Why are you thinking of either of these lenses? That D700 money you're saving burning a hole? Unless you're shooting really challenging available light, you won't get much more from the D700 than the D300. If it's the available light challenge, or low-light action, then you need the high-speed zoom - the extra 6 degrees of width the 16-85 will give over your 18-200 doesn't sound like where you're going with these prospective purchases. Your 18-200 almost covers the range of the 16-85 at almost the same f-stop throughout the range.
Or maybe you need another DX body so you have the 35 available when you need the speed. It sounds like you think you need speed at wider angles than the 35.
I have both the 17-55 and the 16-85.
The 16-85 is fine for outdoors and travel, and I like the bit of extra range on each end, but for performance or indoors, the extra aperture of the 17-55 makes a huge difference. If I want a one-lens kit for traveling - landscapes and city shots, snapshots, I usually take the 16-85. The VR is very handy for night city scenics and twilight/dawn shots.
If I want a one-lens kit for reportage, it's the 17-55. If there's going to be any performance, action, or a significant amount of indoor candids, it's the 17-55.
If you find yourself going for your 35mm a lot, then you'll want the speed of the 17-55.
The 16-85 is an outstanding lens, very sharp, with only moderate distortion throughout the range and relatively quick autofocus compared to the kit lenses. But it doesn't autofocus nearly as fast as the 17-55, and its sharpness at f/2.8 is - well, you have to up the ISO, which on my D200 - forget it.
Clearly wide angle means little to you, or you'd already have a wide, so go for the 24-70. If you wait a year or two it will even have VR. The 17-55 actually has the about same zoom ratio (3.2) on DX as the 24-70 (2.9) on FX, it's a bit longer but a tad less wide.
I predict Nikon will release a plastic full frame as a 2nd camera for D700 users before too long to remain competitive; I'm guessing your full-frame Nikon will be less than $1500 a year from now, if you're willing to accept D90 build rather than D300.
There will also be a better half-frame in their future, with 16 or 18 mp, and just as good low-light performance as the D300s, along with a fast 24, and a fast 18, and if you stick with half-frame, the big gap in your system right now is that 10-24.
Best of luck with your choice, but absent a description of what you're shooting, it sounds to me like you don't really need another lens given the kit you have, except the wide-angle.