<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Field Study of Driver Behavior by Interval at Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2592207</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) offer a unique opportunity to facilitate pedestrian crossings at midblock crossing locations. The tri-signal head design includes two red lights above a single yellow light and includes five distinct phasing intervals previously unfamiliar within this context to drivers: Dark, Flashing Yellow, Solid Yellow, Solid Red, and Flashing Red. Each interval is intended to communicate some aspect of needing to stop, slow, or remain cautious to drivers; however, the PHBs’ effectiveness is only realized if drivers both comprehend the meaning of the specific intervals and respond appropriately. This study was initiated to examine the extent to which drivers stop during each PHB interval. Natural field observations were collected from 10 PHB installations throughout Massachusetts, U.S., and included at least 3?h of video data or 50 actuated crossings. A developed video reduction method was employed to record the number of vehicles that fully stopped, partially stopped, or drove through each PHB interval during a pedestrian crossing event. This research provides insight on drivers’ behavior at each interval and the correlation with pedestrian crossing behavior, such as the interval when the pedestrian decides to cross. These results present data on the diversity of driver behaviors across different PHB intervals, pedestrian crossing intervals, and site characteristics. Furthermore, this study identifies behaviors such as early stopping, trailing vehicles, and operational features, such as lockout, that may increase confusion and incorrect use of PHB intervals by both drivers and pedestrians, providing the foundation for future research efforts.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2025 13:42:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2592207</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigating nighttime driver behaviors and interactions at pedestrian hybrid beacons</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2576346</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Pedestrian safety remains a critical concern globally and in the United States. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) at marked crosswalks have been effective in increasing driver-yielding rates and reducing pedestrian crashes. However, nighttime driver behaviors and social interactions at PHBs, e.g., imitating the behavior of peer drivers, have remained understudied in the post-pandemic context. This study investigates nighttime driver behaviors and explores empirical evidence of social interactions at PHBs following the pandemic. Driver behaviors are collected from videos from four PHB locations in Pima County, Arizona. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression models are used to reveal drivers’ non-compliance rates and interactions with pedestrians and peer vehicles at PHBs at night. Results indicate that 94% to 97% of drivers stopped during the steady red phase of PHBs at night and compliance dropped further to 53% during the flashing red phase. Compared to initial drivers in a platoon approaching during the steady red phase, those approaching during the flashing red phase were approximately 3.6 times more likely to fail to stop. Among leading-following pairs in a platoon (excluding the first vehicles), 50% to 83% of following drivers mimicked the leading vehicle’s behavior, even when the leading driver violated traffic laws. At intersections with a speed limit of 25 mph, 41.7% of drivers resumed travel during the flashing red phase, even when pedestrians were in the crosswalk. These findings provide critical insights into nighttime driver behaviors and social interactions at PHBs. The results can inform improvements in PHB design, implementation, and pedestrian crossing treatments.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2025 15:00:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2576346</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigating the Impact of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons on the Effectiveness of Adaptive Traffic Control Systems</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2521904</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Many transportation agencies have been deploying adaptive traffic control systems (ATCSs) to enhance the efficiency of signalized intersections and arterial networks. However, the benefits of ATCSs vary across roadways due to factors such as traffic volume, network configurations, and the influence of other intelligent transportation systems (ITS). Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) are ITS utilized as pedestrian control devices, usually deployed between signalized intersections. PHBs can affect the effectiveness of ATCSs and, hence, need to be considered during ATCS deployments and performance evaluations. This study used a corridor in Tucson, Arizona, to evaluate the impact of PHB activations on the travel time along a corridor with an ATCS. Controller event-based data were used to show the effects of the number of PHB activations on ATCS operations. Other factors were also examined, such as traffic volume, number of pushbutton activations at signalized intersections, time of day, and day of the week. The results indicated that travel time increased with PHB activations, especially during morning peaks. Two activations within five minutes showed a 126% (90 s) travel time increase for upstream segments, and three activations saw a 38.5% (27 s) travel time increase for segments with PHB installed. A regression analysis showed a 3.3% and 6.7% travel time increase for each PHB activation every 15 min in upstream segments and segments with PHB installed, respectively. This study’s findings highlight the importance of considering the PHB impact for practitioners selecting ATCS deployment sites for optimal performance.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:57:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2521904</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Feasibility of Implementing Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Signals for Improving Safety and Mobility in Nevada</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2505920</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Pedestrian safety has been a major concern throughout the 140-year history of the automobile, resulting in the development of numerous safety treatment options for mid-block pedestrian crossings. These include several types of beacons and signals. Some of these devices use flashing yellow beacons to alert motorists to pedestrian presence, while others include a red light to make it mandatory for motorists to stop and allow pedestrians to cross. Most of these electrical devices can be augmented with physical features such as raised crosswalks that force vehicles to slow as they approach the crossing, or mid-block pedestrian refuge islands that allow pedestrians to cross wide streets in two stages. In Nevada as throughout the United States, inconsistent device selection has resulted in undertreatment at some pedestrian crossings and overtreatment at others. This report summarizes the project team's research and recommendations on methods for selecting appropriate treatments based on local site conditions. Much of this work is encapsulated in a Microsoft Excel workbook intended to assist practitioners with identifying the most cost-effective treatment type based on expected pedestrian safety benefits. In addition, this report explores the effects of Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) on pedestrian and motorist delays under various signal timing strategies for the high-volume conditions typical of major arterials in the greater Las Vegas area. The report's appendices include a detailed literature review and other supporting documentation.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:49:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2505920</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Comparative Evaluation of Vehicle Delays at Midblock Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Pedestrians’ Crossings</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2470828</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study aims to evaluate and compare vehicle delay at two selected midblock rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) sites and five selected midblock pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) sites in Florida using video data collected during the study period of July to November 2021. Computer vision and data processing were used to calculate the average delay for each vehicle that interacted with a crossing pedestrian. The vehicle delays were then averaged separately for each lane and direction and for the combined directions, creating three data sets having total numbers of observations of 937, 618, and 441, respectively. Initial Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests revealed significant differences in average delay values across different treatment types and periods for each of the three data sets. In addition, a generalized linear regression model considering various traffic and pedestrian factors revealed significant differences in vehicle delay across RRFB and PHB sites. PHB presence, weekend, signal activation, pedestrian crossing speed, vehicle speed, pedestrian starting position, traffic flow, and the afternoon/evening period have been found to be significant determinants of vehicle delay. The model results remained relatively stable when average delay was considered separately for each lane and direction; however, performance decreased when the delay was averaged for the combined directions of the roadway. The results suggest that vehicle delay increased at PHB sites compared to at RRFB sites, indicating a possible decrease in traffic efficiency at PHB sites.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:34:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2470828</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons on Arizona Highways</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1757840</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is a traffic control device used at pedestrian crossings. It was first included in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The focus of this Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) research was to: investigate the safety and operational impacts of the PHB installations that have occurred on Arizona’s state highways (higher-speed roads) to understand their impacts on vehicles and pedestrians; investigate the relationship between crashes at PHB locations and the spacing from nearby signalized intersections; investigate the relationship between crashes at PHB locations and other roadway characteristics; and determine whether modifications to ADOT guidance are needed to advise ADOT on site selection and use of PHBs. While the PHB has shown considerable potential in improving pedestrian safety and driver yielding, questions arose about whether the device performs at a similar level on higher-speed roads. This study selected 10 Arizona locations representing higher-operating-speed conditions (85th-percentile speed ranging between 44 and 54 mph). The final dataset reflected about 40 hours of video data and included 1,214 pedestrians or bicyclists crossing at PHBs. Overall, driver yielding for the 10 sites averaged 97 percent. This study’s safety evaluation covered 343 sites— 186 PHBs along with 56 signalized intersections and 101 unsignalized intersections used for comparison purposes. Previous studies found a safety benefit with the installation of PHBs, and this study supports that finding. Crash reductions were found for severe crashes (25 percent), pedestrian crashes (46 percent), severe rear-end crashes (29 percent), and various other crash types. The study developed recommendations for ADOT’s guidance in locating, designing, and operating PHBs on Arizona roadways.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2020 10:06:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1757840</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Analysis of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Operation on Higher-Speed Roadways</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1697098</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is a traffic control device used at pedestrian crossings. It was first included in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and was based on the HAWK developed in Tucson, Arizona. The focus of an Arizona Department of Transportation research study was the investigation of the use of PHBs on higher-speed roads. Ten locations in Arizona representing higher operating speed conditions (85th percentile speed ranging from 44 to 54?mph) were selected for inclusion in this study. Data were collected using a multiple video camera setup. The final dataset reflected about 40?h of video data and included 1,214 pedestrians or cyclists crossing at PHBs. Overall, driver yielding for these 10 sites averaged 97%, which is similar to driver-yielding rates for PHBs installed on lower-speed streets.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2020 10:41:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1697098</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluating the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon's Effectiveness: A Case Study in New Jersey</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647925</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is a high-intensity pedestrian signal that can be placed at a midblock or intersection crosswalk. This system was introduced into the MUTCD in 2009, and since has increased in popularity across the country, including in New Jersey. Recent research has raised concerns about motorist and pedestrian comprehension of the PHB due to its recent introduction in New Jersey. In this study, video data was collected at a PHB site in the city of New Brunswick, New Jersey, in order to evaluate road users’ behaviors at the PHB. An online survey was also conducted among Rowan University community including students and faculty members in order to gauge public awareness and comprehension of PHB signals in New Jersey. Together, the video data and survey results are reflective of the current level of public understanding and the effectiveness of PHBs in New Jersey.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2020 11:09:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1647925</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigation of flashing and intensity characteristics for vehicle-mounted warning beacons</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1522786</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Reducing the potential for crashes involving front line service workers and passing vehicles is important for increasing worker safety in work zones and similar locations. Flashing yellow warning beacons are often used to protect, delineate, and provide visual information to drivers within and approaching work zones. A nighttime field study using simulated workers, with and without reflective vests, present outside trucks was conducted to evaluate the effects of different warning beacon intensities and flash frequencies. Interactions between intensity and flash frequency were also analyzed. This study determined that intensitiesof 25/2.5 cd and 150/15 cd (peak/trough intensity) provided the farthest detection distances of the simulated worker. Mean detection distances in response to a flash frequency of 1 Hz were not statistically different from those in response to 4 Hz flashing. Simulated workers wearing reflective vests were seen the farthest distances away from the trucks for all combinations of intensity and flash frequency.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 08:04:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1522786</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Smarter Cities With Parked Cars as Roadside Units</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1522644</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Real-time monitoring of traffic density, road congestion, public transportation, and parking availability are key to realizing the vision of a smarter city and, with the advent of vehicular networking technologies, such as IEEE 802.11p and WAVE, this information can now be gathered directly from the vehicles in an urban area. To act as a backbone to the network of moving vehicles, collecting, aggregating, and disseminating their information, the use of parked cars has been proposed as an alternative to costly deployments of fixed roadside units. In this paper, the authors introduce novel mechanisms for parking vehicles to self-organize and form efficient vehicular support networks that provide widespread coverage to a city. These mechanisms are innovative in their ability to keep the network of parked cars under continuous optimization, in their multi-criteria decision process that can be focused on key network performance metrics, and in their ability to manage the battery usage of each car, rotating roadside unit roles between vehicles as required. The authors also present the first comprehensive study of the performance of such an approach, via realistic modeling of mobility, parking, and communication, through simulations, and an experimental verification of concepts that are key to self-organization. They analysis brings strong evidence that parked cars can serve as an alternative to fixed roadside units, and organize to form networks that can support smarter transportation and mobility.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:24:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1522644</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Supporting Beacon and Event-Driven Messages in Vehicular Platoons through Token-Based Strategies</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1509873</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Timely and reliable inter-vehicle communications is a critical requirement to support traffic safety applications, such as vehicle platooning. Furthermore, low-delay communications allow the platoon to react quickly to unexpected events. In this scope, having a predictable and highly effective medium access control (MAC) method is of utmost importance. However, the currently available IEEE 802.11p technology is unable to adequately address these challenges. In this paper, the author propose a MAC method especially adapted to platoons, able to transmit beacons within the required time constraints, but with a higher reliability level than IEEE 802.11p, while concurrently enabling efficient dissemination of event-driven messages. The protocol circulates the token within the platoon not in a round-robin fashion, but based on beacon data age, i.e., the time that has passed since the previous collection of status information, thereby automatically offering repeated beacon transmission opportunities for increased reliability. In addition, the author propose three different methods for supporting event-driven messages co-existing with beacons. Analysis and simulation results in single and multi-hop scenarios showed that, by providing non-competitive channel access and frequent retransmission opportunities, the authors' protocol can offer beacon delivery within one beacon generation interval while fulfilling the requirements on low-delay dissemination of event-driven messages for traffic safety applications.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:34:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1509873</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Comparing Countermeasures for Mitigating Wrong-way Entries onto Limited Access Facilities</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1466394</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Wrong-way crashes are a major cause for safety concerns along freeways and limited-access facilities. Although wrong-way crashes account for a relatively small portion of total crashes, the impact between two cars crashing into each other at high speeds in opposite directions often results in severe injuries or fatalities compared to any other type of crash. Despite providing the necessary “DO NOT ENTER” and “WRONG WAY” signs and pavement markings (wrong-way arrows, etc.), as per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), wrong-way entry onto limited-access facilities is still occurring. To seek solutions for mitigating wrong-way driving (WWD), tests involving a number of countermeasures using Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies have been conducted through Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) pilot projects. This project looked to evaluate these WWD countermeasures developed through these pilot projects and come up with recommendations of the most effective and informing WWD countermeasures through analysis of existing data and studies, field testing using focus groups, a public opinion survey, and a human factors approach using driving simulation. The results proved that red Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) is the top countermeasure for mitigating WWD at freeway off-ramps, with wigwag flashing beacons as the second best, and detection-triggered blank-out signs and detection-triggered LED lights around “WRONG WAY” signs (tie) as third best WWD countermeasures. Red flush-mount Internally Illuminated Raised Pavement Markers (IIRPMs) could be considered as a supplemental countermeasure for mitigating WWD at freeway off-ramps. The countermeasure of delineators along off-ramps is the least effective and is not recommended to be used for deterring WWD at freeway off-ramps. This study further confirms that the newly-developed signing and pavement marking standards by FDOT is a very positive countermeasure on arterials to mitigate wrong-way entries onto freeway off-ramps.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2017 11:07:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1466394</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Evaluation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and Rapid Flashing Beacons</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1466430</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Two pedestrian treatments receiving national attention are the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) and the pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB). These devices have unique characteristics that produce improved vehicle stopping and yielding to crossing pedestrians. This Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project includes multiple studies to help refine these devices. A closed-course RRFB study measured the time to determine the position and direction of a cutout representation of a pedestrian on a crosswalk to identify conditions that produced faster and more accurate recognition. Placing the beacons above rather than below the warning sign produced better recognition. A following open-road study investigated driver yielding when the beacons were located above and below the warning sign at 13 sites. Results indicated that any differences between the above and below positions were minor and statistically insignificant. With the apparent benefits identified from the closed-course study (i.e., lower discomfort and improved ability to detect the pedestrian) and the lack of difference in driver yielding, locating the beacons above the sign could improve the overall effectiveness of this treatment. FHWA issued an official interpretation in early 2016 to permit the placement of the beacons above the sign. An open-road study was also conducted to determine driver yielding for different RRFB flash patterns at eight sites, seven of which were four-lane crossings with 40- or 45-mi/h speed limits. The patterns selected for evaluation were the 2-5 flash pattern (two flashes on one side followed by five flashes on other side) that was currently in use, a pattern using a combination of wig-wag and simultaneous (WW+S) flashes, and a pattern using a combination of long and short flashes called “blocks.” The statistical analysis showed no statistical significant difference between patterns; in other words, the newer patterns were as effective as the 2-5 flash pattern. As a result, FHWA issued an official interpretation indicating the preference for the WW+S pattern. In the final study, behaviors at PHBs were investigated. The PHB has shown great potential in improving safety and driver yielding; however, questions have been asked regarding actual driver and pedestrian behavior. For the 20 PHB sites in the open-road study, driver yielding to pedestrians averaged 96 percent. Overall, 91 percent of the pedestrians pushed the pushbutton to activate the PHB in the crosswalk. A greater percentage number of pedestrians activated the device when on 45-mi/h posted speed limit roads as compared to roads with posted speed limits of 40 mi/h or less.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2017 11:07:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1466430</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Monitoring Shared-use Paths: Applying Warrants for Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and Traffic Signals</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1437509</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Transportation planners and engineers need estimates of pedestrian and bicycle traffic volumes to assess the need for traffic controls at intersections in transportation networks. Shared-use paths form the backbone of non-motorized transportation networks in many American cities. Although many local governments now are implementing non-motorized traffic monitoring programs, few have implemented comprehensive programs, and fewer have systematically used monitoring results to assess traffic safety. This case study contributes to the literatures on traffic monitoring and safety by demonstrating how results from comprehensive monitoring of a shared-use path network can be used to assess the need for traffic controls at roadway-path intersections. The authors' study area is Minneapolis, Minnesota. In 2013, following procedures in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Monitoring Guide, the authors monitored each mile of the city’s 80-mile shared-use path network and computed annual average daily trail traffic (AADTT) for each segment. The authors subsequently inventoried road crossings, including road geometry and traffic controls, and obtained state and local estimates of motorized annual average daily traffic (AADT) for each street. The authors then used standard factoring approaches to calculate and match summertime peak-hour trail and roadway traffic volumes. Following procedures in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the authors then assessed the need for pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs) or traffic signals at each crossing. The authors' analyses show that warrants for controls are more likely to be met on weekends than weekdays; that 25% and 7% of crossings, respectively, meet warrants for PHBs and traffic signals; and that more than 60% of all crossings that meet warrants already have controls. Additional traffic controls may be warranted at 9% of all crossings in the shared-use path network. Systematic application of FHWA guidelines for non-motorized traffic monitoring can support efforts to increase crossing safety and help set priorities for investment of limited resources.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:15:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1437509</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1438389</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this study was to develop crash modification factors for four treatment types: rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB), pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), pedestrian refuge island (RI), and advance yield or stop markings and signs (AS). From 14 cities throughout the United States, 975 treatment and comparison sites were selected. Most of the treatment sites were selected at intersections on urban, multilane streets, because these locations present a high risk for pedestrian crashes and are where countermeasures typically are needed most. For each treatment site, relevant data were collected on the treatment characteristics, traffic, geometric, and roadway variables, and the pedestrian crashes and other crash types that occurred at each site. Cross-sectional regression models and before–after empirical Bayesian analysis techniques were used to determine the crash effects of each treatment type. All four of the treatment types were found to be associated with reductions in pedestrian crash risk, compared with the reductions at untreated sites. PHBs were associated with the greatest reduction of pedestrian crash risk (55% reduction), followed by RRFBs (47% reduction), RIs (32% reduction), and AS (25% reduction). The results for RRFBs had their basis in a limited sample and must be used with caution.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 15:53:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1438389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>