That's an interesting way to think about it. For my city (Edmonton) it seems like if you're well off you're going to be living in a community in the city. It's the middle-class who are paying for a much larger home for a less convenient location.

This is in line with what I was trying to say. Basically, you might have a lousy long commute where this would be very valuable. But then you probably can't afford this car.

Ah, I got confused by the "I guess that could be much of your commute if you're a poor schlub" part, because I would assume they'd get up to highway speeds to end up wherever they live, whereas someone more well off wouldn't hit that.

Where on earth do you sit in traffic that doesn't burst up above 40mph every now and then? It's called stop and go, not go consistently below 40mph. Sounds like this wasn't well thought out. In LA, you'd be in traffic going 80, then screech to a halt, then back up to 80. Even on my commute into Downtown Seattle where people drive slow as fuck, there were always openings between onramps where it was no problem to hit 40. That's such a low bar.

Yeah, I agree. This seems like it would be useful for stretches on 405, but not likely the bulk of a trip. Where I live, I could see it being useful for a decent chunk of 101, which could amount to 30 mins each way, each day.

I wonder if it drops down into a less-capable driver-assist mode when the speed goes higher, such that you can still just monitor the system for nearly all of your trip. Or does it drop you out into full human-driving mode?