First of all, the proposed changes would aim to emphasize the different attitudes of local authorities depending on the selected setting - now these differences are so small that you can hardly see any differences between the settings. Besides, I would like to propose adding the influence of other actions of the player on his assessment - equating entire mountains, flooding the map, destroying someone else's vehicles, or even advertising campaigns currently don't have any, even the slightest impact on the rating, but it would be good if they did.
A few tables and a description of them below
This is the current impact of the player's actions on his assessment by local authorities. The elements that have no influence are marked in blue. This is how it could look the expanded influence of a player's actions on his rating in the city. New elements are marked with blue. The rating of local authorities could have an impact on the costs of the player's actions - the worse the rating, the higher the costs. List of proposed changes:
1. More variation in impact for different settings
Setting the influence of local authorities in fact doesn't work at the moment - the differences are almost imperceptible, as they concern a small part of the actions that the player can take. With a change to the permissive setting, the player would have a lot of freedom to build, the neutral option would be the closest to the current state, while the hostile setting would indeed be quite restrictive and good for those players who like more difficult conditions. Considering all the changes, adding a friendly (almost unrestricted) and unwilling (better than hostile) settings would also be useful.
2. Reducing the impact of logging trees on the rating
It is now far too big. It is enough to build a road only 21 tiles long for the city to prevent any activity not only in the city but also in its vicinity. As a result, after the route is built, the player no longer has the option to build any station - this limitation can last even more than 13 years! In contrast, leveling or flooding the entire map will not produce any reaction.
3. Addition of the influence of over-equation, land sinking on the rating
Currently, it is possible to level or even flood the entire map, and if no trees are touched, city officials will still be very happy. As a result, the element of local authorities that was supposed to limit abuse by some players often doesn't work at all.
4. Preventing environmental changes when the company has a very low rating
In more restrictive settings (hostile, unwilling and maybe neutral), a low company rating could prevent the player from making terrain changes.
5. Adding compensation as an alternative to a bribe
Compensation could be an alternative to a bribe, but could only raise the rating to a level sufficient to build a station - unlike a bribe, it would not have the option of demolishing a city.
6. Cost of bribe / compensation depending on the company's assets
Currently, the cost of a bribe, regardless of the company's wealth, is the same - very high at first and less and less significant over time. The bribe costs would consist of a fixed not very high base + an additional amount corresponding to a certain proportion of goodwill. Perhaps these proposed costs could be lower, but overall it seems to me that some link between the prosperity of the company and the cost of bribes would make sense.
7. Adding the impact of the assessment on the costs of the company's operations
Currently, the rating of the company has no impact on the costs of its activities. I think it would be interesting if it were otherwise and the costs of some of the company's activities were related to its evaluation.
8. Adding the positive impact of the presence of a company statute
Currently, the statute only affects the rating of transport at stations. It would not be pointless if it also influenced the company's rating in the city. It would be a passive influence - thanks to the statute, a possible lower rating would return to a neutral level faster.
9. Possibility of extending the advertising time
Advertisements allow you to temporarily increase the rating of transport at stations within the reach of local authorities. Currently, using an ad has a one-time effect - it only increases the rating by a certain amount once. After the change, each purchase of advertising would extend the period of its impact by a month, up to a maximum of 12 months, or even without limitation. However, each subsequent purchase of advertising would be more and more expensive - for good reason: you pay for the convenience.

10. Increasing the default range of influence of local authorities
On the one hand, thanks to this, advertisements would have a greater reach, on the other hand, cities could also restrict the activities of poorly rated companies to a greater extent. Currently, the reach of local authorities is 20 fields from the city center. I would suggest 50. A good solution could also be to extend the range by at least 5 fields from each city building - it would be useful for the largest cities.
11. Improvement of sclerosis of local authorities
Today, local authorities are remarkably memorable. If the rating goes down to the lowest level of -1000 points (it is enough to inadvertently build a railway next to the city), being unable to do anything, the player must wait even more than 13 years, or almost 3 hours, to be able to build anything near the city! The reason is that each month the evaluation is automatically awarded by only 5 points! I would suggest 50 for a permissive setting and 20 for a neutral setting. Hostile would remain hostile.
Edit: I forgot to describe one more point ...
13. Accidents at railway crossings influencing the company's assessment
Here, negative points would go to the company that built the railroad crossing, i.e. the company that built the tracks on the road, or vice versa: the road on the tracks. The company that built the railway is not always to blame for accidents. In order for the guilty party to be recognized, each railway crossing would have to have information about which came first: tracks or road. Causing each successive accident within a short period of time could increase the penalty x2. It could also be a financial penalty: 110% of the vehicle price (to the account of the injured company) + € 10,000 for each victim + 1% of the company's assets for the accident itself.