I’m not entirely onboard with the praise of physically separated bike lanes.
First, IMO the need/benefit from those is very dependent on traffic speed and density. In some places, the benefit is quite marginal while drawing funds that could have been better spent elsewhere.
Secondly, pushing too hard for physically separated bike lanes tends to result in them being built based on ease-of-installation rather than actual benefit to the riders.
Also, motorists tend to react really badly when exposed to an obviously expensive bike lane that they don’t think is seeing enough traffic.
Now, places with a considerable speed difference, then physically separated bike lanes can certainly be nice and useful.
One thing that seems to me to work well are ”bike boxes”.
They’re nothing more than a reserved zone closest to the stop line at intersections and lights. They’re really inexpensive to install, protect cyclists from the dreaded blind side/blind angle of turning vehicles, and they work as a steady reminder to motorists that cyclists are allowed on the streets.
What I really dislike is seeing big money spent on marginally useful traffic solutions. It’s free ammo for the bike haters, tax money spent in vain, and to no use to me as a cyclist.
So really, if it isn’t possible to build a good bike lane, don’t build one at all. Lower the speed some, and give me a bike box instead.