£15 to sleep in a lay-by: the grim economics of UK lorry parking 

“The guy that I work for, he’ll give me £15 extra if I park on a lay-by so that I avoid the £30 service fee I’d have to pay at the services,” a less-experienced driver told researchers commissioned by Transport Focus.

“Sometimes I’ll go and use one of the showers at the services and then go park somewhere else.”

The comment comes from qualitative research examining how lorry drivers decide where to stop in England. It does not establish how common such payments are across the haulage industry; however, the researchers concluded that drivers are sometimes encouraged by employers to avoid overnight parking fees.

Others use lay-bys, industrial estates or their company depot because service areas are full, too expensive or considered unsuitable. The report warns that lay-bys may work for shorter breaks but generally offer no toilets, welfare facilities or meaningful security.

The study helps explain an apparent contradiction in Transport Focus’s wider research: drivers often rate the particular facility they have visited highly while remaining deeply dissatisfied with the UK roadside network as a whole.

Drivers like the sites they choose — not necessarily the network

Transport Focus’s second annual Lorry Drivers’ Facilities Survey covered 6,253 interviews at 62 locations between September 2024 and January 2025. The sample included 3,697 interviews at motorway service areas, 619 at A-road service areas and 1,937 at dedicated truck stops.

Some 87% of respondents were satisfied with the facility they had used that day, rising to 95% at truck stops. Yet when asked about the wider UK network, 62% were dissatisfied with the quality of available sites, while 61% were unhappy with the number of suitable stopping locations. Both figures had worsened since the previous year’s survey.

Transport Focus describes this as the “satisfaction gap”: the difference between positive ratings for individual visits and poor perceptions of the overall network.

One explanation is that drivers actively avoid places they already know to be overcrowded, unsafe, dirty or poor value for money.

Only 1% of those interviewed said they had stopped at the particular site because an operator told them to do so. Drivers usually made their own decisions based on previous experience, their route, the vehicle and cargo, the length of the required break and recommendations from other drivers.

Those making longer journeys or carrying valuable loads may travel off-route to find secure parking and showers. Drivers taking a short break may accept more limited facilities because convenience matters more.

Positive ratings therefore do not necessarily mean that drivers can depend on the whole network. They may simply show that experienced drivers have become skilled at avoiding its weakest points.

After 7pm, drivers may already be too late

The shortage of parking spaces also affects how drivers plan their working day.

One driver involved in the qualitative research said there was little chance of finding a place at some motorway services after 16:00 or 17:00.

“And if you go to a truck stop at 7pm, you’re not getting parked,” he added.

Researchers found that drivers may use lay-bys or industrial estates because there is no room at an official facility and their remaining permitted driving time is running out. Some described arriving early, giving up productive driving time or searching several locations before finding somewhere to stop.

Parking was the leading priority for improvement in the main survey. Respondents called for more sites, more spaces and larger bays capable of accommodating modern or specialist HGVs.

Parking management, availability, surface condition and value for money all appeared among the seven lowest-rated features in the survey. Drivers also reported that lay-bys were being closed and industrial-estate parking was becoming harder to find, leaving them with little choice but to pay for facilities they considered poor value.

Although 76% rated parking availability positively at the site visited, the figure fell to 65% at motorway service areas. At truck stops, it reached 93%.

Poor surfaces can reduce capacity further

Even where parking exists, badly maintained sites may make part of it unusable. A driver who documented conditions at Blyth Services off the A1 said the location had friendly staff and overnight patrols but gave it only two out of five because its already limited parking area was affected by flooding and potholes.

Other participants described lorries blocking access roads or parking outside designated bays because the official spaces were full.

Refrigerated vehicles and unusually large combinations may face further restrictions, including bays that are too small or rules requiring refrigeration units to be switched off overnight.

Operators also raised the financial consequences of poor surfaces. One said a relatively new tyre damaged by a pothole might have to be replaced at a cost of around £400, in addition to the resulting delay.

A parking space does not guarantee a night’s sleep

Security emerged as the other major weakness. Transport Focus found that nine in ten drivers who rated vehicle security as good also said they could rest or sleep well. Among those who rated vehicle security poorly, fewer than four in ten reported being able to rest properly.

Vehicle and personal safety were also closely connected. Of those who rated vehicle security positively, 95% also considered their personal security good. That fell to just 16% among drivers giving vehicle security a poor rating.

Drivers complained about inadequate lighting, a lack of patrols, unrestricted access to parking areas and insufficient protection from theft.

“More and more lorries are losing their loads through theft at night because places don’t have any security,” one driver said. “No cameras or anyone walking round.”

The problem affects not only cargo and insurance costs but also fatigue. A driver who spends the night listening for activity around the trailer may technically have taken a legal rest period without receiving restorative sleep.

Truck stops leave motorway services behind

Dedicated truck stops consistently achieved better results than motorway service areas.

Overall satisfaction stood at:

• 95% at truck stops
• 92% at A-road service areas
• 82% at motorway service areas

Sixteen of the 18 truck stops surveyed achieved satisfaction of at least 90%. By comparison, only seven of the 36 MSAs reached that level, while four scored below 70%.

Individual MSA ratings ranged from 61% to 94%, compared with 84% to 100% at truck stops.

The difference was not simply explained by the number of spaces. Truck stops outperformed MSAs regardless of site size, suggesting that cleanliness, security, food, showers and whether drivers felt welcome were more influential.

The qualitative research describes truck stops as facilities tailored to professional drivers. They are more likely to offer secure parking, usable showers, proper meals and spaces where drivers can socialise.

MSAs are often more convenient for a quick stop, but standards vary sharply. Drivers described some as expensive, insecure and apparently designed primarily for car and coach passengers.

The report concluded that truck stops were the “Rolls Royce” of stopping locations: unsuitable for every journey, but generally delivering against drivers’ higher expectations.

Drivers can spend hundreds on basic food and coffee

Food prices add another financial pressure.Value for money for food and drink was the lowest-rated of the 22 features included in the survey, scoring 62% overall. Results at individual sites ranged from only 18% to 98%.

One participant calculated that a £7.50 meal deal and a coffee costing slightly more than £10 would amount to more than £200 a month if bought daily.

Another driver said he spent approximately £70 a week on food and coffee at roadside facilities. For a lorry driver, shopping elsewhere may not be a realistic option. Once the vehicle is parked, leaving the site to find a cheaper meal can be impractical or impossible.

Some operators are trying targeted offers. Transport Focus noted that Roadchef had introduced a £5.99 “Tacho Meal Deal” for members of its Truck Masters Club, although it said commercial and staffing constraints continued to slow wider improvements in food choice and affordability.

New spaces and security systems are being added

Transport Focus’s April 2026 action-plan update records investment by several major operators. Roadchef introduced AI-powered security systems at eight HGV parking areas and progressed plans for 49 additional spaces at Maidstone.

Extra delivered 75 spaces at Peterborough, with another 15 expected at Cobham. It is also seeking land for more than 200 long-term spaces at Cambridge and has introduced dynamic parking at several sites, reallocating underused areas during quieter periods. Transport Focus says this can double HGV capacity at some locations.

Welcome Break opened sites at Rotherham and Hickling providing 90 spaces and delivered improvements including showers, lighting, three-metre fencing and monitored CCTV.

However, Welcome Break also reported that site and planning constraints prevented it from adding more capacity at existing locations.

Moto said it had installed more than 14 kilometres of fencing, ANPR and remotely monitored CCTV. It added 38 spaces at Sawtry and 26 at Tamworth, while resurfacing and traffic-flow changes created ten additional compliant spaces at Woolley Edge North.

Overall, Moto reported increasing its HGV parking capacity by more than 5%.

Improvement remains uneven

The investment demonstrates that some facilities are changing. But Transport Focus’s findings suggest that isolated improvements cannot solve the problem alone.

Drivers need enough parking in the right locations, available near the end of their working day. They also need confidence that the bay will fit their vehicle, the toilets and showers will be usable and they can sleep without worrying about themselves, the vehicle or the load.

At present, the experience remains dependent on where a driver happens to be, how early they arrive and how much they or their employer are prepared to pay.

While the £15 lay-by payment is only one driver’s experience, it illustrates the choices produced by an inconsistent network: pay the full service-area charge, stop somewhere less secure, or accept extra money to spend the night without the facilities that professional drivers should reasonably expect.