David Andreatta

@david_andreatta

When it comes to high-speed rail, the United States has been on the slow boat to China, where, incidentally, the Shanghai Maglev train travels at 268 miles per hour.

Our only high-speed rail corridor runs between Boston and Washington, where the Acela averages 65 mph, about as fast as your grandmother on the New York state Thruway.

Superfast trains in Japan, France, Spain and Germany put our snail rail to shame because their governments have sunk big money into these forms of transit.

Ours hasn't, and that's a shame because high-speed rail has the promise to reduce congestion on highways and in airports, provide an economic boost and reduce pollution.

Every few years, politicians attempt to revive high-speed rail talk. In New York, no other official fires up the defibrillator more often than Rep. Louise Slaughter.

She did it again on Monday, telling an audience at Rochester Institute of Technology that she wants Washington to pay for a high-speed rail link between Rochester and Buffalo.

Slaughter said the train would allow residents of metropolitan Rochester, which shed the highest number of regional private sectors jobs in the state in the past year, to more easily access new jobs in Buffalo, which is booming by the sorry standards of western New York.

She didn't offer any specifics on costs or speed, though, and that's because there are none.

"I don't have any idea," Slaughter said in a phone interview. "That's not the question right now. We just want to see the possibility of it. … You have to start somewhere."

This is a train to nowhere that shouldn't leave the platform.

Federal investments in high-speed rail make sense in places where there are the aforementioned overcrowded highways and airports and, you know, people.

The populations of Monroe and Erie counties are stuck in neutral. That doesn't make them bad places to live, but it does make them bad places to invest in high-speed rail.

Their airports echo and on most days their highways are humming. Linking these communities with high-speed rail, which would involve laying 70-plus miles of new track, is a waste of money.

Because what Slaughter's talking about isn't even true high-speed rail like the trains zipping around Europe at 186 mph. She's really talking about higher-speed rail.

In a galaxy far, far away, higher-speed trains would never make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs. Here, they barely outrun a Major League fastball.

Two years ago, the Federal Railroad Administration released a long-awaited study that offered five options for upgrading train service between Niagara Falls and New York City, known as the Empire Corridor.

There was a do-nothing option. Two other options allowed for speeds up to 90 mph between Schenectady and Buffalo at costs ranging from $1.7 billion to $5.6 billion.

The final two options would allow for speeds of up to 110 mph and 125 mph at costs of between $6.3 billion and $14.7 billion, respectively.

The priciest option would cut travel time between downtown Rochester and downtown Buffalo to 42 minutes from the current 78 minutes on Amtrak and 75 minutes by car — if you drive like your grandmother.

That sounds appealing. But consider that travelers would have to drive downtown to catch the train and find ground transportation in Buffalo.

Investing in a Rochester-Buffalo link ignores two universal rules of high-speed rail: the travel sweet spot and ample public transit options at the destinations.

Experts peg the sweet spot as journeys between 150 and 600 miles. Anything less, it's cheaper for most travelers to drive. Anything more, it's more convenient for most travelers to fly.

As for the transit options in either city, they don't exist.

Rochester and New York City were identified in a 2009 study as among the best city pairs for a high-speed rail route in the United States. But the route was 50th out of 50 on the list.

The best pairing was — surprise! — New York City and Washington. Fifth on the list was Los Angeles and San Francisco, where a $68 billion high-speed rail project is already lumbering along.

Slaughter was right when she said high-speed rail has to start somewhere and that the federal government should lay the tracks.

That somewhere just isn't western New York.

David Andreatta is a Democrat and Chroniclecolumnist. He can be reached at dandreatta@gannett.com.