You're also trying to compare Portland to a city that is largely not much older than the state oil boom. For a city built and planned around the automobile, we have surprising connectivity. You'd be surprised at how many cities give you few options for traveling along their axis - in Anchorage you are not constricted to just the New Seward in order to get from South Anchorage to Downtown or on the Glenn. C Street, Minnesota, Elmore help spread the flow of traffic through the North-South corridor. The same applies for East-West. Traffic congestion is almost limited to accidents rather than the regular 5:00 rush that other cities of comparable size experience.

I imagine the city could and should ramp up alternative transportation methods; including bike trails, bus routes, and even light rail. But you can't simply look at one facet of urban planning to solve all the problems - everything is interrelated. Zoning laws restricted development and discourage walkability. Shitty low density housing development and maximum sized parking lots encourage sprawl. Building on wetlands is an earthquake and water hazard. Expanding the ETJ towards Eagle River means extending services that tax payers fund (roads, sewer, electricity, fire, police, schools) - further encouraging traffic congestion.

Mixed use and building density are some of the first steps to address in order to create better urban planning as you call it. The issues that arises is our individualistic society puts little value on living close to retail or employment, and more on private space (houses, cars).

Anchorage isn't a master planned city born of designed foresight. It's a product of cheap energy, rapid growth and individual freedoms. Alaskans will never fully embrace the shared space public transit truly demands until it is just too expensive to fuel our personal vehicles. By that time I imagine the city itself wont need to exist to support the kind of population an oil state demands.