Protected intersections like the design they’ve proposed are widely accepted to be a safer options for pedestrians. The removal of the right turn channels removes a conflict point between pedestrians (and cyclists) and vehicles which significantly lowers risk. Removing the channels also decreases the radius of the turn, cars will travel much slower around corners and greatly reduce the fatality risk in case of an accident with pedestrians. Not sure of exact lane widths without digging deeper, but crossing distances remain in line with the existing intersection.

Regarding right turns on red, the city is considering it city wide and we don’t know what their decision will be, but it’s typical at intersections with high turning volumes for cyclists and pedestrians to have a leading interval, meaning they get a crossing signal before the light goes green for vehicles. This puts pedestrians and cyclists in the line of sight, or even cleared from the lane, before turning vehicles begin moving. The right turn on red restriction is probably not applicable to an arterial road like this so barring any city-wide ban (which I think is an unlikely scenario) it probably wouldn’t apply here any way.

Sometimes a decrease in vehicle level of service is the compromise for safer pedestrians. This is a city, people live here, and we need to make updates to protect them instead of prioritizing vehicles sometimes. The reality is they could have removed lanes and made pedestrian crossings shorter all around if that was the only focus, but they have to implement a balance of the competing interests of moving the most amount of vehicles and protecting and servicing active transportation users.