People did and apparently do use the bridge. Lots of them, according to the article.
In any event, the bridge was a mitigation of the degredation of a walkable neighborhood that the Federal government was lavishly funding. People wouldn't use the bridge if the Federal highway didn't exist, so ... the result of your logic is build neither? Of course not, you prefer people to be in their cars, probably electric ones, failing entirely to see failed mitigation after failed mitigation of the original misstep which was to build the highway in the first place.
In any event, the bridge was a mitigation of the degredation of a walkable neighborhood that the Federal government was lavishly funding. People wouldn't use the bridge if the Federal highway didn't exist, so ... the result of your logic is build neither? Of course not, you prefer people to be in their cars, probably electric ones, failing entirely to see failed mitigation after failed mitigation of the original misstep which was to build the highway in the first place.