We can't speak directly for Cape May Seashore Lines, but we're pretty sure it's in business to maximize revenue for its own well-being, not (directly) for the line over which it operates. As a for-profit company (or, allowing for those most cynical, a company with pretensions of for-profit grandeur), CMSL certainly should sustain itself -- not its rental unit.
But CMSL is one tenant of the Cape May Branch, not the owner. To that end, NJ-ARP would believe it's in the best interests of the line's owner -- New Jersey Transit Corp. -- to maximize revenue from property it owns and/or oversees.
Is there overlap and/or complementary goalsetting here? Of course. But on this thread, the issue of "waste" seemingly was directed toward Cape May Seashore Lines, as if its inability to operate was sapping taxpayer dollars (presumably from other, more worthy entities and/or locales). NJ-ARP doesn't subscribe to the supposition, since NJ Transit (as landlord) has continued being reimbursed by CMSL for renting out its property.
Both existing Cape May Branch tenants benefit from the (minimal?) investment NJT has committed to the branch line. Any additional tenants likely would also benefit, regardless of CMSL's action or inaction, efficiency or supposed ineptitude.
Since NJ-ARP takes a long view of the state's commitment to its rail infrastructure -- ideally for passenger purposes -- we reject any suggestion that fiscal attention to the Cape May Branch is a "waste."
