newer model. Based on their estimates per the 2023 Project Update Report, ridership from the service implementation date to 2040 would total about 11.49 million riders annually for the Silicon Valley to Bakersfield service, and 31.28 million riders annually for the entire Phase 1 system. This estimate used a new California Rail Ridership Model, updated assumptions and data (from 2022), revised service plan assumptions, a revised fare policy, and a new rider behavior model. These ridership estimates show the CAHSR system will have higher projected ridership than all California Amtrak supported services combined: 6.6 million vs 5.6 million riders. CAHSR will also carry more than two-and-a-half times more riders annually than the 12.5 million riders reported on the Northeast Corridor high speed service. Legal aspects This project already has a long history. Topics included in the main History page (the link shown above) include the early history (before 2015), discussion of HSR alternatives, legislation, financing, construction, and legal challenges. Legislation In 1996, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was established to begin formal planning in preparation for a ballot measure in 1998 or 2000. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 1A to construct the initial segment of the high-speed rail network, and issued $9 billion in bonds to begin its construction. It also set certain requirements for the project: Established the basic route linking the major population centers Minimum where conditions permit Maximum of 24 stations on the system Maximum travel times between certain points Financially self-sustaining (operation and maintenance costs fully covered by revenue) The proposition also authorized an additional $950 million for improvements on local commuter systems, which will serve as feeder systems to the high-speed rail system. In June 2014, state legislators and Governor Jerry Brown agreed to apportion the state's annual cap and trade funds so that 25% goes to high-speed rail as an ongoing source of funds. Lawsuits In 2014, the CHSRA was challenged on its compliance with its statutory obligations under Proposition 1A (John Tos, Aaron Fukuda, and the Kings County Board of Supervisors v. California High-Speed Rail Authority). In November 2021 a circuit court ruled against the plaintiffs. On December 15, 2014, the federal Surface Transportation Board determined that its approval of the HSR project in August "categorically preexempts" lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This determination was tested in a similar case, Friends of Eel River v. North Coast