AAA says that U.S. gasoline prices hit a record on Tuesday and will probably keep climbing into the summer, according to Reuters.
Average regular gasoline prices touched an all-time high of $3.227 per gallon, up 27 cents in a month and surpassing the previous peak hit in May 2007, AAA said in its daily survey of more than 85,000 self-serve filling stations.
The travel group said it expected pump prices to rise further in the coming months, breaking above $4 a gallon in some areas by summer, when road travel typically peaks.
Are you prepared for $4 a gallon gas this summer?
Retail gasoline price hits record: AAA [Reuters]
(Photo:REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni)
More From Consumerist
-
Get Fueled Up Before Turkey Day: National Average Gas Prices Could Hit Record High
-
Despite High Gas Prices, Plenty Of Americans Hitting The Highways & Byways This Labor Day Weekend
-
BP's Bad Gas Made It Into 200 Stations In Chicago Area, Affecting At Least 7,000 Customers
-
California Relaxes Smog Controls In Effort To Bring Down Gas Prices
-
Gas Station Owners Protest Lukoil Price Discrepancies By Ratcheting Fuel Up To $9.99 Per Gallon
@Canerican:
Alaskans support ANWR drilling because their Permanent Fund checks will skyrocket if it’s tapped.
@full.tang.halo:
Right…the BMW diesel. I saw diesel prices already hitting $4.02 here in New York (87 was $3.30). Not sure what kind of fuel mileage that car will get, but will it be worth the extra 72 cents per gallon?
@OsiUmenyiora: Whenever I post anything like what you just posted anywhere on the Internet, people attack me and argue that they can’t change. I guess some people can’t face reality.
That’s also why the US has such a beef with Venezuela and Iran, they are both starting to trade oil in Euros instead of Dollars exclusively.
Thank God for public transportation! When I started work at my current job I had an under 6 mile commute that took nearly 30 minutes and made my 95 Corolla drop from ~30mpg to in the mid 20′s.
The the company changed locations, which only lengthed the commute to 10 miles, but lenghted the trip each way to 45 minutes. Happily it’s right down the street from the MARTA station. Buying that monthly pass for $52.50 upfront sucked at first, but when I can get by on 5 gallons or so per week I learned to love it.
I’m cheap though, I’m getting an inexpensive bicycle so that I can cut out the 3 mile round trip to the MARTA station in the mornings, and then I’ll only use my car to drive to my fiance’s house on Saturdays and to go to church on Sundays. (Though the church trip could be converted to a bike ride if I took back roads)
This realy hits my fiance hard though, she lives on the west side of Atlanta, away from her work, school, and church, but doesn’t really have the option to move right now.
I am so glad I bought a Civic instead of an Accord (debated over this at the time of purchase). The Accord isn’t a gas guzzler, but the Civic definitely gets better mileage. Everyone told me to get the bigger car, but I’ve only needed a little car. Plus, I get gas 2-3s a month so my pocketbook isn’t going to be hit too hard–but I do worry about the rise in price affecting everything else–goods, food, travel, etc . . . that’s what’s got me really worried, not what I pay at the pump but the trickle effect into the economy.
@hwyengr: Alaskans have a pretty good scam going. They get more money from the federal government than any other state, in relation to what they pay in federal taxes. Meanwhile their state government gives them free money instead of taxing them. The audacity of that, and the fact that the rest of the country puts up with it, is pretty amazing when you think about it.
@less_is_best: I can’t speak to the buses where you live, but the 60-passenger bus I ride is full every morning.
@johnva: They “can’t change” because they’ve already invested so much in their current lifestyles that they can’t imagine changing. If you were heavily invested in a mortgage and two car loans, and the only way of life you’ve ever known involved driving everywhere every day all the time for everything, then your imagination would be stunted too. But it doesn’t really matter because as you say change is going to find them. It’s coming. It’s just a matter of how prepared we’ll be.
@OsiUmenyiora: No, suburbia is not going anywhere. Urban living and suburban living are such different experiences that it’s hard even to compare them. There will always be people who prefer the latter, and who will make other compromises in order to avoid living in congested, overpopulated, and often dangerous cities.
(Not too long ago, I moved from Manhattan to the SoCal suburbs. I myself might be happier moving back to a more urban environment, but I can tell you one thing for sure: you can’t take these people and cram them and their 2.5 kids into a 640 square foot apartment with no air conditioning, and charge them the same price.)
Also, many suburbs have developed their own independent economies, to such an extent that some people commute from the city to the *suburb* to work. Obviously, places like that aren’t going to evaporate because of an extra $30 at the gas pump.
I suppose some of the newer, built-on-credit communities which have no industries of their own are most at risk. Some of those places never became fully functioning communities before the real estate and credit crash; they might not survive in their current form. Even still, I’m not really sure if energy prices alone could ever kill suburban communities. It could surely prompt the development of more public transportation options, though.
I’d prefer to live in a more urban setting, closer to where I work, but I can’t afford it. Denser housing costs more to build, so it skews towards luxury condos that can command higher prices. The people who can least afford an expensive commute are the ones who end up pushed out to the fringes. The phrase “drive ’till you qualify” is in common usage around here, meaning you should drive away from the city until you find a house cheap enough that you qualify for the mortgage.
@modenastradale: Public transportion doesn’t work nearly as efficiently and economically in big low-density suburbs. It works better when people can walk or bike to the public transit network.
Some people may prefer living in suburbs; that much is obvious. The question will be whether anyone except for the wealthiest people will be able to afford it. I doubt they will go away entirely, but I do think that if the long-term trend continues to be towards higher energy prices then we will see more of a movement towards housing being built in high-density cities. Such living arrangements may not be what everyone would choose if they had a choice, but they make more centralized (and thus possibly more energy efficient) transport of goods and people more economical.
@modenastradale: I agree with much of what you say. However, I’m not talking about just an extra $30 at the gas pump. I’m talking about fossil fuel scarcity where you’re just not going to be able to get it at all sometimes. With a crashing dollar and rising energy prices, the affluent suburbs (what I said in my first post) are going to choke as they try to pay for their gas bills, their heating and cooling bills, and the inevitable big box store inflation that will occur when Wal-mart can no longer afford to operate its huge fleet of diesel trucks. There will be thrashing and denial and the obliteration of a large part of our food supply as people try to run their cars on corn in order to eke out whatever value remains of their misguided investment in suburban sprawl, but in the end that way of living will end or be forever altered in a major way. And whatever happens, real estate prices in places where driving is a necessity are going to plummet.
@snowmentality: I think looking at gas saving alone is a very 1 dimentional view of the subject. I was debating getting a Pius then realized the cost savings weren’t worth the cost considering normal use circumstances.
1) Cost of financing. Financing a cost of a $24k car over a $17k car over 5 years?
2) Cost of insurance. The price differnce will create a small price diff in the insurance rates.
3) Normally people turn over their cars every 3-4 years. Will anyone even recoup their investment in hybrid technology in that time?
4) When you hit the 100,000 – 150,000 mile mark, the battery will have decayed from all the charge/release cycles. Either you’ll have to replace the battery, or milage will dramatically decrease.
My real point is people worry too much about gas prices, but buy cars they can’t afford. It’s not the gas’s fault people are poor. It’s poor decision making that makes people poor. As easy as it is to buy a hybrid car, it’s even easier to save even more money to buy an old beat-up car.
@Orv: That is indeed a problem. The country will probably need to reorganize around more Main Street-type communities where shops and services are available locally from your neighbors — you know, the kind of Main Street communities that Wal-mart and strip malls killed off years ago.
However, “denser” housing doesn’t cost more to build. If it’s built in a more desirable urban neighborhood instead of a paved over cornfield then it will be more expensive because of its location. But per unit it’s not more expensive to construct, and is actually a lesser strain on infrastructure such as roads, sewers, water mains, etc.
OK, there is a lot of animosity on the subject of ANWR.
Let’s look at it objectively:
Drilling in ANWR would not significantly affect the price of oil, and it would not do so for several years.
Drilling in ANWR would replace about 5% of US demand.
However, 5% of US demand is significant when considering our oil usage from a foreign security standpoint. Of the 20MM gallons we use, the US produces about 13MM GPD. We import about 3MM gallons from countries outside of the Middle East.
That leaves 4 MM GPD that we import from the Middle East. Replacing 1MM GPD of that is significant. If national security is important to you, this is meaningful.
The pristine nature of ANWR itself is certainly of some import, but I would offer that it is relatively minor, given the lack of enthusiasm, funding and the fact that few people ever go there to experience that nature.
Also, the people that do live in Alaska see a whole lot of money sloshing around because of oil, so they aren’t exactly objective on this topic.
All in all, I see both sides, but ultimately I fall on the side of not drilling in ANWR for a simple reason: the only thing that is going to get us off oil is an increasing price of oil. Therefore, to serve the long term goal of the decline of fossil fuels, we must encourage things that make them more expensive relative to other energy options.
Anwar, if fully utilized (laid barren in a toxic sludge of waste), will meet the US’ oil needs for… Wait for it…
Two weeks.
Back to the drawing boards, polar bear-haters.
Jack the CAFE standards up by 2-3MPG and we’ll save more than Anwar’s entire output. Every year. Bump it up to 6 or 8 MPG more over 12 years, say, and we’ll have just “discovered” 2 or 3 more Anwars.
But then I guess lard-ass won’t be able to put his 8th Big Gulp cup in a holder, so the Terrorists Will Win or some-such.
This is why I’m glad to live near a subway station and I have seen it become more and more packed as gas prices have gone up. I wouldn’t be surprised if I won’t be able to find a seat when I get on the train, even if I am at the end of the line.
Didn’t they say $4 a gallon around this time last year… and we never got there? This year though we’re really trending to hit that. We’re at about $3.34 to $3.59/gal. here… although one place is showing $4.49/gal. but that HAS to be a typo… right?
I really need to get that bike. I drive a Corolla and my hubby has an older VW. We get good mileage, but it’s tough to pay for the gas with one full time income and graduate school bills.
Well, gee. If you don’t want to drill for oil in Anwar or off the coasts and if you are sitting in the Middle East with an army and don’t just take the oil there, then perhaps you are in a tight spot. When the environmental wackos control the Democratic party, we all suffer. I hope gas goes to $10 a gallon. I can afford it. Then maybe we will wake up.
@modenastradale: You’re right: public transportation can’t be a way of life except in a densely populated area. What I was really suggesting is that far-flung communities will start finding ways to finance better rail networks to the major business centers, so that commuters can still commute. Already, quite a few people find it economical to own an extra, cheap car and leave it at the rail station rather than commute by car. If energy prices continue to rise astronomically, I suspect more people will start finding that option economical (before they’d consider cramming their families into a coat closet on 609th St.).
I’m skeptical that builders are going to refocus on dense urban centers. It’s very expensive to build in those places, so you’re unlikely to see the kind of entry-level development that would be approachable by financially displaced ex-suburbanites. Further, I’m not sure that goods transportation *is* more efficient in cities. My experience has always been that everything from delivery charges, to bus fares, to parking, to goods prices themselves are much higher in cities than in suburbs. I don’t know that the theoretical efficiencies of urban density actually occur in the real world.
@Buran: You just gave me an idea… I’m going to try 89 octane (I’ve commonly used 87) and see what it does for my mileage in my 1999 Nissan Altima GXE…
Today, Templeton, CA. Chevron at Las Tablas and 101 has Premium for $4.00 even.
@OsiUmenyiora: Nah, I think those kinds of predictions are the result of taking just a few variables and considering them in isolation.
If and when fossil fuels become that expensive, it will either happen gradually (if steeply) over a period of years, or suddenly because of an unexpected kink in the supply chain. Regardless, I don’t think the long-term result will be that different.
If we go the gradual route, you will probably see more and more investment into researching alternative energy sources, along with corresponding technological gains. Even with today’s technology, it would probably be feasible to replace a large chunk of our energy needs with a combination of nuclear power and hydrogen storage. That’s not presently a politically feasible solution, but in the longer term people would probably overcome their aversion to nuclear power in the face of impossible living costs.
Of course, it won’t have to occur with today’s technology. Solar may well turn out to be the Next Big Thing, especially if (as predicted) it becomes possible to produce low-maintenance solar panels at cheap prices. Storage and transportation technologies still must be engineered, but those are very practical, approachable challenges.
If oil prices suddenly, discontinuously spike because of some unforeseen event, then yes, we will have a very painful short-run. But in the end, I still suspect that technological advancement will end up making the difference – not a widespread return to ascetic lifestyles.
Welcome to Los Angeles, baby.
Hey! That’s my Chevron station on Cahuenga.
Well, not really my station. I pass it by though, on my way to other stations in the neighborhood which are generally .15 – .20 cheaper.
And, yes, you can absolutely blame Cheney/Bush for the price of oil/drop in value of the dollar. Everything is interconnected. Take an economics class.
Once gas hits $3.50/gallon here in Minnesota, I made a promise to my self I won’t drive unless I absolutely have to.
I will bike up to 30 miles to friends’ houses if I don’t have to carry a heavy load.
@Trai_Dep: CAFE is a bad law. It gave rise to the SUV. It never works to tell companies they can’t build what customers want; it just leads to market distortions, and the SUV is a great example. Customers still wanted big cars, so when CAFE made it impossible to keep making large station wagons truck-like SUVs appeared instead.
We’d be far better off giving people incentives to buy fuel-efficient cars, and letting the resulting market signals cause manufacturers to make them.
@sir_eccles: Yeah, I do all that and I don’t drive more than I have to (I miss the days of carefree day-long country drives… and I drive a German car designed to be a fun drive, too, but one with good mileage). If only more people did. I’ve grown real tired of people deciding I’m going too slowly, and swerving from right behind me to right in front of me only to get stuck behind the car I was stuck behind in the first place.
Flooring it like that is one of the worst things you can do for your mileage. Don’t do it, calm down, and you’ll just get there a minute or two later! Big deal!
@full.tang.halo: There was a bad run of O2 sensors from a supplier a few years back, that was happening to a lot of people no matter what you used for gas. Check your manual, like I said. If the manual says you can do it and the car won’t take it and breaks down, you need to take it in for servicing because it isn’t meeting the minimum requirements specified by the manufacturer.
I call $6.00 per gallon by the fall of 2008!
@forgottenpassword: Sorry, time has passed you by…..most modern cars have anti-siphon built in. Including mine.
@OsiUmenyiora: I see that I wasn’t the only one who read that article in The Atlantic.
@less_is_best: Depends on time of day. Bet rush hour is different.
@SactoKev: We could drill ANWR right now but it would be years before we see any production from it. And then we could forget it, the oil companies would sell it to countries that have hard currency, which won’t be us.
@ericole:No argument…fact. Flat supply, increased demand, and two major countries, India and China with a rapidly growing middle class that wants to be mobile too, with the cash to do it.
“Suddenly taking the bus doesn’t sound so bad….”
@CreativeLinks: Sorry, it still sounds really bad to me.
Fact is $4, $5, $6 gas won’t change anyone’s habits. I won’t see less cars on the road. I won’t see less parking spots filled up. Not gonna happen.
“What if he prosecuted the oil companies under existing laws that make illegal war profiteering?”
@SkokieGuy: Please cite these phantom laws.
@Papa Midnight: I’m not sure how much of a difference you’ll see – higher-octane gas will just give you more knock resistance. You will most likely find it a waste of money, but I agree – run a tank and see what difference there is. You may (this is my guess) not see one, but you tried, and it won’t cost you much more just for one experimental tank.
Why is no one spouting the ludicrous crap about how biofuels will save us (after we starve because we’re using all the corn for fuel, and the fish are dead because of the runoff from the biofuel plants).
But don’t worry, the runoff story is from some crazy internet site…[www.nytimes.com]
@doctor_cos: You say this as if corn were the only way to produce biofuel. Corn is a ridiculously inefficient means of producing ethanol, and the only reason it’s as cheap as it is (and why it’s even being considered) is because of government subsidy.
If we’re going to get serious about biofeuls, we should start growing sugar beets.
If biofuel is going to work and not compete with food crops, it needs to be made from feedstocks that aren’t edible and can be grown on land not suitable for food crops. We’re not there yet, but there are some interesting possibilities on the horizon.
Whiny Americans! Come to Canada! I live on the East Coast, New Brunswick to be precise. Its $1.09 per litre for the cheapest gas available. Thats over $4 a gallon if you’re unsure of metric conversions and it has been quite a bit higher in the past. I feel so bad for you all and your terribly back breaking gas prices.
@Orv: Forgive me, but I don’t really understand the theory behind biofuels. Aren’t we replacing one non-renewable energy source with another? Even if you find a crop and land that won’t intefere with the food supply, you’ll still have the problem of having to fertilize the land. Plants don’t just pop up out of thin air; they require tangible resources to grow.
It seems to me that it would be much wiser to focus on things like solar, wind, hydro, and even nuclear.
@A.W.E.S.O.M.-O: And if you believe everything you read on Edmunds, you’re a fool. I live in deer country – we have huge lighted signs with alternately flashing lights on our highways that say “Deer – High Kill Area”. Everyone here knows you NEVER accelerate when you see a deer because where there is one, there is more and you don’t know where. You see deer, you hit your brakes.
Also, if you take the time to check your mirror before braking, you just totaled your car. The car behind you should have enough room to stop without hitting you, or else they are tailgating you.
When I lived in Germany from 1987-1991 their gas prices were about the equivalent of $3.00 a gallon. We used gas coupons from the US gov’t at the Esso stations to get it at a very reduced price. I’m glad we traded our van for a small car (30 mpg!).
If this is what it takes to get the car companies, individual inventors and corporations to push harder for a replacement to gasoline powered cars, then I’m all for it. Yeah, it’s going to hurt, but when the petrodollar slowly dries up – all you’re left with is a handful of nations that built decadent skylines with no other viable skillsets to sustain itself.
One of the USA’s greatest days?… when we tell the OPEC cartel to go fuck itself instead of kissing their asses. While we’re at it, all the hedge assholes who passively manipulate the price should be kicked in the groin as well.
People in Canada and places like Italy get health care in their price of gas so of course they are higher. I could afford that price fo gas too if I didn’t pay for health insurance. Or people on medicaid.
Yep today it went up to 110.9 a liter here in the national capital of Canada.. I am actually heading down to the US at the end of the week and I am glad for 3.50 a gallon gas, it’s still cheaper!
@modenastradale: well, the right biofuel could make a big difference. Although, no magic bullet (that’s the conundrum of this mess we’ve gotten ourselves into).
Prairie grass won’t require water, fertilizer, tending and supports native species. Unlike corn which is the polar opposite on all of these. And since puny humans only have one stomach, there’s no displacement of food supplies.
The tough (really tough) thing is that the energy is stored in the form of cellulose, which while incredibly abundant compared to sugar or carbs, is tough to break down into a biofuels-friendly form.
THAT would be a very nice thing. Economically and environmentally. But it’s a tough nut to crack.
Less pie-in-the-sky, let’s-wait-another-three-decades than hydrogen, but still, a tough nut to crack. Hopeful towards that, though.
It’s already over $4 a gallon at several gas stations here in the San Francisco bay area.
You can get engine kits to convert a bicycle into a moped (and retaining pedals, so you can do without the engine if you’re so inclined) for around $500 for a good quality one. Such kits routinely crank out 200+ miles to the gallon fuel efficiency, and some edge up towards 300 mpg. Something to think about, the way fuel prices are going…
@Osi..
And I suppose that public transit runs off fairy dust? You obviously don’t live in Chicago, where our public transit system can’t go two months without threatening a shutdown due to budget shortfalls.
You hit the nail on the head with the affluent suburban life taking a hit though – but it’s not the commute, it’s more the people living off of credit to keep up with the Jones’.
Diesel is already around $4.09 near me (western suburbs of Chicago) – in the city it’s up to $4.39 in some stations. Prices were jumping up to $3.43-3.45 today. I topped off at a station that was still $3.27, even though I had half a tank left. (Thank goodness for getting around 30 MPG in my Civic!)