> UP has insurance, and, I'm sure treats a small percentage of thefts as the cost of doing business. And the revenues from shipping — just revenues, let alone

> UP has insurance, and, I'm sure treats a small percentage of thefts as the cost of doing business. And the revenues from shipping — just revenues, let alone the profits — are a fraction of the value of the cargo. If, say, a container full of new MacBooks gets broken into and looted, that is going eat the profits they'd earn from a lot of other containers. While they have insurance, they pay for that insurance, and unless the insurer is (a) stupid or (b) a charity, they pay at least as much as the amount of the losses, and probably more. UP and their customers seem to be uninterested in simply shrugging, saying "insurance", and eating that cost. Oh, and then there's the risk to employees who may occasionally be attacked or held at gunpoint. It doesn't take a lot of that before the impact on your personnel becomes a drain, too, and hiring is tight enough in this economy even without asking for people to risk life and limb. > UP can increase their investment in securing their trains and property. The alternative is the taxpayer spending a lot of money on police and incarceration. It looks like they propose to secure their trains and property by doing business in places that are not Los Angeles.