I think it is a pretty clear price strategy on the zooms. See chart below. I'm not picking a fight on the 24-105 vs. 24-70 F/4 -- Canon simply thinks that 24-70 F/4 lens is worth more money.
But as you can see, there are 'budget' L zooms on the left, high end ones on the right, and in a few lengths, there is a middle quality/performance option. The price points are pretty clear to me.
As for the not-really-disparaging remarks on the 17-40, I use it as a great example of an 'if you have plenty of light and your subject isn't moving' great lens. Stopping it down for landscape work is fine. But there are times you need F/2.8 or you need sharp results at an aperture wider than F/5.6, and the 16-35 II is the better call. In general, though, both lenses are good but not great. Many on this forum might argue that the 16-35 II should be in the 'better' column and not the 'best' column of ultrawide.
I find that chart doesn't represent the ultra wide angle zoom segments that are currently out there. Can't really compare the standard zoom segments that are available with the ultra zooms as with super telephoto primes as well.
This chart attached below I think better represents the void Canon hasn't fulfilled in the FF ultra wide angle zoom segments:
Given the current offerings, I would fantasize Canon would release an EF 15-35mm f/4 USM IS (flat front element) and EF 12 or 13-14mm f/2.8 USM lens (as Canon offerings tend to be 1mm wider in each of the current segments).