The New Bus for London (NBfL), also known as the New Routemaster, the Boris Bus and the Tory Mayor’s Entirely Shameless Vanity Project (copyright: Team Livingstone) promises a number of environmental advantages over not only its conventional diesel counterparts but also fellow hybrid buses already operating in the capital.

Transport for London (TfL) tells me that on a simulated London bus route at the Millbrook proving ground the test model NBfL emitted 640 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometre compared with 864 grams for a current hybrid and 1,295 grams for a current diesel. It threw out 3.96 grams of mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx) per kilometre, compared with 7.7 grams from other hybrids and 9.3 grams from a diesel. And its fuel consumption was 11.6 miles per gallon, as against 8.6 for a a current hybrid and 5.8 for a standard diesel under similar test conditions.

Sounds pretty good, though I feel bound to point out that even the NBfL needs a bit of diesel in the tank to make its electric motor work and if it doesn’t get enough, embarrassment can ensue – a matter I now pledge never to mention again. But with only eight of Wrightbus’s creations ordered to join a fleet that was 8,528 strong as of March this year, how green is the capital’s surface public transport these days?

Not as green as had been hoped when Boris became mayor, I’m afraid. When TfL announced in December 2008 that it was to quadruple London’s hybrid count to 56 it also said that “a further 300 hybrid buses will be in operation by 2011,” and that it and Boris’s commitment to hybrid technology meant that “by 2012″ it expected all new buses joining the fleet to be hybrids. A roll out of 500 a year was anticipated, which would have been the largest in Europe.

Come March 2010 TfL was still sticking to its commitment that by 2012 all newcomers to the fleet would hybrids, but the expectation that “a further 300″ would appear by 2011 on top of the 56 previously announced had changed to 300 altogether. And last month, Green Party AM Darren Johnson was told in a written answer by Boris and TfL commissioner Peter Hendy that the target date for 300 hybrids was now “by 2012.” As for all newcomers to the fleet being hybrids by then, that hope had bitten the dust. The written answer says:

TfL plans to introduce approximately 800 new buses in 2012/13, of which 52 will be hybrids.

Just 52 out of 800. The answer also said that there are 133 diesel-electric hybrids operating at the moment, with a further 184 on order.

Why the problem? As the Boris/Hendy answer also says, the price of hybrids “has not reduced as originally anticipated.” A man at TfL tells me that it’s basically down to the confidence of the companies that lease vehicles to the route operators. Hybrids haven’t been around very long, so they’ve yet to prove their staying power over the dozen or more years required. That makes the leasing companies wary of investing in them, which means smaller orders for the bus manufacturers, which keeps the prices of the buses high, which puts the operators off buying them – yer basic economies of scale.

The TfL man stressed that they’re doing all they can to build the confidence required to bring the price of a hybrid down from the £300,00-315,000 mark to something nearer the roughly £190,000 of a conventional double decker. It will be interesting to see how many additional NBfLs at £330,000 a shout Wrightbus is asked to provide.

Further comment on the NBfL can be read at Autocar. All previous installment of Boris’s Bus (A Political Journey) can be read here.

From Boris Johnson’s transport strategy:

In the life of the strategy, the Mayor may consider road user charging schemes if other measures at his disposal are deemed insufficient to meet the strategy’s goals and where there is a reasonable balance between the objectives of any scheme and its costs and other impacts.

It’s point E21 in the executive summary – see page 19. Similar material was present in previous mayor Ken Livingstone’s transport strategy too. Some London Conservatives and Ken-haters, who’d convinced themselves that Transport for London was a conspiracy of Communist vegetarians, leaped upon this as proof of hidden agendas to ban go-faster stripes, cross-dress Mondeo Man, nationalise the Victoria sponge and so on.

Such screams of outraged discovery have not been repeated under Ken’s successor, despite the existence of point E21. This is unsurprising. Boris has cut the congestion charging zone in half and made plain his view that extending it to the suburbs would be “a blatant tax on the motorist.” Please note in passing that Boris calls the C-charge a “charge” when he’s feeding the media tales of billing Obama for his embassy’s poor manners, but a “tax” when he’s thinking of ballot boxes in Bromley.

But whatever it’s name, he’s against more of it. And so, for now at least, is Ken who has ruled out bringing back the western extension that Boris – in the end rather reluctantly – abolished should he re-take City Hall in May. This a sad state of affairs given that estimates of the annual cost of congestion to London’s economy range from £2 billion to £4 billion and that it is calculated that 4,000 Londoners a year die prematurely as a result of poor air quality generated mostly by road traffic.

The report commissioned by the London Assembly’s Greens published last Friday is therefore very welcome. Compiled by Professor John Whitelegg, it is called Pay-as-you-go: managing traffic impacts in a world-class city, and takes as its premise that Boris’s ambition to make London the “best big city in the world” cannot be released unless its road traffic is controlled more effectively.

The report reviews research which has found congestion charging effective wherever it’s been introduced and looks at technological advances that would make a London-wide pay-as-you-go road pricing system technically possible. It addresses the problem of selling such a radical idea to the public as follows:

Public support is very closely linked to concepts of fairness and equity. In the context of London with millions of trips being made by public transport, walking and cycling it is self-evidently fair to levy a charge on the much smaller number of car trips that cause a much larger environmental burden than non-car trips. If that revenue is then deployed for the benefit of all Londoners and for a cleaner, greener London then that is likely to win and retain public support.

This may seem madly optimistic in view of recent public rejections of congestion charging in Manchester and Edinburgh, an issue explored by a man from London Travelwatch at the City Hall launch of the report. He reminded us that mayor Livingstone introduced charging in the face of opposition from everyone from (surprise, surprise) the Evening Standard to his own advisors and that not every politician is as single-minded and ready to take big risks as Ken.

Still, as the report points out, road pricing is unusual in that it unites economist concerned with efficiency, enivronmentalists concerned with pollution and CO2 emissions, and social justice campaigners who want transport policies that help women, children and those on low incomes. There is also the question of London’s need to raise money in the age of austerity. Professor Whitelegg reaches the following conclusion:

The revenue benefits of a London-wide pay as you go scheme are substantial and it is highly unlikely that the objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy can be achieved in an era of declining public finance, rising costs of supplying and maintaining public transport operations and no significant increase in revenue from road pricing.

Put in very clear language it is our view that a London-wide road pricing scheme is essential and without it congestion will worsen, air pollution will worsen, the legal consequences of failing to meet air quality standards will grow in severity and fall on the GLA, the health of Londoners will suffer, CO2 reduction targets will be missed and London will stand no chance whatsoever in achieving “best in class” status that it so richly deserves.

Read the whole report here.