Cooperative structures can be implemented to hire drivers, mechanics, and even produce biodiesel from local resources like food scraps and lawn clippings. If the same approach is applied to housing, through a community-owned farms and land trusts (CLT), riders could house and provide for drivers through systems of mutual support. This may sound far-fetched, but similar models have been implemented in other parts of the world with great success.
Anyone who has traveled to Europe understands the efficiency of public transit over car-centric approaches. Collective will and social investment offer a powerful counter to the oil industry.
In India, large-scale transit cooperation has achieved remarkable successes. Cities like Ahmedabad pioneered the Janmarg Bus Rapid Transit System, one of the first and most efficient BRT networks in the country, connecting residents quickly and affordably across the city.
At the same time, the Delhi Metro—developed through a groundbreaking partnership between local and national government agencies—has become a global model for reliable, high-capacity urban rail transit. These achievements show that with cooperation, vision, and community investment, transformative public transit is possible. If India’s cities can build these systems against enormous challenges, why can’t we?
The Cost of Missing Out on Rail: Little Rock to Texarkana
One particularly frustrating example of Arkansas’ failure to invest in transit is the proposed passenger rail line between Little Rock and Texarkana. This 100 mph rail line would have reduced travel time by 20 miles per hour, providing a faster, more efficient way to travel between the two cities. Yet it was rejected due to concerns about cost.
Opponents argued that the rail line wouldn’t recoup its costs through fares, but this argument overlooks the long-term benefits of rail infrastructure. Rail could reduce the need for highway maintenance, lower emissions, and provide a cleaner, more sustainable alternative to driving. In fact, rail systems often generate economic development along their routes, something that highway expansion rarely achieves.
So, what can we do? The best way to advocate for public transit is to use it. Even if the system isn’t perfect, riding the bus or the trolley sends a message that public transit matters. If you don’t need to use it, buy an unlimited bus pass and give it to someone who does. This is a small but meaningful way to demonstrate that there is demand for a better system.
Little Rock deserves a public transit system that works for everyone, not just tourists or those with cars. By investing in community-driven solutions, we can build a system that is sustainable, equitable, and designed to serve the people who live here. We can do this.