The railroads have a unique security arrangement with the state and law enforcement is their responsibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police#United_States

It’s an interesting division, and the wiki rabbit hole is fascinating.

It doesn’t appear the system has been very effective in recent years, compared to other approaches internationally, unfortunately.

According to [1] there's fewer than 2,300 railroad police officers in North America now (under 1,000 in the US) compared to 9,000 in the mid-1940s. How much of that is the switch to cars and how much is reduction in work force is unclear but today's number does include the East coast Amtrak security which sees a ton of ridership and there is much more freight these days.

It doesn't seem like they hire enough people.

[1] https://www.therailroadpolice.com/history

Let's say the railroad hired the right people - the cost of litigation from injuries and death means that the people they hire have little incentive to intervene. I see this as akin to store shrinkage and security that can't touch a perpetrator - it's accepted by rail shippers as a cost of doing business.

> The kinds of theft happening in LA on a regular basis are essentially unheard of in places like Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong or Taiwan. Any such occurrence would be shocking news and police would be all over it.

That's more likely because these places (as does Europe, by the way - we also don't have people burglarizing trains!) have robust social security networks for their population. The homeless get at least basic assistance, the mentally ill get taken care of.

The US does neither. People who have fallen through the cracks simply don't get any help at all (except from some charities), and mentally ill people don't get any care.

Not true!

With the exception of Japan, every one of the places I listed spends less on social security and welfare in general as percentage of GDP than the US does. In most cases, dramatically less.

Spending != to benefits actually received. LA, for example, spends billions on affordable housing schemes that are little more than fronts for lining the pockets of the allies of local politicians. Vienna, by contrast, spends far less and has a massive, well-maintained social housing scheme, in which something like a third of the population lives.

> Vienna, by contrast, spends far less and has a massive, well-maintained social housing scheme, in which something like a third of the population lives.

And on top of that, it creates a very effective price cap on rents in the non-social housing sector, because people could just go and live into marginally lower-quality housing instead.

You're not wrong about the inefficiency of LA (or really California) welfare spending. IMO, too little of the budget is on payroll. It's largely outsourced to non-profits with poor outcomes.