SIR - While I appreciate Liz Tucker's offer to explain her party's transport strategy it would be pointless. No politician will accept building too many houses causes traffic congestion. Therefore they will not accept that the solution to traffic congestion is to stop building houses.

Liz Tucker cannot explain how buses could carry the people who now make half a million journeys in our city daily by car, or how buses could carry the 70,000 travelling locally during our rush hours.

And she's not going to accept park-and-ride is a disaster, despite people waiting a total of three hours to get to and from Worcester's recent concert, via "Spetchley park-and-ride." Nor will she explain what good that is for people wanting to get to and from work reliably. Even though our council has swapped 100-seater buses for some 50-seater buses, she won't admit the radial route is a disaster and she won't explain why "empty" 300, 303, W1, W2, and W3 buses don't pick up all passengers.

Why should people use a bus, when a car gets them where they want to be in a fraction of the time? And what's the point of a public transport system, when in the evenings, and all day Sunday, people have to walk, get a taxi, or wait an hour for a bus?

Liz Tucker should know that buses, even if brimful on every journey, could only cope with about two per cent of those travelling around our city by car. That renders our buses a "dead duck" for the mass movement of people quickly and efficiently. Building another 10,000 houses here will increase road traffic, in our city by a quarter. That's another 80,000 car journeys a day on our already congested roads. That massive increase in Worcester's traffic has only one solution that will work. It's don't build the houses! Making that decision throws a huge spanner into the works of every political party, because they then have to address immense sustainability issues, which they have all, till now, papered over with transport strategies.

N TAYLOR