There was a mini scandal at the Atlanta Olympics because they made the track surface very hard, to suit sprinters and long-jumpers (in the hope of new records, in sports where the US is strong) and it meant that some of the runners who usually do the 5k and the 10k (track) struggled to compete in both events. (The sprinters, of course, were not covering enough distance to care.)

I managed to track down a decent reference for it, which also addresses your question in some detail: The Hard and Soft of It

The Atlanta Olympic Track was built as hard and fast as rules would allow. I know because I circled the thing 49 times in the 1996 Trials before I dropped out of the 10,000-meter finals with one lap to go. Those Games weren’t for me, and the concrete-hard track aggravated a case of plantar fasciitis that kept me from running more than a block for about a month after that.

On the surface, others had better luck: Michael Johnson and his golden slippers set world records later that summer in the 200 and 400; the former endures nearly a decade later. However, after Haile Gebrselassie won the 10,000 meters, he withdrew from the 5,000 meters, complaining of severe blisters on the bottom of his feet caused in part by the hard track.

But comparing trail to road is a bit more complicated. Trails can be pretty hard and also, not as smooth and even as (some) roads, and asphalt is different from concrete. The linked article has some good discussion of different surfaces.