Tom O’Connor is Vice-President of Snavely King Majoros O’Connor & Lee (Snavely King), an economic and management consulting company. He has been engaged in the business of economic analysis for more than thirty years, beginning in 1973 as an economist with the Interstate Commerce Commission (now the Surface Transportation Board) and later in economic consulting and management positions of increasing responsibility with the United States Railway Association, Conrail, the Association of American Railroads and, from 1982 through 1988 with DNS, Associates and since 1988 with Snavely King Majoros O’Connor & Lee, (Snavely King), an economic and management consulting company focusing on telecommunications and transportation. Mr. O’Connor was Vice President and principal at DNS Associates and has been Vice President and principal of Snavely King since joining the firm in 1988.

He has provided testimony in a number of proceedings before courts and regulatory commissions in the United States and Canada including:

• Interstate Commerce Commission,
• Surface Transportation Board,
• United States Railway Association,
• Regulatory Commission in Indiana,
• Regulatory Commission in New York,
• Regulatory Commission in Pennsylvania,
• State Court in Montana,
• State Court in Virginia,
• Arbitration Panel in New York
• Mediation Panel in Massachusetts
• Canadian Crown Commission.
• US District Court for Eastern District of Virginia,
• US District Court for Arizona

Tom O’Connor’s practice centers on transportation with specific focus on litigation, negotiations and infrastructure issues including rationalization and redesign of the railroad infrastructure in the US as well as rebuilding of the railway infrastructure in Eastern Europe.

Mr. O’Connor’s work in Eastern Europe focused on both transportation and telecommunications.

Tom O’Connor Testimony in Federal Regulatory Cases

• The comparative merits of the Interstate Commerce Commission’s Uniform Rail Costing System (URCS) and Cost Center Accounting submitted to the ICC on behalf of the US Railroad industry in February 1980 in Docket No. 37203.
  
  
• The economics and computer technology of the Light Density Line Methodology used to define Conrail, submitted to USRA before a special hearing in 1980.
  
  
• Computerized transportation database design and use. Verified statement was submitted to ICC on behalf of the US Railroad industry in Nov 1980 in Ex Parte No. 385.
  
  
• The comparative merits of two regulatory rail-costing systems, URCS and Rail Form A, submitted to the ICC on behalf of the US Railroad industry in March 1981, in Ex Parte 399.
  
  
• Testimony on the Preliminary 1979 Rail Cost Study as released by the ICC, calling for adopting and improving URCS. This was submitted to the ICC on behalf of the US Railroad industry in Docket No. 37203 in February 1982.
  
  
• Rail costing using Rail Form a costs applied to service units generated by a computerized rail network model. This verified statement was submitted to the ICC on behalf of a shipper located in Nevada in July 1985 in ICC Docket Nos. 37809 and 37815S.
  
  
• Rail costing, also using Rail Form A costs applied to service units generated by computerized network model. This verified statement was submitted to ICC on behalf of a shipper located in Nevada in November, 1986 in Docket No. 37809, 37815S.
  
  
• Stand Alone Rail Costing, for use in rate reasonableness, using service units developed with a series of computerized network model. This verified statement was submitted to the ICC on behalf of the Association of American Railroads in September, 1988 in Docket No. 38239S
  
  
• Rail merger conditions, developed using rail costs and a computerized network model. This verified statement was submitted to the ICC in March 1994 in Finance Docket No. 21215 (Sub. No. 5)
  
  
• The effects of computerized methods on rail operations and costs. This verified statement was submitted to the ICC on behalf of Coleto Creek Utility in July 1994 in Docket No. 41242.
  
  
• The cost of rail coal transportation using URCS costs and A Stand Alone Network. This verified statement was submitted to the ICC on behalf of West Texas Utilities in April 1995 in Docket No. 41191.
  
  
• Further testimony on the cost of rail coal transportation using URCS costs and a Stand Alone Network. This verified statement was submitted to the ICC on behalf of West Texas Utilities in July 1995 in Docket No. 41191.
  
  
• Oral Argument on the effects of the BN-SF merger on rail costs and service presented before the full Commission in August, 1995 on behalf of Universal Forest Products in Finance Docket No. 32549.
  
  
• The effects of the UP-SP merger on costs, infrastructure and operations. Verified statement was submitted to ICC on Behalf of Kansas City Southern Railroad in March 1996 in Finance Docket No. 32760.
  
  
• Competitive truck transportation market. Joint Verified Statement with James Wells was submitted to Surface Transportation Board (STB) on behalf of TJ MAXX on June 22, 1998 in Docket No. 41192
  
  
• The investment plans of UP-SP to remedy effects of the UP-SP merger. Verified statement was submitted to STB on Behalf of Kansas City Southern Railroad in June, 1998 in Finance Docket No. 32760 UP-SP Merger Oversight Proceeding
  
  
• The Arkansas and Missouri Railroad Request For Discontinuance Waiver Filed on Behalf of Kansas City Southern Railroad. Verified statement was submitted to Surface Transportation Board (STB) in November1998 in Finance Docket No. 32670.
  
  
• Further testimony on the competitive truck transportation market. Joint Verified Statement with James Wells was submitted to Surface Transportation Board (STB) on behalf of TJMAXX in January, 1999 in Docket No. 41192
  
  
• Rail Merger Guidelines to develop new and improved merger analysis processes. Verified statements were submitted to Surface Transportation Board (STB) on behalf of OxyChem, Oxy Vinyls, BASF and Williams Energy Services in May 2000 in Ex Parte 582.
  
  
• Reply Testimony on Rail Merger Guidelines to develop new and improved merger analysis processes. Reply Verified statements were submitted to Surface Transportation Board (STB) on behalf of OxyChem, Oxy Vinyls, BASF and Williams Energy Services in June 2000 in Ex Parte 582.
  
  
• Testimony on Rail Costs and Rates. Verified statement was submitted to Surface Transportation Board (STB) on behalf of Peabody Energy Company June 2003 in Docket 42077.
  
  
• Testimony on Rail Costs and Rates. Verified statement was submitted to Surface Transportation Board (STB) June 2004 in Ex Parte 646.
  
  
• Testimony on Rail Costs and Rates. Oral testimony was presented to Surface Transportation Board (STB) July 2004 in Ex Parte 646.

Tom O’Connor -- State, Regional and Canadian Testimony

• Expert testimony centering on transportation rates and costs and the implications for antitrust matters. This testimony involved research and development of computerized cost and rate analyses for rail and truck service to Arizona and surrounding areas. The evidence is focuses on resolving antitrust allegations regarding certain construction materials. This evidence was developed and submitted on behalf of Solcon in May, 2003 with oral testimony at deposition in 2003. The case was under adjudication as Case No. CIV 01 01269 PHX ROS, United States District Court for the District of Arizona and has been settled.
  
  
• Expert testimony centering on commuter railroad operations and costs. This testimony involved design and development of computerized costing models of commuter rail operations. The evidence was central to arbitration to resolve subsidy disputes between New York and Connecticut. This evidence was developed and submitted on behalf of Metro North Commuter Railroad in August 1996 with oral testimony presented in February 1997. The case was decided successfully in favor of the client.
  
  
• Expert testimony centering on the effects of a series of explosions on transportation operations and costs. This was submitted on behalf of Washington Construction Company in a damages case filed by Burlington Northern Railroad in state court in Montana, First Judicial District Court, and Cause Number ADV 91-1885. The case went to a jury trial and was decided successfully in favor of the client in September 1993.
  
  
• Expert testimony centering on computerized network models. This was submitted in an antitrust case filed on behalf of Geoplex in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Geoplex Corporation v. CACI, Inc. Civil Action No. 89-610-A. This evidence was developed and submitted in November 1989.
  
  
• Expert testimony centering on transportation operations and costs. This was submitted on behalf of the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan before a Canadian Crown Commission in a series of hearings held in Winnipeg, Manitoba and Regina, Saskatchewan in 1976. This led to an historic change in Canadian transportation regulation.

In addition to these cases Mr. O’Connor has also submitted testimony on rail costs and operations before State regulatory commissions in Indiana, Pennsylvania and New York