Final answer:
NYC and Washington DC's transit fares provide easy mobile payment options but are less flexible than Uber, which offers more personalized service at higher rates. The taxicab industry in large cities can achieve economies of scale, while urban transit systems are often subsidized due to their broader community benefits.
Step-by-step explanation:
Comparing NYC and Washington DC's mobile transit fares to Uber in terms of ease of use and flexibility involves analyzing various factors. For convenience, mobile transit fares in NYC and Washington DC, such as those for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA), can be managed through apps, offering a straightforward method of payment. However, Uber provides more flexibility in pick-up and drop-off locations and is generally perceived as more user-friendly, albeit often at a higher cost.
In considering economies of scale within the taxicab industry, it can be concluded that significant economies of scale are possible, especially in large urban areas due to high demand for transportation services. This can lead to lower marginal costs as the number of services provided increases. Conversely, urban transit systems are typically subsidized because they provide benefits to the community, such as reduced traffic congestion and pollution, which may justify the need for subsidies in the eyes of urban policymakers.