HUH? What does "free and unimpeded travel" have to do with this issue? This blog came from a Jack Daniels's bottle, I think.
There is NO "right" to free and unimpeded travel in the Constitution or its Amendments that I can find. You are talking about two different meanings of the word "right" when you mention a right-of-way. You are mixing your nouns with your adjectives here. Again though, traveling on a right-of-way is a privilege, not a right guaranteed by our Constitution!
While it's not explicitly enumerated, it would be one of the common-law rights covered by the Ninth Amendment. Certainly far less of a stretch than all the other stuff it seems to cover.
Although the Dredd Scott decision has been overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment which declared that Blacks were citizens, that does not undo its fundamental logic; indeed, it turns the logic around.
Basically, the Dredd Scott decision said that if Blacks were citizens, they could do all sorts of things including going where they pleased, and bearing arms while doing so. Since it would be bad it Blacks could do those things, ergo they cannot be citizens.
I would suggest that while the Fourteenth Amendment overruled Dredd Scott by stating that Blacks were citizens, the implication is not that citizenship no longer implies the right to freely travel, armed, but rather that blacks now have the right of free travel.