I have recently replaced my 17-55 with a 17-40, after my 17-55 went in for servicing for the sixth time. I was sick to death with dealing with it - broken IS more than once, AF failure more than once, zoom creep (that manifested after one servicing and not fixed until a couple later) and constant dust-issues (until I got a UV filter). Now there's grittiness to the manual focus.
It's at Canon, and I'm pondering whether to pay for the repair (leaning towards yes, but only because it's considerably a less useable lens without AF).
In the meantime, I've purchased a 17-40L. It's pretty nice, definitely a VAST improvement in build and handling.
That said, the 17-55 has better sharpness, but worse contrast and flare control. Colour is possibly a tad worse, but not a deal breaker. What the 17-55 really shines in though, is the constant f/2.8 (and sharp wide open), IS, and a more useful range. It is magnitudes more versatile.
That said, you can see why I both love and hate this lens.
I was in the reverse situation. HAd a 17-55, wanted a 5DmkII, but knew I'd have to give up EF-S lenses (also have the 60mm macro - superb). That and cost. With the announcement of a 7D, it was perfect. I could keep my lenses, and I can get all the benefits of the new camera - I think it's going to be a milestone camera for Canon. Ironically, my main EF-S lens broke after I got it. :/