SFO’s involvement is that they own or lease the roads and parking lots where the pickups happen, and so have the right to set conditions on their use.

Parking enforcement isn’t automatic at parking lots without barriers either, but that doesn’t mean paying a parking fee to the operator is a “voluntary payment” just because you might not get a ticket if you do skip payment.

As for how they could enforce it, it’s pretty easy to walk around outside the airport and spot the cars with Uber/Lyft decals, or multiple phones, or use ANPR to identify frequent visitors, or just ask passengers as they get into cars. Multiple options for enforcement.

The enforcement might end up targeting the drivers rather than Uber itself, but it would have the same effect.

For arrivals, SFO has signs that direct passengers to a designated rideshare pickup area, and the rideshare apps direct passengers to a designated stall.

It would be possible to monitor how many cars are picking up passengers there with cameras, because non-rideshare cars would not pick up people there. It would also be possible for an auditor to spot-check with the Uber app and see if they get charged the fee or not, and whether the app directs them to the rideshare pick up area. From there it’s easy to see if a company is circumventing the surcharge.

> and the rideshare apps direct passengers to a designated stall.

That's part of their voluntary cooperation. They could also direct passengers to go stand at the curb like everyone else.

As others have commented, it would be relatively simple for airports to deploy ANPR[0] to detect cars picking up passengers at the curb more frequently than an average person would be expected to, at which point they have the usual trespassing remedies at their disposal.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni...

They're owned by the airport and there are restrictions on their use.

That would be illegal.

This isn’t voluntary, it’s regulation.

Like taxi medallions?

Yes like that.

Also notable, the airlines pay for the gates and the landing slots and so on.

It’s a transportation hub. The various forms of transportation that use it pay a fee.

My point is: you are right but Uber has been known to skirt the law.

and every single passenger also pays an extra fee unrelated to the actual act of travel, the airport improvement fee, aka a tax that's not a tax.

If it’s a fee that’s only charged to passengers who are traveling then it’s related to the act of travel.

So Uber should just ignore it and risk getting sued or their drivers trespassed from the airport property?

> It doesn't appear that SFO would have any way to collect their rideshare fees except for honor-system voluntary payment.

It's called a tax.

By that logic, it doesn't appear that the US government would have any way to collect their income taxes except for honor-system voluntary payment.

> By that logic, it doesn't appear that the US government would have any way to collect their income taxes except for honor-system voluntary payment.

That's why they collect income taxes directly from employers instead of trying to collect from employees.

First, Uber is not paying this, you the rider pay it.

Second, one of the major (valid) complaints has always been that Uber's "disruption" is really just skipping the things other providers are required to do: fleet maintenance, insurance, licensing, taxation, and more. Uber's well past the "break shit and move fast stage", now that they're the dominant player it's in their best interest to pull in regulation barriers and promote any form of moat. They should lobby for HIGHER taxes and fees, pass those on to customers and push for aggressive enforcement - that would be easier than competing with the next startup.

Airport Uber works different. Drivers wait in a designated queue.