As to your post, it was a similarly remarkable waste of my time.
But going to nowhere? Not having a purpose? Nope, not the Gravina Island Bridge. It always had a purpose, and did have planning. You could argue it wasn't a prudent decision. Arguing it went nowhere just makes you sound like a bombastic blowhard. Which does describe many a person, but it isn't a good thing.
This is why you are an idiot. This is a variation of the Nirvana fallacy. My argument isn't wrong because the label doesn't perfectly describe the situation. That's not even relevant.
Given that this is the second time you've made a deeply flawed argument based on your interpretation of colloquial English (the first being your interpretation of "Happens all the time" as being equivalent to "Happens every time"), maybe you should stop doing that?
A "bridge to nowhere" serves such a small population (sometimes even none at all, if the bridge genuinely never connects to anything), that even before planning begins, it's quite clear that it's lifetime benefits will never come close to its costs. The Gravina Island Bridge is a classic example of that.
The key here is that there isn't a qualitative or quantitative difference between a costly bridge which is perfectly useless and a costly bridge which has a very small usefulness compared to its cost. Given that our societies make large-scale, poor decisions like that, it then is reasonable to consider whether they're doing it for the high speed rail proposal of the story.
Here, the story tells us that the US government currently thinks California will spend up to ten billion dollars on early stage construction for a segment that connects no major population centers. That is a demonstration of a remarkable lack of planning and relevance here consistent with what I noted earlier.
I'll note also that the project has fantasy ridership numbers in addition to its fantasy cost numbers. Elsewhere someone has noted that someone claims that one would need $160 billion in roads and airports to match the capacity of the rail system. $160 billion > $68 billion right? Even if we took the cost figure as accurate (hopefully, you understand my opinion on that), we still have the problem that ridership isn't capacity.
And it certainly will be the case that the ridership for the first phase of construction, which doesn't cover any significant population centers, isn't going to fill $10 billion of roads and airports. Past that, we'll just have to see. But it's likely IMHO that the actual ridership of the high speed rail would be comfortably covered by $68 billion in roads and airports.