* you don't have the right to drive (I think this widely affirmed in the courts)
* you don't have the right to use public transport (after all, if they can ban planes, why not trains or buses?)
* you don't have the right to bike (after all, if motor vehicles are regulated, why not all vehicles?)
* you don't have the right to walk on interstates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Ferry
The ferries are especially useful if you want to take a bicycle across the river.
I don't know of a case of someone being barred from being a passenger in a car, and doubt very much that this would stand up to legal scrutiny. The state does have a public safety interest in mandating who can operate fairly heavy machinery in public though.
It is actually prohibited even in emergencies. Pedestrians absolutely have no right of way in an interstate. You must ask for rescue if you get stuck as a result of collision or a car failure.
In California, for example, bicycling or waling on freeway shoulders is permitted except where specifically prohibited and signed. Bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibted from most California Interstate highways where there are alterantives bicycle and pedestrian routes, but there are mnay California Interstates on which bicyclists and pedesrians are allowed, including sections of I-5, I-10, and I-80.
In California, state law expressly allows walking along a freeway in an emergency:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
Constitutional rights can still be restricted if they meet the relevant test, for due process it is generally rational basis. Requiring licensed drivers, registering cars, meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional. Restricting interstates/freeways to vehicles capable of 55+(when there are other roads available, there are some areas where bicycles or walking is allowed on freeways) also generally meets the rational basis test and is not unconstitutional.
Traveling is not the same thing as driving. Being a passenger, vs driving. You could have your right to drive restricted because you were convicted of a crime and pose a danger to others, but that doesn't usually mean your right to travel is restricted.
You generally do have a right to use public transit, unless you have been given due process and lost that right.
Additionally, much of the land surrounding the city is closed for fire restrictions, or as the result of the Bush fire burn scar being ecologically fragile.
Practically, this isn't more than an annoyance as people find they can't return home from weekend vacations up north. But ideologically being literally prohibited from legal travel is unbefitting of somewhere once called "the land of the free."
I am actually very much a live and let live type person. Where I start having issues is when your lifestyle puts others in danger. Drink all you want... at home. Or in a bar. But get a taxi home. If you are going to be a belligerent drunk that's harassing others, you absolutely should be kicked out of even public transportation.
I am totally against MANY of the policies of the TSA (mostly on grounds of what's effective, and also what's unnecessarily invasive from a privacy standpoint). But I am not against the existence of something like a TSA.
Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? You can definitely be prohibited from driving for things like DUIs.
>* you don't have the right to walk on interstates
This is already the case.
Of course. Every person that was ever murdered had a right to live, even when it was taken away. Would you say that they didn't?
Rights exists regardless of whether they are respected, that's what makes them rights.
Do you not have a right to be a passenger in a car? Does the government have a right to prohibit you from accepting rides from your friends, or paying a licensed cab driver?