The aim of this research is to analyse the controversy surrounding the conceptual links between mobility and time. In recent years, new aspects of mobility have been highlighted, especially its relationship with transport time: this time, which is often perceived as wasted and unproductive by transport engineers and decision-makers (instrumental rationality), whereas it can be seen as productive or relaxing if it is comfortable (Kaufmann, 2002; Lyons et al, 2005; 2016). In 1970, Hägerstand advocated for decision-makers to consider the temporal framework at an individual level to improve quality of life through the concept of Time Geography. The lived and thought experience of time on an individual scale was addressed in 1992 by Lefebvre: he highlights the important struggle around time and social space, particularly in its use. Rosa (2013, 2014) theorises that acceleration is the driving force behind modern societies, resulting in stress and temporal scarcity at the individual level. To overcome this, Rosa (2021) proposes the concept of resonance, which allows individuals to be transformed by the world, rather than having an instrumental relationship with it. To analyse the controversy, this work considers the interdepency between two levels of actors: at first, the individual, which includes all mobile people in a geographical space, and secondly, governance, from the perspective of operators and politicians in the transport field. Precisely, It will focus on: the duality between the lived experience of time and the desire for quality of time at the level of the individual and the temporal optimisation advocated at the level of governance; the discrepancy between the notion of resonance and the rhythms socialized by the former, which are favored by the social norms thought out and promoted by the latter; and finally, the overall imbalance between the temporal supply of activities on a given territory and demand.