• Traffic Control Hierarchy of Controls & AFAD Suitability Assessment

  • Assessment Purpose and Tool Scope

  • This assessment documents the hierarchy of controls review for traffic control activities where workers may be exposed to live traffic. Its purpose is to show whether worker exposure can be eliminated, reduced through alternative control methods, or whether AFAD or manual TCP control requires documented justification.

  • WorkSafeBC Part 18 requires a risk assessment before workers are permitted to perform work that may expose them to traffic. For short-duration and long-duration work, that assessment must be in writing, and the traffic control plan must be based on that assessment. This tool is intended to support that process by documenting the decision path for traffic control method selection.

  • This is not a general site risk assessment. Unlike the Guided Traffic Control Risk Assessment Tool, which reviews broader site and operational hazards, this assessment is specifically focused on the process of elimination of worker exposure to traffic, the hierarchy of controls, AFAD suitability, and manual TCP justification where applicable.

  • Use this assessment to document why exposure elimination was or was not practicable, what alternative control methods were considered, whether AFAD was suitable, and why manual TCP control was selected only if necessary.

  • Section 1 — Project and Site Context

    Complete the project and site details below before reviewing the hierarchy of controls.
  • Assessment Date*
     - -
    2 digit month, 2 digit day, 4 digit year

  • Section 2 — Exposure Elimination Review

    Before considering AFADs or manual Traffic Control Persons (TCPs), assess whether worker exposure to moving traffic can be eliminated through road closures, detours, physical barriers, alternative access arrangements or changes to the work method.Where elimination is not practicable, document the reasons and identify any measures that can partially reduce exposure.Decisions must be based on the site-specific risk assessment, actual roadway conditions and applicable road authority requirements.
  • Can worker exposure to live traffic be eliminated for this activity?
  • Can barrier separation or physical isolation be used?

  • Section 3 — Alternative Control Measures Review

    If worker exposure cannot be fully eliminated, review whether traffic can be controlled using devices, layout changes, sequencing, or administrative controls before selecting AFAD or manual TCP control.
  • Can traffic be controlled without exposing a worker?
  • Can the work be rescheduled to off-peak or lower-risk periods?
  • Can the work method be modified to reduce worker exposure time?

  • Section 4 — AFAD Suitability Review

    If worker exposure cannot be eliminated and traffic control still requires direct control of road users, review whether AFAD is suitable before considering manual TCP control.

  • Construction Speed Verification

  • Is the construction speed limit at the proposed AFAD location 70 km/h or less?*

  • AFAD Operator Training

  • Has the designated TCP/operator received training and demonstrated competence in operating the specific AFAD model proposed for this site?*

  • Safe AFAD Operator Positioning

  • Can the AFAD operator remain in a safe position, protected from moving traffic, with adequate visibility, communication and a suitable escape route?*

  • AFAD Device Placement

  • Have the required AFAD units been provided for each controlled lane, with placement meeting the applicable traffic control layout requirements?*

  • Night Operations Lighting

  • Is the required overhead lighting provided at the AFAD station for nighttime operations?

  • AFAD Layout & Signing Verification

  • Has the proposed AFAD layout, advance warning signage, device placement and operating arrangement been verified against applicable BC TMM requirements and technical circulars?
  • Would AFAD reduce worker exposure compared with manual TCP control?
  • Is the traffic control method single lane alternating traffic?
  • Are site geometry and layout suitable for AFAD placement and visibility?
  • Are sightlines adequate for AFAD operation?
  • Do intersection influence, turning movements, or access conflicts reduce AFAD suitability?
  • Are pedestrian, cyclist, transit stop, or driveway conflicts present that require added review?
  • Is there adequate space for AFAD setup, transition, buffer, and safe operation?
  • Can AFAD be used for this activity?*
  • Is there a documented contingency if AFAD operation fails, requires manual override, or cannot be safely continued?*

  • Section 5 — Manual TCP Justification

    Complete this section only if AFAD is not suitable or is not being used, and manual TCP control remains under consideration.
  • Is manual TCP control still being considered for this activity?
  • Can the TCP be positioned in a safe location for this activity?
  • Is a safe escape route identified for the TCP position?
  • Can the manual TCP method be carried out without positioning the worker in an unsafe location?

  • Section 6 — Assessment Outcome Summary

    Record the selected control path, the reason for the decision, and any conditions, limitations, or required follow-up actions.
  • Does this assessment require supervisor or management review before implementation?
  • Review Date
     - -
    2 digit month, 2 digit day, 4 digit year
  • Should be Empty: