My own thoughts have been over wondering why it is needed. I have a general suspicion of people reviving stuff that the Church hasn't used or needed for a thousand years just because people "feel like it". It's the same basis I object to the idea of deaconesses. The fact that something once existed for a good reason is not sufficient reason to restore it, and can be dangerous - on deaconesses, they are much more dangerous than helpful in a world where we don't baptize people naked, and with rampant feminism seeking to deny and eliminate the God-established division of the sexes. On WR, the chief danger, insofar as it could be one, would be in using Roman forms in a world where ecumenism without genuine unity in the Holy Spirit is fashionable, and it could be used to ramp up demands for a false unity. I accept that everything done in the WR Liturgy is pious and not against Orthodox forms. I just have to ask why people think they NEED it, and the response of "feeling comfortable with it" doesn't satisfy me. I remain skeptical, and lean towards accepting what has been preserved, rather than seeking anything for my comfort. I don't accept that the preserved EO Liturgies are like climbing Mt Ararat or Everest, that is, so horribly difficult and frightening vis-a-vis WR. We already have pews to make people feel comfortable, which I think have real and negative effects on worship.
Of course, I'm open to hearing other reasons.