For Eagle River, my point was that their is traffic at rush hour. I don't think I agree with you in saying that the city was planned well (for cars), but rather that it ended up working because there was so much open space and not a tremendous amount of people. Maybe the wide spaces were purposeful, but I don't think anyone can argue that it was good planning (since wasted space doesn't really serve a function, right?). If planning had taken place, I think there would measures in place for careful growth as it happens, and also measures for if (when) the population decreases. In the hodgepodge way this town is put together (two city councils notwithstanding), I just think that the town grew out in whatever way it could during the boom times in the 70s and 80s. You said it yourself, "Development in Anchorage happened without consideration for rail lines or efficient bus routes" - and I would call that poor urban planning. But, I suppose we might have to agree to disagree, because it does depend on whatever axioms you held dear to consider the planning good or bad - although I also think it might be easy to argue that there was very little planning done (if I was more informed).

Given that Anchorage will probably dwindle when the oil is gone, you might be right in saying that it's a lost cause - but I would still hope that cities of any kind would try and make use of responsible efficiencies (like light rail to downtown and south anchorage, linking to the airport, or some such thing - we do have a fair amount of tourism, afterall). But it probably just boils down to money, and lack thereof.