Are we talking about transferring the maximum number of cars or about an individual car reaching its destination in the shortest possible time?
Lets look at optimum speed to transfer the maximum number of cars first. Lets make a huge assumption that everyone is following the accepted guidelines of leaving 2 seconds travelling time between their vehicle and the one in front of them. to make the maths simple lets assume that the distance is measured from the centre of the car to avoid complicating the equation by the length of the vehicle.
Based on that assumption, it does not matter how fast they are going, the road will allow passage for the same number of cars per hour.
Taking it a stage further and allowing for the vehicles to have length, then obviously, the faster the vehicle goes, the less time it takes to travel its own length, so the faster they are travelling the more vehicles will be able to traverse a given length of road. One point for travelling faster.
Now for the shortest average time on the road: Its a no-brainer isn't it? The faster you can go the sooner you get there. We hear people say "It took a while to get here because the traffic was bad" have you ever heard someone say "It took a while to get here but the road was actually transferring the optimum number of cars". I have never heard anyone say that or even care about that. I do not know any traffic engineers or town planners.
If people are travelling in a 100km/hr zone and doing 70 or 80 instead of 100 surely it is because that stretch of road will not support that volume of traffic travelling at the posted speed limit. We get this on a daily basis in Melbourne, and I am sure in most other large/capital cities. Saying that you will get there faster by sitting on 80 instead of 100 is just government spin doctoring. The solution is to upgrade the roads, not to lie to the people. Not all of us are stupid.
Cheers
Doug