3 miles dead-flat on concrete and short grass is a pretty darn fast course. 13:30 for 3 miles is about 14:00 for 5k, 15:20 for the girls is about 15:54. I expect that's about what these athletes would do on the track (Tostenson has run 4:03 for the mile and 8:39 for 3200, Powell has run 4:02 and 8:41). Given that a track also requires you to run slightly further than 5000m (400m is measured from the white line on the inside of lane 1, and you are not allowed to step on this line), plus you're spending less time turning and losing energy overall (with long straightaways), I wouldn't be shocked if this course is even slightly faster than a track.
Important to remember that speed ratings are a product of runner-to-runner comparisons within a single year, and if the entire body of runners gets faster over time, speed ratings will seemingly go down to compensate. Meylan will deny this to his deathbed but the truth is runners ARE running faster, not just on the track but in XC too, and it's harder than ever to get a high speed rating for that reason. A 195 in 2024 is not the same as a 195 in 2004, no question about it. That said, a 195 in 2024 would put you on the same level relative to the middle 50% of runners as it would in 2004, and it probably doesn't change too much on the national level either. If a runner like Ritz came through today, I have no doubt he would run speed ratings above 205 and likely above 210, but he would likely do so with much faster times, given the improvements in technology, training, and the increased focus on times in general.