I like that they are trying to consider different possibilities, although I'm not personally fond of what they came up with. For example, one picture looked like ramps for bikes to go over cars, but in practice it works better for cyclists to go under (even though from an engineering standpoint it is more work to put the heavy traffic on top). I also don't want bikes to be indoors (and I primarily bike for transportation).
Otherwise bikes get an extra hill :). And then you get extra speed when you don't need it. Down and then up is easy. Although for typical intersections I'm not sure either is a particularly good idea most of the time. Other options are separate signals or giving priority to cyclists (Hembrow has a bunch of pictures of this stuff), or, as someone else mentioned, for high density areas having a separate fully elevated bike path could work too.
I like David Hembrow's blog about cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands. Here is a good post on myths and excuses about cycling infrastructure: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/02/all-those-myths...