It's tough to measure "demand" as such. When people decide not to take as many trips because gas costs too much, we may see consumption stagnate or decline, but technically (in the economic sense) "demand" has remained the same or may even have grown. All we can objectively measure is consumption.

Perhaps you can do something with polls, asking people how much more they would drive if gas were cheaper, how much less if it were more expensive. I've occasionally seen polls like that here and there; oddly, they only ever ask the second question, about gas getting more expensive. And people always say the same thing, they won't drive any less.

I don't know if I believe these polls, because they are asking people about hypotheticals and their actual responses might be different if the situations became real. They may also represent a certain stubbornness or defiance or even manipulativeness when people insist that they won't drive less.

I wonder if we would get more honest responses by asking if people would drive more if gas were cheaper. Suppose people are being manipulative, and trying to exaggerate the negative impact of higher prices, in order to rally political support for measures to keep prices low. Then they might similarly exaggerate the positive impact of lower prices, in order to gather support for measures to bring prices down. In that case they would claim to drive no less if prices rose, implying little elasticity, but to drive much more if prices fell, implying great elasticity. This would at least expose any such inconsistency and help us to evaluate the credibility of the answers, and also might give us a methodological tool: we could average the two results and perhaps get a better estimate of true elasticity of demand, giving insight into the shape of the demand curve.

if oil goes upto $100 a barrel?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24333447.htm

WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - If the price of crude oil ever jumps to $100 a barrel and sends gasoline costs soaring, you're better off living in New York City than just about anywhere else, according to a study released on Friday.

who pays for this research and why??

Interestingly, New Yorkers actually have just about the smallest environmental impact of any large group of Americans.

Why?  Because their "environmental footprint" is very small by American standards.

In sub/exurbia people occupy half an acre (or more) for a 2400 - 5000 sq ft house.  In NYC families occupy a fraction of the floor space and a TINY fraction of the land (thanks to building vertically).  In the 'urbs people have several cars per family and NEVER use mass transit (which typically isn't conveniently available anyway).  In NYC most people don't even own a vehicle and commute by foot and mass transit.

Why would this interest anyone?  If you are interested in the issue of peak oil, it should interest you:  New Yorker's can get by on much less energy than most Americans and a whole lot less oil energy.

The weakness of New York is Manhatten.  High rises take MUCH more energy per square foot than low rises (alhough not oil energy bye and large).

Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and even Bronx - good.  Manhatten - not so good.

BTW, preKatrina, the residents of The Big Easy were in a statistical tie with the residents of The Big Apple for fewest miles driven annually.