Irrelevant

With (this particular version of) the warp drive:

"It does not take appreciably more time and energy to go 100,000 light-years than to go one."
-Poul Anderson, Planet Of No Return (London, 1971), Chapter 3, p. 20.

Why not? That seemed wrong and counter-intuitive to me.

However, Wells' Time Machine and Anderson's mutant time travelers take time to "time travel" whereas Anderson's Time Patrol timecycles do not. If you can get yourself into some state where all places and times are equidistant, then you do not need time to get from any one place or time to any other.

In these interstellar spaceships:

the engines build up "...toward the potentials beyond which the omega effect sets in." (Chapter 4, p. 25);

the ship leaves "...normal energy levels..." (ibid.);

the atoms readjust to non-Dirac matrices;

there is blackness outside the viewports;

the ship can neither accelerate nor spin because there is nothing for it to move in relation to;

"...for the duration of the trip, she was irrelevant to the four-dimensional universe." (ibid.)

The trip is not instantaneous but is irrelevant and therefore does not take a period of time corresponding to the spatial distance between its departure and arrival points.

For other means of interstellar travel, see:

Another Means Of FTL
STL Or FTL?
SF Props: FTL And "Phase Velocity"
Subdimensional Quasivelocity?
Appeasement And FTL
Warp
Time Travelling And Space Jumps II