Here's a start: a 1997 DOE report on the CNG fleet. Of course, it needs updating viz. current energy costs to be useful. It also contained the statement that "total hydrocarbon emissions from the CNG trucks were consistently greater than those from the diesel trucks. However, hydrocarbon emissions from natural gas vehicles are typically 90% to 95% methane." Given that methane is a serious GHG, I find it a cause for concern.

Something else to consider: LNG. LNG increases the range of a vehicle by a factor of six over an CNG vehicle for the equivalent volume of fuel. I also think it might be safer to be carrying LNG at atmospheric pressure than canisters of highly pressurized CNG.

I just want to point out that unless there is a reliable supply of methane available (say from a landfill) using CNG is probably worse than using oil domestically because our domestica natural gas production is set to go over a cliff (or steep slope) faster than global oil ever could (knock on wood). But if you can get it from a landfill, that's great. Or if you want to make the investment now, with the idea that it'll be slim pickin's (probably) for a few years and then we'll have this beautiful LNG infrastructure built to import from the same countries that caused our illustrious president to talk about addictions.
Yes, I see this as a way to create a complete system that collects methane from it's landfills, then uses some of that methane to collect more trash, then use some of the excess energy for other municipal vehicles, heating homes, generating electricity or cooking fuel.
I'm sensing a disconnect here. NYC can collect methane from its existing (but closed) landfills. Do they generate enough to fuel the trucks? "New" garbage is shipped out of state or burned for energy. How is NYC going to get the gas generated from the out-of-state landfills back into the city to fuel the trash trucks? I suppose the transfer trucks (those large, over-the-road trucks traveling between NYC and the landfills) could be fueled at the landfills, but not the NYC trash trucks. Also, even if you fueled the transfer trucks, you'd run into the CNG range-limitation of 100 miles or so (which could be overcome by LNG, but that's another thread).
Absolutely agree ... If we have a direct link where a large share (if not all) the gas would come out of the dumps/landfills, then it becomes a counterproductive as we've passed peak natural gas in the United States, as I understand it, and the prices are already extremely volatile.  

RE trash trucks, it seems that this is a fleet that is extremely open to hybrid technologies due to the constant braking and stop/go activity. (Which would have the community 'good' of making less noise much of the time ...)  This hybrid can be with an air compression or hydraulic (rather than electrical) system.

Thus, hybrid CNG trash trucks that are getting their "fossil" fuel directly from the trash they carry, reducing the methane gas emissions from the dump into the atmosphere.

That is an attractive prospect ...

This looks like the first generation of CNG trucks ever developed so there was probably some leakage or engine inefficiency at play to cause the increased emissions. I believe that much of these problems have been worked through. But yes, depending on the emission levels and different types of emissions CNG should only be deployed if it is a net reduction in GHG. That's why I'm so interested in knowing how this generation of trucks are doing.