Distance from base of climb in miles, as measured along the roadway,
elevation in feet.

  Dist   Elev 
  0.00   261.5
  0.01   266.0
  0.02   271.5
  0.03   278.0
  0.04   284.0
  0.05   290.5
  0.06   298.0
  0.07   306.0
  0.08   314.0
  0.09   325.5
  0.10   333.5
  0.11   341.5
  0.12   349.5
  0.13   362.0
  0.14   369.0
  0.16   385.5
  0.18   399.0
  0.20   411.0
  0.22   421.0
  0.24   432.0
  0.26   446.0
  0.28   462.0
  0.30   475.0
  0.35   522.0
  0.40   575.5
  0.45   607.0
  0.50   613.0
  0.55   627.0
  0.60   650.5
  0.65   691.5
  0.70   721.0
  0.75   735.5

Wellll, actually here is a tiny (tiny, tiny) bit of controversy as to whether road grade should be measured as rise/run, as we measure slope in mathematics, or if "run" should be replaced with the distance along the roadway.  That gives "rise/hypotenuse."  Since the hypotenuse is longer than the "run," the rise/hypotenuse method gives a lower grade value.  While that's not how we measure slope in mathematics, there's no particular reason why highway engineers should use slope.
However, this difference is negligible in practice.  For example, on a freeway grade for which rise/run is 7%, the alternative rise/hypotenuse gives 6.98%.  On a steep street grade measured at rise/run = 12%, we get 11.91% in the alternative rise/hypotenuse sense.  The infamous "Fargo Street" in Los Angeles is said to have a 33% grade.  If that's a rise/run measurement, then rise/hypotenuse would be 31.3%.  If the 33% is already rise/hypotenuse, the rise/run measurement would be 34.96%.  So in all but the most extreme examples, either measurement gives results close enough to equal as to make no difference in road design or construction.  Pictures of Fargo street: one, two.  How you ride a bike up Fargo street: easier, harder.