Read your own source:

DOT's goal is to make the City's 12,750 miles sidewalks safe for pedestrians and help prevent injuries caused by defective sidewalks. DOT replaces more than 2 million square feet of sidewalk a year, mostly on City-owned property and in residential neighborhoods. Despite the large scale of repairs, this amounts to less than 1% of the City’s total sidewalk area each year. DOT relies on property owners to maintain the rest of the sidewalks.

And DOTs only replace sidewalk on state roads, in most cases local governments are responsible for sidewalk on city streets, which covers a lot more sidewalk.  If the DOT in New York pays for 2 million square feet of sidewalk (about 20 million dollars), imagine how much the rest of the country pays for sidewalk.  Most cities are responsible for sidewalk construction and upkeep (see ADA lawsuits vs local governments), and even in the few places where the city owns the sidewalk but requires the homeowner to maintain it, that is not the 'free market' at work but government regulation, so your point is still meaningless.

I'd like to see a politician put your idea forward, "all property owners are responsible for roads and sidewalks in front of their property, they will be regulated by the government to meet engineering standards."  I can't imagine a more stupid and less popular piece of legislation being proposed.

Secondly, private companies bid to become the contractor to build roads.  The funding comes from the government, and the funding is what we are discussing here.

FYI and to get back on topic:

The first GOP presidential debate is at 9pm EST tonight on Fox News. It features Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Hermain Cain and Rick Santorum.

You should of KEPT reading?  

The city has to fix the sidewalk infront of city buildings?  This is a surprise to you?    

No it doesn't.  Did you bother to read that PDF I supplied?  The people who own the property in fact own the roads, and are responsible for buiding 95% of roads.

As for it being unpopular... it's not unpopular in St Louis... or Sweden.  Largely because it's actually ends up cheaper for them being responsible for themselves then going through layers and layers of wasteful government bueracracy.

I've said it once though and i'll say it again.  Every point you've made is irrelevent, because they all rely on the fact that something is impossible... when there are plenty of examples of it all existing and happening.

Which, is generally why I imagine you've slided from "can't happen, wouldn't work" to "It'd be unpopular.'

Rick Santorum twice?  What about the Mormon frontrunner.

Woops.

No oven Mitt Romney, Donald Trump or Mitch Daniels.

Ah shoot, looks like the sites I read had the wrong date. Its Thursday, not tonight.

Hm... to be honest those debates annoy me more then anything, because they always end up focusing on the stuff about the candidates I DON'T like.

You have a huge misunderstanding of economics that is contradictory with both right-wing economic professors (who would prefer you views be a reality) and what actually occurs in the real world.

You argue for the private market to provide roads, then the best argument you can come up with is heavy government regulation is required to make people upkeep sidewalk.  Even then you don't understand your own sources, such as the above one that specifically says, "New York City law requires property owners to, at their own cost, install, construct, reconstruct, repave and repair the sidewalk adjacent to their properties."  The vast majority of roads and sidewalks are in city property, which grants everyone right of way (you can't just walk into someone's yard). 

Your argument for the private market to provide roads is that in some places its feasible for the government to heavily regulate sidewalks and force people to pay to build and maintain them on property they don't own.  Your logic is hilarious and sad at the same time.

What?  That New York forces people to pay for it's sidewalks wasn't at all an arguement about private roads.

It was in response to your claims that for some reason private companies would have the right to ankle braclet everyone because they own the sidewalks... when you know... we have laws, and most people are responsible for their own sidewalks... and I cant ankle braclet people who walk on my sidewalk.  Further NYC example

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/28/exclusive-the-battle-over-the-sidewalk-to-nowhere/

If regular homeowners can afford it... you can be sure big buisness can... with little trouble, since again, sidewalks are going to wear out a LOT less then streets.

The "arguments for private roads" were you need.... the fact that private roads do exist... and work fine as shown by street assosiations and toll roads.  Which you've totally kept passing over... because you know you are wrong, yet never want to admit it.

Street Assosiations could exist instead of taxing people, and all evidence shows that it would do things cheaper,  more efficently and safer then the government.  As shown by the cited swedish example way back which I'm guessing you've ignored.

You also could have toll roads... seperate issue.  And yes, they would take care of the sidewalks too.  The "Free Rider" problem not being a problem, since it already exists in the current sysetm since roads and street maintience are mostly paid by user fees in gasoline and car liscenses, as shown in the PDF about how to pay roads.

Your arguements are fundamentally flawed, and i've proven them flawed with sources, which you've not managed to debunk.  The fact that you keep going on with unsourced and unsited opinions is just staggeringly silly.  Espiecally consider your complete ignoring of street assosiations, which have been mentioned in I think... ever single post i've made.

Additionally

http://www.eroad.com/singapore-gps-toll-trial/

And again... I don't want this.

I just keep pointing out that it does happen... and does work pretty well.

Again, you keep argueing things won't work... when they already happen and do!

Unless you are going to address why actual working private road systems, are in fact... not working... I'm basically done here because quite honestly, you are arugieng a premise that is proven demonstrably false.

If you actually want to argue a number of actual reasons why private roads would be annoying to where we'd want to have public roads... like say, not having to pay multiple tolls to different companies....

That'd be cool.  Though I'd agree with you.

It's a system that could and CAN work... and actually works better in the limited cases it's been tried... however the various "niggles" of such a system would be annoying.

As it is, you are argueing a Donkey and a Horse can't mate when I am specifically showing you a mule.  Like directly. 

Though i'll leave you with one more link about the Industrial Revolution.

http://cafehayek.com/2004/07/speaking_of_pri.html

and the work of... an economist who not only thinks private roads could work... but would work better

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14140118/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Walter-Block