I see several things that are not right with the proposal but I will try to keep it brief

I think the most important thing to remember is that many of the people doing planning and engineering tend to lump bikes with pedestrians. Bikes and peds have very different needs. Here, let me say that again: bikes and peds have very different needs. But the traditional way of doing business has been to lump them. Many local governments have established bicycle transportation working groups and really do want to improve conditions for bikes but the reality is that when faced with construction and right of way costs (and political pressure from the driving public), the biggest losers will be non-cars. I think many cities would like to do more but don't because they feel hamstrung either by hits to their already small budgets or by the requirements of funding partners (such as matching funds that they might receive through a federal transportation program).

And of course there is the problem that many planning and engineering types don't think bikes belong on the roads. I say this with absolute confidence since I work with these people every day. In most cases it's not malicious. They don't ride bikes, so they simply don't know. A very normal response that I get when I ask them to join me for a ride is "it's too dangerous" (followed by "and there are too many hills" ).

All that said, multiple lane roundies are tough for drivers, but I do think this is going to change over time as we see more of them and people learn how to use them. However, they make lane choice in the roundie difficult for someone on a bicycle. Speeds will generally be posted as quite slow (well, they should be), but whether drivers heed the speed limit is another story. Slow enough and savvy cyclists can ride with the speed of traffic (take the lane) and negotiate.

One of the legs has a split that would help eliminate some of the multiple lane choice problem. However, this type of design requires a lot more space, which means more right of way, bigger footprint (and associated environmental effects), and much higher cost. I suspect the city is probably using a limited grant-funded pot of money.

And I look at the side streets leading into the intersection and don't see those as being very bicycle friendly unless the speed limits are such that bikes can ride at the speed of traffic. It's really easy to create more problems by improving an intersection for cars but not the streets that feed the intersection.

Hope that adds to your collection of thoughts about the situation. Good luck!