Oh, man. I've been involved in peer-review discussions where the review correspondence is far more voluminous than the article itself. I wonder how the journals will handle the page-count.
They should publish it only in electronic version.
That does not solve the problem that more pages take longer to read. Given the pace of science these days keeping up with papers just in your subfield is an actual problem.
Just because more text is published about a work doesn't mean you have to read it...
Do you actually read whole papers? It's an honest question. I usually scan the introduction, quickly skim through charts/tables and jump directly to conclusions. If I find anything remotely interesting during that process, then and only then I would even consider reading the whole paper.
I probably read about three full papers per week. The rest I skim similar to you.