The ideal Stimulus project?

If this wasn't costing $6 billion, it would be just too funny. From the Washington Post:

if California does start building without securing future funding, it could end up with a $6 billion track to nowhere. As the Peer Review Group (PRG) explains, that’s because, for economic-stimulus reasons, Washington insisted that California build the initial stretch between two outposts in the lightly populated San Joaquin Valley. . . .

How exactly is building a massive train track between to places no one wants to go between the best place to spend Stimulus money? Wouldn't it "create" jobs if you built it between two places that people actually lived? What can people do with this money that would actually produce something of value?

I understand the crazy logic here. If you spend the money on something that people would have spent their own money on, the government spending will be offset by a reduction in private spending. But this whole discussion ignores the crowding out regarding where the money has to come from to fund the train project to begin with.