Rather than give specific settings, I'll try to describe the three (possibly two) different components of this photomontage. Being specific and accurate at the same time would be waaaay above my pay grade and frankly beyond my expertise.
To take long-exposure astrophotos of objects that are too faint to be seen, you will need a polar-aligned equatorial mounting that allows you to accurately track the stars during the exposure to compensate for the Earth's rotation. Any other kind of mount will rotate the view which is fine for viewing but not for astrophotography.
If you don't already have a telescope and mounting, and you want to seriously pursue astrophotography, you should consider getting a good German-equatorial mounting. Put it on a rock-solid tripod. You can get piggy-back camera mounts for a telescope, too.
A computerized drive for smooth tracking of the sky during the exposure is necessary for sharp results like the one shown.
The time exposure of the "moonlit" landscape is the second exposure melded with the sky. Notice the light tell-tale outline where the sky meets the tops of the rock outcropping. This exposure must be found, on location, by experiment.
Last is the hairpin-turn portion of the photograph. Looking at the light trails and the terrain, an estimate of the length of the exposure is within a guessable range. It is possible (and if you're lucky) that the time exposure of the road was also sufficient to pick up the moonlit landscape at the same time as the head/tail light trails for a two-part composite.
After the components are recorded, the images are stacked and masked with software such as PhotoShop (most likely), Gimp, Pixelmator, etc. to generate the composite image.