What If Dallas and Fort Worth Remained Separate Economic Centers?

The Actual History

The Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex as we know it today represents one of America's most successful examples of regional cooperation and metropolitan consolidation. However, this wasn't always the case. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Dallas and Fort Worth developed as fierce rivals, separated by approximately 30 miles of prairie and distinct economic identities.

Dallas emerged as a commercial and financial center after the arrival of the Houston and Texas Central Railroad in 1872, quickly establishing itself as a regional trading hub. Meanwhile, Fort Worth—nicknamed "Cowtown"—developed around the cattle industry after becoming a stop on the Chisholm Trail in the 1870s and later as a major livestock shipping point when the Texas and Pacific Railway arrived in 1876. The cities had distinct personalities: Dallas fashioned itself as sophisticated and cosmopolitan, while Fort Worth embraced its more rugged, western character.

The rivalry between the cities was intense and often expressed through public ridicule. Fort Worth was derided by Dallasites as a sleepy "Panther City," while Fort Worth residents viewed Dallas as pretentious and lacking authentic Texas character. This competition extended to economic development, cultural institutions, and urban growth throughout the early 20th century.

The path toward cooperation began in earnest after World War II. Population growth, suburban expansion, and the economic boom that accompanied the post-war era created practical pressures for regional coordination. A pivotal moment came in 1964 when the Civil Aeronautics Board ordered Dallas and Fort Worth to find a site for a new regional airport to serve both cities, rather than continuing to operate and expand their separate municipal airports (Dallas Love Field and Fort Worth's Greater Southwest International Airport).

After considerable negotiation and federal pressure, the cities agreed to build Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) on a site between the two cities. Opening in 1974, DFW Airport represented the first major joint infrastructure project and became a powerful symbol of regional cooperation. The airport's location—almost exactly halfway between downtown Dallas and downtown Fort Worth—was carefully chosen to serve both cities equally and to prevent either from claiming dominance.

This cooperation spurred additional regional integration. The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) gained importance as a regional planning body. Transportation networks, including highways and later the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system, were developed with regional connectivity in mind. Major sports franchises adopted regional identities, with professional teams like the Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers building stadiums in Arlington, positioned between the two core cities.

By the early 21st century, the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex had become America's fourth-largest metropolitan area, with a population exceeding 7 million people spread across 13 counties. The region developed a shared economic identity, with complementary business sectors including technology, aerospace, transportation, healthcare, and energy. The once-stark distinction between the cities blurred as suburbs filled the space between them, creating an almost continuous urban corridor along Interstate 30.

Today, while local identities and some friendly rivalry persist, the DFW Metroplex functions as an integrated economic powerhouse. The region's cooperative approach to economic development, infrastructure, and marketing has been studied as a model for other metropolitan areas facing similar challenges of fragmentation and competition.

The Point of Divergence

What if Dallas and Fort Worth had steadfastly refused to cooperate on a joint regional airport in the 1960s? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the deeply entrenched rivalry between these North Texas cities never evolved into the cooperative relationship that formed the modern DFW Metroplex.

The most logical point of divergence occurs in 1964, when the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) directed the two cities to develop a joint airport plan. In our timeline, after initial resistance, both cities recognized the economic necessity of cooperation and eventually agreed to the DFW Airport project. But what if this pivotal moment of cooperation had failed?

Several plausible mechanisms could have prevented this crucial first step toward regional integration:

First, local political leadership could have played a decisive role. If more stubborn, parochial figures had held mayoral positions in either city during this critical period, they might have successfully rallied public opinion against cooperation with their longtime rival. In Dallas, perhaps Mayor J. Erik Jonsson (who actually supported regionalism) could have faced a successful challenge from a hardline Dallas-first candidate. In Fort Worth, stronger opposition from local business interests fearing Dallas dominance might have made compromise politically impossible.

Second, legal challenges could have succeeded in blocking the CAB's authority to mandate a regional approach. If either city had pursued litigation more aggressively and won court decisions supporting their right to develop independent aviation facilities, the federal pressure for cooperation would have been undermined.

Third, alternate financing arrangements might have emerged. If private investors or state-level funding had materialized to support the separate expansion of Love Field and Greater Southwest International Airport, the economic incentives for a joint facility would have diminished significantly.

Finally, Cold War military considerations could have played a role. With increased Pentagon funding for separate aviation facilities (perhaps tied to nearby military installations like Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth), the federal government might have contradicted the CAB's regionalism by supporting dual development.

In this alternate timeline, the combination of entrenched local pride, political opportunism, successful legal challenges to federal authority, and alternative financing options causes the breakdown of negotiations for a joint airport in 1965. Instead of being the first step toward metropolitan integration, the airport controversy cements the separate paths of Dallas and Fort Worth for decades to come.

Immediate Aftermath

Aviation Development Takes Divergent Paths

The immediate consequence of the failed joint airport negotiations is a new phase of aviation competition between Dallas and Fort Worth. Freed from CAB restrictions by successful legal challenges, both cities pursue ambitious expansion plans for their existing airports.

Dallas moves quickly to modernize and expand Love Field, leveraging its stronger tax base and business connections. Mayor Jonsson, disappointed by the regional failure but determined to secure Dallas's future, pushes through a bond package in 1966 for a complete renovation of Love Field, including longer runways capable of handling the newest generation of jet aircraft, an expanded terminal, and improved ground transportation connections.

Fort Worth, determined not to be outdone, secures state funding and private investment to transform Greater Southwest International Airport into "Texas Western International Airport" by 1968. The name itself—emphasizing Fort Worth's western identity—signals a rejection of Dallas-oriented regionalism. The facility focuses on connecting Fort Worth to western states and Mexico, positioning itself as the gateway to the American West.

Transportation Infrastructure Develops in Isolation

The airport disagreement spreads to other transportation planning efforts, unraveling nascent regional cooperation on highway development. Instead of a coordinated approach to the interstate highway system:

Dallas prioritizes north-south corridors, strengthening connections to growing suburbs in that direction while giving less attention to east-west routes toward Fort Worth
Fort Worth emphasizes connections to the west and southwest, with less concern for Dallas-oriented travelers
The Texas Highway Department (predecessor to TxDOT) finds itself caught between competing demands from the two cities, ultimately developing a less integrated highway system with more bottlenecks and gaps

By 1970, driving between the two cities becomes more cumbersome than necessary due to these planning failures, with Interstate 30 developing as a less robust corridor than in our timeline.

Economic Development Strategies Diverge

With neither city willing to cede advantage, economic development becomes increasingly competitive through the late 1960s and early 1970s:

Dallas doubles down on its banking, insurance, and retail strengths, establishing a more aggressive corporate recruitment program specifically targeting companies that might otherwise consider Fort Worth
Fort Worth leverages its manufacturing base, particularly in defense and aerospace tied to General Dynamics (later Lockheed Martin), while cultivating its Western heritage to develop tourism around the Stockyards district earlier and more extensively than in our timeline
Both cities establish separate foreign trade offices in Mexico City, competing directly for international investment
The land between the cities, rather than becoming a site for regional facilities like DFW Airport or later Arlington's entertainment district, remains largely undeveloped through the 1970s

Political Ramifications Extend Beyond Local Government

The entrenched rivalry affects state and national politics as Dallas and Fort Worth representatives find themselves frequently at odds:

In the Texas Legislature, Tarrant County (Fort Worth) and Dallas County delegations emerge as consistent opponents on transportation funding, water rights, and other infrastructure matters
At the federal level, congressional representatives from the two areas rarely cooperate on appropriations requests, reducing their effectiveness in securing federal dollars for the region
Governor Preston Smith (1969-1973) finds himself repeatedly mediating disputes between the two North Texas power centers, establishing a special commission in 1971 to address the growing economic inefficiencies of their competition

Corporate Headquarters Make Decisive Location Choices

Unlike our timeline, where many corporations eventually choose locations between Dallas and Fort Worth to access both labor markets, the hardened boundaries force more definitive choices:

American Airlines, facing expansion needs in the early 1970s, selects Dallas rather than the mid-cities area it would choose in our timeline
Several energy companies that would later locate in Irving or Arlington instead establish themselves firmly in Fort Worth's western corridors
By 1975, corporate location patterns had solidified around two distinct business centers rather than the distributed pattern that eventually emerged in our timeline's Metroplex

This period of intensified separation sets the stage for decades of parallel development rather than the integrated metropolitan growth that characterized the actual history of North Texas.

Long-term Impact

Differential Economic Trajectories Through the 1980s

As the Texas oil boom of the late 1970s and early 1980s transformed the state's economy, Dallas and Fort Worth captured different segments of this prosperity:

Dallas Economic Specialization

Banking and finance flourished as Dallas banks like RepublicBank and InterFirst expanded dramatically, financing oil exploration throughout the Southwest
A technology corridor emerged earlier than in our timeline, as Dallas aggressively courted telecommunications companies that might have considered mid-cities locations in our reality
Commercial real estate development boomed in North Dallas and along the Central Expressway corridor, with fewer developments in the western portions of Dallas County

Fort Worth's Alternative Path

Manufacturing remained a stronger component of Fort Worth's economy, with more diversification into aviation and defense contracting
The cultural economy developed more distinctively, with the Western heritage tourism sector growing significantly larger than in our timeline
Energy company regional offices concentrated more heavily in downtown Fort Worth, creating a different skyline dominated by oil and gas headquarters

When the oil bust hit in the mid-1980s, the economic impact was severe but notably different across the two cities. Dallas's banking sector suffered catastrophic failures, while Fort Worth's more diversified economy weathered the storm somewhat better. This reversal of fortune temporarily moderated the rivalry as both cities faced serious economic challenges.

The Dual-Airport System Shapes Regional Development

Without DFW Airport as a unifying hub, air transportation evolved along a radically different path:

By the 1980s, both expanded airports had established distinct international connections, with Dallas Love Field focusing on European and Latin American destinations while Fort Worth's Texas Western International developed stronger routes to Asia and Mexico
The Wright Amendment, which in our timeline restricted flights from Love Field to protect DFW Airport's development, never materialized, allowing Southwest Airlines to expand operations at Love Field much earlier
Without a single dominant airport, North Texas became less attractive for airline hubs, with American Airlines establishing its primary southern hub in Houston instead of DFW in this timeline
By 2000, the inefficiencies of maintaining two competing international airports within 30 miles of each other had become economically problematic, yet the entrenched infrastructure made consolidation increasingly impossible

Distinctive Urban Forms Emerge

By the early 21st century, the urban landscapes of both cities reflected their separation:

The mid-cities area between Dallas and Fort Worth remained significantly less developed than in our timeline, with more preserved open space and agricultural land
Both downtown areas invested more heavily in their urban cores, resulting in denser development and earlier urban revitalization efforts
Public transportation developed separately, with Dallas creating a more comprehensive light rail system focused on its eastern and northern suburbs, while Fort Worth emphasized commuter rail connections to its western communities
Residential segregation patterns became more pronounced, with fewer "neutral" suburban communities where residents might equally identify with either city

Cultural and Identity Divergence

The persistent separation reinforced and deepened cultural distinctions:

Educational institutions maintained clearer rivalries, with the University of Texas system establishing more significant presence in Dallas while Texas Christian University and Texas A&M developed stronger Fort Worth connections
Sports franchises never adopted regional identities, with teams explicitly identifying with one city or the other (the Dallas Cowboys never relocate to Arlington in this timeline, while Fort Worth develops its own minor league teams rather than supporting Dallas franchises)
Cultural institutions like museums and performing arts centers competed more directly for donors and audiences rather than complementing each other as in our timeline
By 2010, polling revealed that residents of each city were significantly less likely to visit the other city than in our timeline, with many young residents having rarely crossed the persistent psychological barrier between the communities

Economic Consequences by 2025

In the present day of this alternate timeline, the economic landscape of North Texas shows significant differences from our reality:

The combined economic output of the separated cities is approximately 15-20% lower than the integrated DFW Metroplex of our timeline, reflecting the persistent inefficiencies of competition rather than cooperation
Population distribution is more concentrated around two distinct centers rather than the sprawling, multi-nodal metroplex that actually developed
Dallas has emerged as the larger economy (approximately 4.5 million people in its metropolitan area compared to Fort Worth's 2.8 million) but with less dominance than might have been expected
The technology sector is noticeably smaller, as the lack of a unified talent pool and transportation network made the region less competitive against places like Austin and Houston
International business presence is diminished, with fewer foreign companies establishing North American headquarters in either city due to the fragmented market and transportation challenges

Perhaps most significantly, by 2025 in this alternate timeline, civic leaders in both cities have begun seriously reconsidering the wisdom of their historic separation. Economic studies increasingly highlight the cost of continued competition in a global economy where metropolitan scale offers significant advantages. However, after six decades of reinforced separation following the 1964 divergence, the practical challenges of integration have become far more daunting than they were when the original opportunity presented itself.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Elaine Montclair, Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Texas at Arlington, offers this perspective: "The DFW Airport agreement of the 1960s represented what economists call a 'cooperation surplus'—a situation where working together produced greater benefits than the sum of what each party could achieve independently. In our alternate timeline where this cooperation failed, we see a classic case of the 'prisoner's dilemma' playing out over decades. Both cities pursued what they perceived as their individual best interests, but ultimately created a regional economy that is less competitive globally. The most telling evidence is in the international business sector, where competing airports, fragmented labor markets, and duplicated infrastructure have made North Texas significantly less attractive to multinational corporations than in our actual timeline."

Richard Hernandez, Senior Fellow at the Texas Economic Development Institute, provides a contrasting view: "While the economic inefficiencies of separation are undeniable, this alternate path has produced certain advantages we shouldn't overlook. The more concentrated urban development in both core cities has resulted in stronger central business districts and less environmentally problematic sprawl. Cultural institutions have received more focused local support rather than being diluted across a vast metroplex. Most importantly, the distinct civic identities have fostered stronger community engagement and local governance than we see in our sprawling, somewhat placeless suburbs. The question isn't simply which timeline produced more GDP, but which created more livable, distinctive communities."

Dr. Mei-Lin Wong, Transportation Economist at Southern Methodist University, analyzes the infrastructure implications: "The most fascinating aspect of this alternate timeline is how transportation investment shaped everything else. Without DFW Airport as both a symbol and functional hub of regionalism, other infrastructure decisions cascaded toward separation rather than integration. Highway patterns prioritized connections within each city's sphere rather than between them. Public transit developed as two separate systems rather than one regional network. By 2025, these accumulated infrastructure decisions had literally cemented the separation into the built environment, making any future integration exponentially more costly and complicated. It's a powerful reminder that seemingly technical decisions about airports and highways are actually fundamental choices about regional identity and economic destiny."